Wikipedia

User:D C McJonathan/Archive 1

< User:D C McJonathan
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Archive
Archives
  1. Oct 05–Apr 06
  2. May 06–Aug 06
  3. Sep 06–Aug 08

Welcome!

Hi, D C McJonathan/Archive 1, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, please read about the simplified ruleset. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page.

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

  • If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the articles for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
  • If you believe something you added or created has been unfairly treated, talk to the user or follow the steps in resolving disputes
  • If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
  • If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.

Happy Wiki-ing.

- Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 02:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


Redirects

To created redirects, you simply have to put #redirect [[Target]] into the article, and nothing else. For the full description (including some advanced features like the inclusion of templates), you can find it at m:Help:Redirect. andy

Robert Denning

Thanks for the heads-up about the Robert Denning article, and accept my apologies for suggesting it was plaigarized. --OntarioQuizzer 20:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem Doc 00:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:MEA

Welcome to WP:MEA and thank you for your excellent contributions to the Find-a-grave project. I hope you like it here and keep contributing! If you have any questions feel free to ask! For you hard work so far I wanted to give you this award. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

 
I award this award to D C McJonathan for his contributions to WP:MEA

.

Cross-namespace redirects

Cross-namespace redirects are generally considered evil, and we never use them from the main namespace, so I had to delete the redirect to your userpage. Namespace is simply the technical term for the "User:" part of a page title, and the main namespace is the one without a colon. Leave any responses on my talk page. --Phroziac(talk)  16:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Robert Fiske (polititian)

In the future please don't blank redirects like Robert Fiske (polititian). If there's no longer any use for them, you can submit them to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. I've deleted this one so no harm done, but we try to avoid blank articles cluttering up the encyclopedia. Thanks. Gamaliel 21:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...I was working too late and was trying to get the typo out of the loop. Didn't know the link for deletion. Doc 22:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


Byron Redirect

Fair enough. I've been through a few of the pages linking to Byron and disambiguating them and 95% of them should be links to George Gordon, 6th Baron Byron but if you think consensus should be sought that's fine.

I'm not at all sure where this consensus should be sought though. Should it be the Byron (disambiguation) talk page or is there a specific page for discussions of redirects?

I'm afraid I'm signing off for tonight though. Feel free to do what needs to be done, or I'll have a look at it again tomorrow. --Spondoolicks 22:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have begun a discussion at George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron. I have added my contribution to that. --Spondoolicks 11:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


Numbers

Incidentally, could you give any insight into whether the following sequence of numbers signifies anything: 4 8 15 16 23 42 --Spondoolicks 11:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, where are they from? Doc 18:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere important. It's a thing from Lost (TV series) and is probably meant to be forever mysterious and unexplained - i.e. the writers probably just picked six numbers at random. On the other hand they might have put a lot of thought into getting just the right numbers and I thought you might see something. --Spondoolicks 20:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


Brainwashing and Mind Control

Please take part at the merge vote under Talk:Mind control#Merge vote --Irmgard 16:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

User:UninvitedCompany has placed comments at WP:AN/I and at Wikipedia talk:Find-A-Grave famous people raising the question whether the links to findagrave.com be deleted from articles. You may want to participate in the discussion. -- DS1953 18:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Doc, after confirming that UninvitedCompany read Brian's last post, I removed all the discussion which was not directly central to the Find-A-Grave linking issue from Wikipedia talk:Find-A-Grave famous people in accordance with Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. I left a detailed edit description and the comments will remain in page history forever if they need to be retrieved, but should not clutter the talk page for future readers. -- DS1953 13:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Mercer

Nice job on the Johnny Mercer article. It still needs work, though. Thanks, Dr. Dan 17:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Calvin Klein

Don't worry about it. I was just spontaneously nit-picking. I wasn't even aware of any consensus on the issue. Talk to you later. Bhumiya 23:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I mean "Ralph Lauren". Don't know why I wrote "Calvin Klein"... Bhumiya 04:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

 
In a show of approval for your enthusiastic participation in the Wikipedia project, I award this shiny new barnstar. Show it with pride! – ClockworkSoul 15:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (KC)

I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your enthusiastic participation in the Wikipedia project. I have to warn you, though: if you keep going like you have been the last three months, you'll soon find yourself drafted into adminship! Keep up the good work, Doc, and here, have a barnstar, on me! – ClockworkSoul 15:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

ø vs. o

Sorry for the unneeded work I caused, it happened in the heat of corrections and Dagmar came into my way. Gerhard51 22:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

KaDee Strickland

I have reverted your edits to the KaDee Strickland article, in accordance with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead section and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). If you have an issue with this, please leave a comment at Talk:KaDee Strickland. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 03:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll be happy to respond there. Doc 03:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Jerome Zerbe

I do not think that in the overall picture of Jerome Zerbe's long career, the gay photo section is that important to understanding his life. A sentence or two is fine, but other than that, it becomes rumor and innuendo. I strive to make my entries stand up to scholarly review, so if there isn't a fact-based reference to add to an entry, I keep it out. Thanks for respecting that. -- k72ndst 23:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Web-screenshot tag

I've noticed you've uploaded some images tagged with {{web-screenshot}}. This tag is not meant to be used for images that came from Web pages; it's meant to be used for images of Web pages (such as Image:Wikipedia.PNG, for example). I've retagged the images below as having no license information. Please edit the image description pages to include information about the licenses these images are under. —Bkell 06:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's another for your consideration: Image:HoyningenHorst.jpg —Bkell 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
And Image:JHB.jpg —Bkell 06:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

List of photographers

Hi Doc. Thanks for the note. Someone has now reverted my removal of the red-linked photographers, and I'm not going to revert it back, but I do feel that with lists such as this which attract vanity posting the simplest way of keeping the list under control is to remove the red links. It's not an official policy as far as I know, it was just a case of me being bold and trying to tidy what had become an uncontrolled list of notable photographers, commercial photographic studios and non-notable contributors who consider themselves to be handy with a camera and wanted to add their own name. Taking out all the red links is considered drastic by some (hence the revert), but I feel that the disadvantage of losing a few genuinely notable names is outweighed by the advantage of stripping out a huge amount of rubbish. However, not everyone agrees and I can live with that! If a genuinely notable photographer is added by an editor who sees that this creates a red link, it doesn't take more than a moment to create a brief stub entry for the photographer in question. However, if others would rather leave in the red links, that's fine by me. Regards, CLW 09:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish Americans" (Lauren, etc.)

Last night was a major attempt to overhaul this category completely, since it's become too large for its own good. I created a few new categories - Jewish-American politicians, Jewish American scientists, etc. in attempt to make "Jewish Amerians" become a "category for other categories", and not for people specifically. I thought "Jewish American history" would be a good place for the "Misc" people who could not be otherwise categorized - but some don't belong there, either, it seems. Vulturell 16:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Claudette Colbert

Hi, I notice you made a comment some time ago at Talk:Claudette Colbert about reinstating the information relating to her bisexuality. I've replied there but I wondered if you know of anywhere this has been published so that it can be added as a source. Once sourced (as per Wikipedia:Verifiability) nobody would have any grounds to remove it, although it has been left intact for a while now. I said on the talk page I was in "favour" of removing it - but I've been thinking that is not exactly what I mean. I think without a source, and in line with Wikipedia's policies, there is potentially a stronger argument to delete it than to keep it, and yet personally I'd rather keep it, basically because I believe you. I know I've read about her bisexuality but I can't remember where, or if it was something reliable or some kind of scandal rag. Do you have any thoughts about how this could be documented once and for all? Thanks. Rossrs 14:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I guess eventually there will be a source and the article can be updated at that point, and for now, we just leave it as it is. Rossrs 20:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Adolfo Farsari

Hi Doc, Would you mind reading this article on Adolfo Farsari and suggesting on the featured article candidate page whether you think it's worthy of featured article status or not? No worries if not, but I'd like your sage commentary. Thanks. Pinkville 23:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Little Church Around the Corner

I proposed on this article's talk page that it be moved to Church of the Transfiguration, with a redirect from the current title. What do you say? Makemi 06:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found a couple Wikipedia precedents; Trinity Church, New York (Not Trinity Wallstreet); St. Thomas Episcopal Church, New York (not St. Thomas Fifth Avenue). Although I have to say I'd be amused if there was an article "Smoky Mary's". So perhaps the correct specific title is Church of the Transfiguration, New York. Just a thought. Makemi 16:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Niki de Gunzburg

Dear Mr. McJonathan,

I enjoyed your article on Niki de Gunzburg. Did you know him?

Ron Dupont/a.k.a. Jacobus/The Vernon Stories of Jacobus Van Brug

Yes, I knew him and an entire circle that were friends of his. Doc 03:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe

Sorry, it won't happen again!! I got distracted and just wanted to save it as quickly as possible.

Are you Scottish-American (I'm just wondering as I have never come acress the surname "McJonathan"; it's intriguing).

Rms125a@hotmail.com 04:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I know, I think sometimes I want to put down what I know to be truthful or to edit out someone's POV (admittedly just b/c I don't agree with it, but is is still POV), and I hate the notion of being censored, especially by someone who holds an opposite view, which I would say is definitely a POV, or by someone, yourself and many others excluded, who is ignorant or trying to impose a belief or opinion. I won't ever say I have never done that, but I can understand the problem with that and the consequences.

You, yourself, evidently didn't have any problem with the content of my edits, I assume, since you did not say anything when you first contacted me about my mistake in phrasing the edit update summary and rv back to your name, when I had amended it. I realize that was wrong and I understand your being upset about that, but it won't happen again.

Rms125a@hotmail.com 05:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Broadway disambiguation page

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), disambiguation pages should only have links that directly disambiguate the ambiguous term, so I have reverted your linking of extraneous topics. Thanks --rogerd 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was Larry V who removed that. I didn't remove any material (nor do I think it should be), I just de-linked articles that don't disambiguate Broadway and de-piped other links to show the true article names. This is so there is no confusion, and so popup tools work correctly. I entirely agree with you re-insertion, but I would prefer it read :
*[[Broadway Theatre (Manhattan)]] a theatre located on the street Broadway in Manhattan
or even
*[[The Broadway Theatre]] a theatre located on the street Broadway in Manhattan
Actually, since it is name of an actual theatre, wouldn't the use the the word "The" at in the title be more appropriate? Also, since this is an area that you have knowledge, why don't you write at least a stub article about the theatre? Thanks. --rogerd 01:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Chautauqua

Thanks for your comments. I've backed into the need for a Chautauqua page with a separate disambiguation page. I had already created the Chautauqua assembly page when I ran a search for the various terms. While "Chautauqua assembly" and "Chautauqua circuit" each had under one thousand entries on the Internet, "Chautauqua" has over 330,000. That got me to thinking that there should be a Chautauqua" page along with a "Chautauqua (disambiguation)" page. Does that make sense to you? Sunray 02:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

At User_talk:Joey80 you suggest referring to a discussion, but I have no idea where to find it since I don't see it on the Jane Fonda talk page, and you didn't even provide a title, let alone a link to said discussion. 24.18.215.132 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if it was confusing, but the discussion is on Joey80's talk page, the preceding messages are regarding the placement of succession boxes which he has been moving on multiple pages to below the external links. He has not responded to any of the 'talk' on his 'talk page' which is why I was asking him to enter the discussion. Sorry not to have been more clear. Doc 23:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
They didn't provide links to a discussion or Wikipedia:Manual of Style page that addresses the issue, either--the way you worded it I thot maybe you knew where that placement is documented--most succession boxes in general I've always seen at the bottom of the article. 24.18.215.132 00:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you Joey80? If so please log in so that I can respond on you talk page. The custom follows the nature of the succession box and the sections of the article. Doc 00:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Joey80, and I can read answers here. I've been here more than two years and have never found any placement standard that isn't written somewhere, I was just curious where it's written that this placement[1], for example, makes any sense. Gerald Ford and François Mitterrand are examples of where I'm used to seeing succession boxes. 24.18.215.132 00:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I asked, only because there has not been any reply by Joey80 that I have seen where discussion has been asked for by a number of users. I agree that on political figures I've usually seen it at the end, but for performers the pattern or standard that I've observed for an award has been to follow the section on films or awards. If there is a clear 'guideline', and as you know there are few 'rules', that would be something I'd like to dialogue. I've not found one for this as yet. Concensus for performers seems to be consitant on awards. Doc 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, most everything I've ever seen is documented somewhere, I just don't know where this would be. That said, 'entertainers' seem to vary wildly: I've found them in a variety of locations on 'entertainer' articles: Between "References" and "External links" section--Jane Fonda; bottom of "Filmology"--Jane Wyman; very bottom (under "External links"--Vivien Leigh (a featured article) as well as ABBA and Liza Minnelli. The only place that makes sense to me other than the bottom is in the "Awards" section if one exists--I think I've seen this once, but can't find it now. Given that FA Vivien Leigh has it the bottom leads me to believe that is that more agreed upon standard convention. Also, many of the articles I saw with them other than the bottom have many other violations of the Manual of Style, such as section headers in all initial-caps, so just because people have started doing something a certain way doesn't guarantee that it's been discussed and agreed upon. 24.18.215.132 03:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Took a while, but it looks like many have been placed somewhere other than the bottom by a single user[2] that's only been here a few months[3]. When I looked thru Category:Best Actress Oscar the very solid majority of succession boxes were at the bottom. I did ask for clarification from a broader audience at Template_talk:Succession_box#Box_location_discussion_or_style_guide_or_policy.3F. 24.18.215.132 03:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your effort and follow through. What started me off was yes, under the awards did seem to make sense to me and when two other persons had posted concern about the bottom posting and the user above who had made the changes was not responding to any of the questions on his talk page, I got concerned. Also that user was not using the Edit summary box at all on his changes. I'll enter the discussion you've started. Thanks again. Doc 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Hello Doc, A question about succession boxes. You seem to have done a lot with them. The question isn't about the positioning of them, I have no problem with that. But I've noticed that when you reverted the positioning of the Oscar winners boxes you also took out the film that the winner won for. The preceeding and succeeding entries both say which film they won for. Why not have it shown for that year's winner as well? e.g. Jennifer Jones SteveCrook 00:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll be honest, I have no issue with the film that the current winner won for being included, although it had not been originally. My issue was with placement and the user that made the massive changes not entering into any dialog or discussion that led me to make rvs without looking carefully enough. On a few, I noted that addition and left it in. My main issue is that when anyone is going to make changes to multiple entries, some consensus should be gained before making that many changes and/or use the edit summary boxes. Doc 01:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
But where would one go for a discussion as to what is the correct way to use the succession boxes, particularly for the Oscars? I can't see anywhere to discuss it. SteveCrook 03:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I would just like to ask if succession boxes are the right means to tie up actor's pages (i.e. through awards received)? Because by its nature, an Academy Award winner from this year does not necessarily succeed last year's winner (i.e. you don't address last year's winner as "ex-Academy Award winner" or "former Academy Award winner" like a leader of a country or an institution. Although I prefer having a succession box, the word "succeeded by" might be changed to a more proper term... Well, I encountered this problem while editing Nobel Prize Laureates succession box and someone corrected me that laureates are not succeeded by another, the list just grows, but the title doesn't necessarily pass on from one to the next.Joey80 03:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that it is more appropriate to use a template (like the ones used in the Best Picture Oscar winners) than to use succession boxes in the actor's pages... which means I have to redo all the things I did... =( Joey80 08:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oscars Best Actress Succession Boxes

Oops, I just read your message NOW. Well, the reason why I placed the succession box at the bottom of the page is for consistency. I started editing the pages beginning with the most recent winner (Reese Witherspoon) and the succession box in that article was at the bottom, which is also quite consistent with other articles (see NBA players), because it is usually grouped together with templates (see sports articles). I must admit that I'm not so certain when this is applied to film luminaries, but the main reason I edited these pages was not to move them at the bottom, but to add the film title wherein they earned the citation. So instead of reverting back to the pages before I edited them, it will be better if the succession box (with the film title) is just moved to the filmography section. Still, there has to be some consensus on whether to put the succession box at the bottom or to just placed it at some section.Joey80 06:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:Joey80. Arniep 12:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Category order

Please don't put categories in alphabetical order. It makes much more sense to put the most relevant categories first, as there are more and more trivial categories. This is particularly true for biographical articles as the birth and death categories always come first alphabetically and they are of little to no interest in defining the articles. Thank you. Osomec 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Contribution to the Wilhelmina Models page

Hello,

I'm not sure if it was you who provided the information that Wilhelmina is now a part of Click Model Management. I can find no evidence to support that assertion. I'm actually not sure who owns the agency now. I know there was Deiter Esch, who passed it on to his daughter Natasha. Then there was some rumor that his wife or ex-wife had taken over. Do you know anything more about this? The Wilhelmina site gives no clues. Thanks. Walker 00:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:D_C_McJonathan/Archive_1&oldid=1058688224"