User talk:Hushpuckena

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Mississippi might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a member of WikiProject Mississippi, which seeks to expand information about the state. Please feel free to join us.

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's FSR/Krakatoa. Haven't seen you in eons on Chessgames.com. I (and others) hope you're OK. It would be great to see you come back. If you see this, I'd appreciate it you e-mailed me at fsrhine@gmail.com. Hope to hear from you soon. Take care. Krakatoa (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.87 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Wiki Award You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.204 (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.10 (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two chess articles you listed for deletion are not really listed for deletion. The tag you added only suggests that they might be deleted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't list articles at todays log when you haven't AFD'd the article or created the deletion discussion. I suggest you reread WP:AFDHOWTO & you could consider installing twinkle by going preferences then gadgets & turning it on. This enables you to AfD articles easier as it will do all the steps in one. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His cause of death was a heart attack. Here's a news article written at the time of his death.[1] Deadball Era copied off of Baseball Almanac. And Baseball Almanac admits they goofed when assembling the list 12 years ago.(I emailed them) BA also had Don Wilson down as a suicide but it was an accidental death. After learning of their errors, BA corrected their baseball suicides page....William 14:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hush, nice to meet you. I think you're a talent w/ copyediting! Regarding Spassky, the article uses both .5 and ½ to designate half-point. I don't care which is used (though Bubba prefers ½, and I like it too, but I'm not sure MoS supports ½, I think MoS supports 1⁄2, which I don't like, and I don't know if Bubba likes, but I've never seen 1⁄2 used in any chess article), I was just trying to make it one way or the other (ala my edit summary) for consistency. What do you think? Again nice to meet, I really respect your copyedit talent. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I write this, I count 32 ½s in the article, and 31 .5s. (50-50 at this point.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like 1⁄2 - on my screen it is much too large. It is much larger than the text, whereas the character ½ fits, size wise. The issue of x.5 versus ½ came up on the Chess Project talk page several years ago, and the consensus was that ½ is preferred because scores in chess are either full points or half points. In Olympic judging, you can have 3.7 or 4.5, so obviously the decimal version must be used in cases like that. And chess players usually say "I got three and a half points", not "I got three point five points", although I know an exception. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I found that discussion: [2]. (ProjChess members expressing preference for ½: Fletch79, Krakatoa, Bubba73. There were no advocates for .5.) Does that satisfactorily create a ProjChess consensus on format convention then? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to have a "civil" discussion with you on the nature of POV on the talk page of an article, but when a person who appears to have little knowledge of baseball makes a change using the rather loaded accusation of "peacock language" without discussing it first, then I am going to call that out. I honestly do not know how much you know about baseball, but for the purpose of the following I will assume it is not too much, though please do correct me on that point if I am mistaken. Batting average is an objective measure of a player's ability to get a hit. It is the primary indicator of a player's hitting prowess, though does not do a very good job of evaluating a player's larger offensive capability since it says nothing about his ability to help the team score runs like certain other statistics do. In 1932, Alexander won the AL batting title. This means he was the best hitter in the league that year, period. Its a statistical measure of his ability, not an opinion. In 1929, he finished 10th, again ranking him with the elite hitters. No claim is made as to whether he was the best or tenth best or twenty best hitter in that period, the article merely states the objective fact that he performed well in that period. As a part of the lead of the article, it provides context for his notability and accomplishments. Now, you are welcome to provide counterpoint to that, obviously, but if you do it would be helpful to explain why you believe the statistics do not support the contention. Indrian (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is ironic that you should notice that it was not German, but English. English is not my first language, German is my 3rd language, the irony is that on this planet there are 200+ countries and it is extreme arrogance bordering on the obtuse to assume that all of these people know that a town in Kentucky is in the USA because you deem it superfluous. I am a rather patient person, but I will not be insulted. I will tolerate your "edits" but not your ignoranceCoal town guy (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am all up inside of needing to edit, but you dont know the subject matter at all. First, As stated earlier , I think its rude to edit an article based on your interpretation of a country being "superfluous". Second, the coal townsd and unincorporated communities in KY and WV were served by their own post office, not "a" post office. One could think "oh really, which one would that be?" The reason, one would ask that is because, it was not uncommon in coal towns to have a single post office serve multiple towns, or have a single town with multiple post offices. Again, I hope you play chess better than you edit. In the spirit of cooperation, you could actually help and point out the standard, which you dont do. Thats cool by meCoal town guy (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In another section, you make a snide reference to my chess-playing capabilities vis-a-vis my editing, yet complain that you won't be insulted.

That goes both ways. Of course, you've got three admins behind you on this page, so anything you say automatically carries greater weight. Your statement that '(I) dont (sic) know the subject matter at all' is incorrect, as I work for the Postal Service and have learnt a thing or three across the last nine years. If you're going to hurl slings and arrows my way, some accuracy would be useful indeed.

I reply in the manner I am addressed.Coal town guy (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is there any particular reason you removed the biographical date ranges from Lise Tréhot?[3] Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried reverting all the vandalism on the Hahira, Georgia page. The last stable revision was yours. If the page still has unnecessary political banter, can you fix it? I'm new to Wikipedia editing and I did my best.

Thanks!

- WildfireMax  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WildfireMax (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

No problem; I will see what I can do. Hushpuckena (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As a past or current member of WikiProject Mississippi, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about Mississippi, you are cordially invited to edit, assess, and improve our coverage of all things Mississippi on Wikipedia!

JonathanTheLibrarian (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Max Euwe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rotterdam University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Missouri Barnstar of Merit
		This Barnstar is awarded to Hushpuckena for outstanding copy-editing across dozens (hundreds?!) of Missouri small towns. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Hilton, Maryland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Target

Marriottsville, Maryland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Carroll County

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shelley v. Kraemer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stanley Reed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Federalsburg, Maryland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boston Braves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bill Stanfill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Football Hall of Fame (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hushpuckena, thanks for your contributions. I've noticed that you're linking adjacent elements of place names, as here. WP:MOSLINK says this should be avoided, for good reasons. It's usual to link only the most specific element (in that case "Otsego County"). No one is going to click on New York state, I can assure you; nor would they know that it's a separate link. Thanks. Tony (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Central Valley, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstate 87.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tightening up of my text that you did on May 4, 2021. My strong suites are research, reduction of information to be more concise, and accurate foot noting. Due to poor instruction as provided to me as a student in the Rochester City School District in the 1960s and 1970s fine and proper grammer in my copy writing is not always there. In all sincerity - thanks again and keep up the good work! Chris2315 (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hushpuckena, I saw this edit on my watchlist and noticed you've added "United States" to the end of various "city, state" identifiers. Just as a heads up, that's not generally allowed per WP:USPLACE and MOS:PLACE (Articles on US cities should never be titled ... "City, State, Country" (e.g., "Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.") because that is contrary to general American usage and A place should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of its article). Thanks! Alyo (chat·edits) 14:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long ago, I was chided for deleting references to 'United States'; not sure what to make of all this. Hushpuckena (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, what was the context/timeframe? As far as I know, anything that is obviously identified as being in a US state won't need the ", US" extension, but I'm sure there's some niche situation where I'm wrong. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been ca 2011-2012. Hushpuckena (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see. Well, I think consensus has swung back around since then--part of what made your edit stick out was just that it's been so long since I've seen someone add "US" to a place name. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease disrupting town and city pages with the addition of "United States" in the introduction of locations. This issue is addressed in WP:USPLACE, which states that locations "should never be titled 'City, State, Country' (e.g., "Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.") because that is contrary to general American usage." The country is clearly listed in the Infobox and referenced in other ways and its addition in the intro merely clutters a page's introduction for a reader. Keystone18 (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I do not appreciate being addressed in this fashion, whatever grievances you may have.

A quick perusal of the section above this will show that someone else has paid a visit; it will also note that, some years ago, I was harangued by another user for deleting US, as I did until 2011-2012.

That having been said, please end your pursuit of me on various pages. Hushpuckena (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect - USPLACE is a titling guideline, not one on article content. United States is appropriately included in introductions per MOS:LEAD to provide context for our international audience. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to be happy 67.232.228.145 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sammy Hale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RBI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hushpuckena, thanks for all the standardization work you're doing on the New Hampshire populated place pages. I've noticed that you have started putting in a navbox for the Greater Boston region at the bottom of some of the articles, and I have a couple of questions about it. As you know, the box is quite large: first, the box itself, and then five lines of text about how to get it to autocollapse. Because the box takes up so much space, I would love to have it collapsed, as suggested, but doing so has been more difficult than expected. First question: Could you put the proper parameters in the box so that there is just a single line for the whole thing, as is done with the other navboxes? I was able to find the setting for collapsing the box itself, but the five lines of explanation are still visible.

Second question: Is it even necessary to include the box if the article itself is not linked in the navbox? Only communities with populations greater than 10,000 are listed in the navbox. I would like to not show the box in articles such as Barnstead, New Hampshire, and any other town or city with a population under 10,000. What are your thoughts? Ken Gallager (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to collapse the navbox.

The reason I have added that navbox is because the places are designated as being within the metro area; per the Merrimack County page, the entire county is included as part of the Boston MSA, so I have added all the communities, while not doing so with the CDPs; it seemed superfluous to list them twice.

Hushpuckena (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One further observation: I have been to New Hampshire many times, in fact as recently as last week, and it seems odd that the more rural areas, especially the northern and western sections of Merrimack County, are included as 'urban'. They are far from that. Hushpuckena (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the problem is that the combined metro region is drawn by county lines rather than individual towns. (It looks like the NECTA delineations, which followed the town lines, are on the way out.) And you're right northern and western Merrimack County are very remote. My feeling is that for a navbox to be relevant, it should be used in articles only where the article itself is linked in the navbox. You would therefore be connecting articles of like significance only. I don't know if that's a policy or not; guess I'll have to look it up. Ken Gallager (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found a policy, but I did find this one sentence in the WP:NAV essay: "every article listed on a particular navigation template generally has the template placed on its page." That suggests to me the converse should also apply, which is that articles not listed in the template do not need to have the template on their pages; i.e. a one-to-one match. Would you agree that we don't have to add the templates to the smaller towns, therefore? --Ken Gallager (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to make sense to me, but there is someone else who feels differently about things, and summarily reverted my recent addition to Loudon with a partial explanation. Hushpuckena (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I see. It would have been nice if they'd engaged. But actually, I do see their point. If you just put in {{Greater Boston}}, the template comes up nicely collapsed. (I should have thought of that!) With that fix, it's less urgent to me as to what articles you put the navbox in, though again, I don't think it's necessary to put them in towns under 10,000 people. Anyway, thanks for your input. Ken Gallager (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I just noticed that move with an underscore between the words.

Thanks!

Hushpuckena (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The category of the navbox in question here has just come up on this week's database report. I have replaced the template's raw code and transcluded it with {{Greater Boston}} which both collapsed it, and got rid of the miscategorization.

Does the navbox really belong on these articles at all though? They're not included in the navbox itself, nor mentioned at Greater Boston#Boundary definitions. DB1729^talk 15:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my repetitive question. Was in a hurry because I had to leave and didn't read most of the discussion. I basically agree with Ken. The navbox should only be placed in those articles that appear in the navbox. Just my opinion, and the paragraph immediately following the quote Ken gave from WP:LINKBACK states The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.. Which sounds like it's up for debate.

As for the mechanics of placing navboxes in articles, they are intended to be transcluded, i.e. the name wrapped in double curly brackets. This has many benefits. It allows for quick and easy updating; allows control of the collapse function; and it reduces walls of code. Also, there is almost always code present at the navbox that is specific to the template itself, and is not meant to appear on the target articles. This is controlled at the template with tags like <noinclude>...</noinclude> (see Help:Template#Inclusion control: noinclude, includeonly, and onlyinclude). The typical problem caused when an editor copy/pastes the entire code of a navbox into an article, is the navbox's category declarations get mistakenly copy/pasted along with it. This causes miscategorization at the article and then the category gets wrung up in the database report mentioned above in my first post. DB1729^talk 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing those brackets makes life far simpler for future usage; no more open navbox. Thank you both. Hushpuckena (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]