Talk:Robert Hastings Hunkins

Findagrave

Findagrave is not a reliable source. This has been discussed many, many times on the RS noticeboard. For just two examples, see:

• [1]
• [2]
  

71.139.148.125 (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Chart

From the edit history

• Revision as of 22:54, 28 March 2015, edit by user:Winkelvi "Reverted good faith edits by PBS (talk): Unnecessary, if content germane, put it into prose instead." (diff)

1) Have you ever known me to make a bad faith edit? If not why add to the edit history ""Reverted good faith edits by PBS"?

2) Why do you think that the information that you deleted is "unnecessary" and under what policy do you justify deleting it? -- PBS (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

1) I find it incredible you are an administrator, PBS, and have no concept of how Twinkle works and what its canned comments look like.

2) There is no call for, nor is there a necessity to have, a "family tree" in this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not Ancestry.com. Putting what little family tree content was there into prose is more appropriate. If you don't already know that, why don't you? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The chart was added by another editor, many people find that such trees are useful and the editing policy state WP:PRESERVE. Not everyone assimilate information easily in the same way, and a small tree like this allows people who are comfortable with such presentation to see at a glance what is already in the text. Many of the articles on Wikipedia use ancestor trees including featured articles such as Charles II of England see (here) so the consensus is against you over the suitability of such trees in Wikiepdia. -- PBS (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You're comparing this article to the Charles II of England article? Why? A tree in that article might be more appropriate. In this article, it's ridiculous waste of space and redundancy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I am using the Charles I as an example, to show you that it is not unusual for featured articles on historical biographies often contain ancestry trees. As to the "ridiculous waste of space". This article is less than 10K and the tree only takes up 643bytes. Space is not an issue as Wipedia is not paper based. -- PBS (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment-burnt out

When this article was nominated for deletion the first time, I was able to find information that Robert Hastings Hunkins served in the Vermont General Assembly which was unicameral at the time and therefore was notable having served in a state legislature. When this article was up for deletion the second time, I started to feel burnt out feeling that my research of this article was wasted. You may want to see my comments when the article was proposed for deletion the first time. Thank you-RFD (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I presume that you are referring to this

Journals of the General Assembly of the State of Vermont Vermont General Assembly, The House of Representatives, The Legislature, 1810, Legislative Journals, pg. 3, 5; on the second Thursday, October 12, 1809, the General Assembly at Montpelier convened. On page 5-Robert Hunkins of Navy, Vermont was one of the representatives from Orleans County. In 1809, the Vermont General Assembly was unicameral. It would not been until 1836 that the Vermont State Senate was created and the Vermont General Assembly became bicameral. On pg. 5 of the legislative journal Robert Hunkins was listed as one of the representatives from Orleans County. Thank you-RFD (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sereno Wright was the printer-that is on the title page-thank you-RFD (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Typed in at Google:Journals of the General Assembly of Vermont October 12, 1809 and the information about Hunkins serving in the legislature should come at page 3 and 5-Thank you-RFD (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

from the first AfD -- PBS (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes-that was it-thank you for posting this-RFD (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I found it with the search that you suggested and then ran the link through http://reftag.appspot.com it produces

• Vermont. General Assembly. House of Representatives (1810). Journals of the General Assembly of the State of Vermont. The Legislature. p. 5.

That source is already in the article so I have added a link to the page. Perhaps you could have a look at the sentence it supports and expand it if you think that is a appropriate as what you have written shows that you know far more about the General Assembly of the State of Vermont that I do. -- PBS (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I added a paragraph about the Vermont General Assembly being unicameral in 1811. I hope this helps-thank you-RFD (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

@user:Winkelvi you made an edit @ 02:29, 29 March 2015 in which you edit history comment was "remove WP:UNDUE, article is not about emerson or her grandmother", I pointed out to you here on 22 March 2015 that you seem to be misunderstanding what WP:UNDUE means.

Clearly this edit at 29 March 2015, by WordSeventeen with the comment "replaced removed information, not WP:UNDUE", show that (s)he to does not think that you are applying UNDUE as it is usually understood. -- PBS (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not swayed or impressed by the opinions of someone who has little actual editing experience and understanding. WordSeventeen has made a lot of referencing edits, but his little experience in actual content editing. He doesn't understand edit warring behavior (thinks edits to an article that are not reverts don't count toward 3RR), has edited/reverted without any concept of naming policies/MOS, has been here less than a year, and has been hounding my edits. Regardless of your assessment, I have a correct understanding of WP:UNDUE. The presence of a family tree for someone other than the article subject is a perfect example of WP:UNDUE. And, to be completely honest, I'm not too impressed by your lack of understanding of basic policy and a simple Wikipedia tool such as Twinkle, not to mention your ability to be offended over something as benign as a good-faith code-generated comment that says you did something in good faith. You've twice been "offended" and demanded apologies over nothing, yet you continue to show strong ownership tendencies at articles you watchlist, refusing to have them become anything other than the status quo you seem to feel most comfortable with. Then, when someone challenges that status quo with reasonable edits and arguments for keeping those edits, you stonewall and hedge whilst threatening AN/I. All of these things are classic Wikipedia ownership mentality and hardly befitting an administrator of 12 years. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw the exchange at user talk:WordSeventeen. WordSeventeen made a valid point "Please learn what 4 reversions in less than 24 hours" to which you replied "I see seven reversions at that same article for you". Like WP:UNDUE,

You need to read WP:3RR and take note of the difference between an edit and a revert.

Each of these are one edit no matter how many individual edits go into making one the most recent first:

• (6) RFD 14:45, 29 March 2015‎ - 14:33, 29 March 2015‎
• (6) PBS 14:00, 29 March 2015‎ - 08:43, 29 March 2015‎
• (2) WordSeventeen 03:13, 29 March 2015‎ - 03:09, 29 March 2015 --alteration to some cations
• (1) Winkelvi 02:44, 29 March 2015‎ -- revert
• (1) WordSeventeen 02:40, 29 March 2015‎ -- revert
• (1) Winkelvi 02:33, 29 March 2015 --added words
• (1) WordSeventeen 02:32, 29 March 2015 -- alteration to a citation
• (2) Winkelvi 02:31, 29 March 2015‎ - 02:29, 29 March 2015 --revert by removing "The mother was"
• (1) WordSeventeen 2:28, 29 March 2015‎ --added "The mother was"
• (5) Winkelvi 02:28, 29 March 2015-02:20, 29 March 2015 -- revert by removing the word "the" added in the last edit
• (1) WordSeventeen 02:20, 29 March 2015‎ -- added a word "the"
• (2) Winkelvi 02:15, 29 March 2015‎-01:57, 29 March 2015‎ --revert
• (2) WordSeventeen 01:52, 29 March 2015‎- 01:50, 29 March 2015‎ -- revert
• (6) Winkelvi 01:48, 29 March 2015-01:44, 29 March 2015‎ -- revert
• (1) WordSeventeen 01:43, 29 March 2015‎ --partial revert
• (5) Winkelvi 29 March 2015-22:54, 28 March 2015‎ -- revert
• (1) PBS 22:13, 28 March 2015‎ -- possibly a revert a deletion on (6 March 2015‎) -- depends on definition of a revert

So since I made an edit yesterday Winkelvi have made six reverts WordSeventeen three and I have made one large edit that probably contains a revert, and RFD has made one edit. -- PBS (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

How is it possible an administrator doesn't know that reverts of disputed content are not what makes for edit warring when it comes to 3RR? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)