User talk:Jimmi Hugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Jimmi Hugh, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing!-- Alf melmac 17:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] idea a day

this seemed to me to be notably not notable and in need of deletion 90.16.46.213 19:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors, which it appears you have not followed at Socialism. Thank you. -- Vision Thing -- 19:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jurassic Park IV

True, but you should read this. Wikipedia is not a forum for open discussion, it's an encyclopedia. Please keep all talk to relevant points about improving the article, and not about how you feel about the film and its delay.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And before you go into the "editing people's comments", allowing forum discussions to stay on a talk page will only cause more people to try and expand on those types of things in the future, with the constant argument of "well you let the other person keep their comments up". It's like a personal attack, in the fact that it should be removed to discourage others from thinking that it is ok to act in that way. This wasn't the first time this anonymous user has posted a rant on Wikipedia before.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for my presumption, but please calm down. The reason i made a comment to the editor was to maike sure i was not missing any rules, i have no problem with removing nonesense comments, unfortunately i do not write the rules. Also, i was definetly not going to go into "editing people's comments", i obviously understand the necessity, once again, my apologies for the reversion. --Jimmi Hugh 02:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't attacking you, I was simply getting all the ducks in a row ahead of time. I apologize for any misinterpretation I may have caused with my choice of words.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It is fine... i am only adding this last comment to point out an obvious problem i hope we both share, and that is the overwhelming need we feel to be overly polite during these discussions... sorry for the tone of voice all round, and thankyou for teaching me a little more about this awesome site. --Jimmi Hugh 02:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Trying to interpret someone's tone in their writing isn't always the easiest thing to do. Happy editing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I'm afraid you're mistaken; I've not deleted any comments of yours, at least not intentionally. If, by chance, I have done so by mistake, I apologize. --Mhking 06:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case sorry, i did wonder given you made numerous other changes also... and as mine was the bottom post it was probably caught of in some copy operating... no problems! --Jimmi Hugh 06:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Jimmi Hugh, your comments on the AFD debates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed's rumor demonstrate a lack of good faith in other editors, who are free to express wrong or even silly opinions at risk only to their own reputation, a lack of civility in language, and several direct personal attacks. This is unacceptable behavior, so please cut it out. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for allowing my opinion to get in the way of being nice, i will remember to respect all views in the future.. after all, one day it might be possible that mine is wrong ;-P --Jimmi Hugh 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
That's the best way to see it, then! Just remember, not every comment needs a rebuttal. See you around. --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 15:40Z

[edit] "Instant deleting"

An article can be nominated for a speedy delete when it blatantly and obviously violates the guidelines, and said deletion wouldn't be a controversial one. The three articles you've been involved deletion debates over the past 24 hours do not qualify for speedy delete status. Matter of fact, the two AfD's related to the articles on Michael Sneed started life under speedy delete templates. I shifted them both to WP:AfD status once it became obvious that a speedy delete would not effectively address the issues in play there. I hope that helps answer your question. --Mhking 20:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Voting"

Concerning the Deletion Process... though it is not a counted vote system, it is against policy to post a Keep point more than once. Hence the reason i comment the rest of my points. Thankyou for helping add to wikipedia! --Jimmi Hugh 18:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that you seem to be too involved in this case. You posted too many comments and sometimes, even rude judgements (such as runbbish). Even if others' viewpoint could be meaningless or silly to you, it is not rubbish for the rest of us. This is the free web, I don't think you like others call your comments rubbish. Also, you repeated your points many times and I don't think it serves any purpose other than lengthening the post. I, and others, do understand and respect your points for deletion. However, please also respect our opinions. Thank you for reading. Oldmonster 20:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Then my apologies for continued posting. It was actually the reason i made the comment here, as i felt i had outstayed my welcome and run out of points. Here is to wikipedia making the best choice as always! -- Jimmi Hugh 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I respect that. Still, I hope you could avoid use asulting wording in these discussions. Happy wikiing! Oldmonster 01:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a deal! --Jimmi Hugh 01:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion debate closed on massacre timeline

I asked administrator's for quick intervention and speedy keep the article and they took action and closed the debate as a speedy keep. In future please discuss deletions on the Talk page of an article before nominating them for deletion, just to get an idea of whether people agree with you or not. If everyone is against you, clearly you dont have to AfD and put disruptive templates on pages that dont need them at all. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not waste my User Talk page space with false comments and patronization. Clearly there were many people on the topic who agreed with that all the inforamtion should be merged into the main article... so it was clearly nto a one way argument, had i had already discussed it with enough people to make it necesary. It may have been kept, but i do not require your childish forms of gloating on my talk page... i do this for improvement of the site not personal reasons, thankyou -- Jimmi Hugh 21:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental Bad Edit

Hi. I cleared NPOV because I first cleared the fact that caused tagging. --Russianname 11:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse

Jimmi, it is permitted to remove personal attacks from your talk page, and I recommend that you do just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris G (talk • contribs)

[edit] speedy

Pages cant be nom. for speedy on the basis of containing only links not a speedy criterion, if there is other content than the links, as in "photo sharing sites", so I declined to delete it. If you really think the article should go, take it to AfD.DGG 03:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa Davis

It asserts notability, so it cannot be removed via A7, and A7 is the reason that was given..It doesn't have to be notable, just to assert it. That's a firm rule, see WP:CSD and its talk page. To decide on whether something actually IS notable the processes are prod and afd. There might possibly be deletion under G11, blatant advertising, but that requires that there be no usable way to turn it into an article. In this case, there's a core of interviews that would be enough for a stub. . She does not admit it is promotion--"I do not intend to promote myself or organization" , but she seems to be willing to let it go, so prod is reasonable. I've placed one. But if anyone removes the prod tag, including her, the only remaining course is AfD--where it does seem likely that it might be deleted. I'd probably say delete myself.

There is a good deal of opposition to A7 because of overuse--see the discussion at Deletion Review for examples. The way to keep it functioning is to use it narrowly. You're welcome to disagree, but the trend is to narrow the criteria, not widen them. I would never have blamed you for placing the speedy tag, but that's why it takes two people to actually do the deletion. We all follow rules we dont like. There are many I dont like, but I follow them. DGG 19:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, keep up the good work. There's plenty to delete, and by hanging out at AfD is the way everyone learns. See you there frequently, I hope. DGG 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] replacement page

Merges can get complicated because of the need to keep from losing the edit history. What you need to do is

  1. Figure out something that would be a good redirect to this subject - perhaps Top Five Hundred ? Move the subpage there.
  2. The subpage will now be a redirect. Place a {{db-userreq}} tag on it, and say "remove temp page" in the edit summary

3. Copy and paste the new version on top of the old version, and save. Put "page history for new version in redirect" in the edit summary. 4. Replace the text of the page with the new version at the redirect position by a redirect, and save. Sounds weird, but it works. Ask me if problems. I'll keep an eye on it. DGG 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deathrash

The AFD'ed article Deathrash on which you voted has since been recreated with apparently near identical content. Are you proposing to ask for speedy deletion as a reincarnation, or ask for salting? FT2 (Talk | email) 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Put in a speedy delete tag, with reason something like "deleted in AFD 2 weeks ago, recreated same content, delete + salting requested. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted and salted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 134.148.5.120

The part above i replied to was OR based on his/her experience. My reply was based on measurements.134.148.5.120 13:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Come again ol' chap, i don't quite know what you are getting at here. -- Jimmi Hugh 16:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of Apple Pie (band)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Apple Pie (band), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Apple Pie (band) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Apple Pie (band), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 01:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not so sure, since the article has no reliable sources, I've restored it anyway. It might go to AFD later if no sources are provided. --Coredesat 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do I delete my user talk page(s)?

As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason. Please refer to right to vanish). -- Jreferee T/C 17:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)