User talk:HonouraryMix

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Simply south (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thank you from Okorojude
I got your messge. Actually, I uploaded this very picture of Goodluck Jonathan which at that time was sourced from the official website of the Federal Government of Nigeria and I merely reduced the size and attemted to restore its pixelates. However someone claiming to be an expert in editing wikipedia came back to refer to the picture as a copyright vio (meaning violation). You know as I do that pictures of the commander in chief on government website used for the president would never be a copyright violation. So instead of entering into any confrontation, I had to source for the other picture (which you now replaced) directly from a video interview. There is another picture on the President's page in which he is wearing a cap which is too ugly and does not even look very much like him. It is my opinion that the picture should be removed entirely. Would they put such an ugly picture on Obama's page?

WITH REGARD to the need to add Goodluck Jonathan's order to the box, I think that is appropriate. I am not so versed at getting most things done on wikipedia yet, but let me know how I can be of help. Okorojude (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2010 (GMT)

Collaboration?
Collaboration agreed. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

First Crusade
Hey there,

Thank you very much for the concern on my behalf here. Although I wasn't offended (I didn't actually see the reply at the time), it's always nice to have someone watching your back, so to speak. And thank you for the barnstar! Truth be told, I actually enjoyed overhauling the article so it wasn't a big deal for me, but I'm glad that the work was appreciated anyway. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
This award is one of four Current Events Barnstars presented to four people by Cargoking   talk  today.

Lon Nol
Thank you for making me aware. I didn't know about flag use according to WP:MOSFLAG. The now defunct Khmer Republic (1970 - 1975) was a very definite historical period of Cambodian history and Lon Nol was its leader. I had noticed that articles about, say, Nazi leaders and organizations have often a box with a Nazi flag in order to help the reader situate the person in the historical period. That was the reason for putting the Khmer Republic flag there. But you are right, it shouldn't be where the picture should have been. - Xufanc (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:First Crusade GA Review
With the review having been open for over two months, perhaps maybe it should be closed? Otumba (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it should, however you need to contact MinisterForBadTimes and request this from him. I can't go around closing GAN reviews made by other people. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh no. I've made a mistake; Minister's name is similar to yours, and when I read the review I went to the last comment out of instinct and saw your name, and the style made me think you were the reviewer.  I am sorry, and I agree that other people shouldn't close a review done by another person, without a very good reason.  Please, do ignore my request, and please slap me with a trout whilst you're at it. Otumba (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm all out of trout, so count yourself lucky this time. ;) MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, thank you. Otumba (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:
I have been trying to leave the discussion. but people keep either messaging me, one even posted me on admin board... i really did not know opposing to something on ITN without proper consensus could lead to this. -- Ashish-g55 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I sympathize a lot. I think there is a debate to be had about ITN's guidelines, and I am all for more people contributing, but a sort of McCarthyism has now developed amongst some editors regarding regular contributors at ITN.  The best advice I can give is to do your best not to let this get to you to the extent where you say something you will regret and which could cause you more trouble.  Please do use this talk page as a place to vent steam if things get near to that point, and I'll be here to listen.  At least the discussion on your talk page seems to have calmed down; today has been hectic for all and I expect tempers will not get so high again there since the issue of Kennedy's death has been resolved.  Plus, the whole admin reporting thing (stupid thing, I must say, to single out an editor in that way) looks to have very little support, so I wouldn't worry about that.  If you need anyone else to talk to, I'm sure Tone or BorgQueen will be more than happy to take any messages. Otumba (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * lol dont worry this happens often on ITN. used to it. my goal is to try and keep ITN neutral wherever possible. me along with everyone who opposed is fully entitled to their opinions. seeing as how item was posted either way after enough consensus just shows that system works. sometimes discussion go on a little longer than usual, sometimes some ppl get mad but thats ITN for u. what i dont like is some people's agenda to overhaul ITN because we opposed... that could only lead to more and more bias being added to ITN. I know of a few people who just want to put wikinews instead of ITN and they will see this as prime opportunity. wikinews being news source means a lot of bias. even though i dont want that to happen frankly today was fairly disappointing seeing many admins who work in other sections that i know were flaming on the ITN regulars. so as of now my stance towards helping more ITN is fairly shaky. i will wait to see how others see this "overhaul" but none the less a disappointing day. -- Ashish-g55 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If worse comes to worse, there are other areas you and I could work at. I hear the list of merge-proposed articles is quite long nowadays. ;) Otumba (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * sigh. whole reason i work on ITN is cause at work i am on news sites all day so i know wide variety. its just a lot easier for me lol -- Ashish-g55 23:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

re Stilltim
First of all, I'm not even sure I should have said that; I've been having a real bad day and decided to take it out on Tim. That said, I'll take a look through his contribs and see if I can sense a change in grammatical skill. --Golbez (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, a strange hijacking, if true; it's not like Tim's editing habits have changed. But yes, there is a vivid (and recent) decrease in grammatical quality. It's almost as if the account has been outsourced to India. --Golbez (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Klaus
I've argued for years about the unusefulness and how unneeded the orderings are. At the moment, I don't have the energy to drain into this debate again, but I'm sure you can find it somewhere on my talk. I honestly don't mean to sound rude, but that's how it is right now. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've generally seen them in American, Australian, Canadian and recently New Zealander articles. The majority of other countries haven't used the on such a widespread scale and the British articles hold it as against policy. Under the Australian and Canadian articles, I was told quite a bit about regional differences among articles, which I disagree with based on the our no owning policy. (I haven't even bothered to remove them from American articles because I know I'd be doomed to fail.) Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

List of South Park Dead Celebrities
Can we be sure of everone seen in the crowd can the be people not on the list. If you try to add or sugest somene who is not on the original list was there or may have been there it gets undone. How can we go about proving that someone was there and it doest not get rejected by someone who has there own ideas. DLA75 (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC) DLA75 (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Foot image
What efforts have been made to locate a free image? At the very least, we should wait a few weeks, as it's entirely possible something will crop up following the discussion of his death. This issue has already been discussed at length- if you feel the image should be there, I am happy to discuss the issue with you, but I must ask you to please not add the image back in the mean time. J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have to confess I wasn't aware of the discussion.  I just did a search for an image of Michael, and that came up.  It seemed acceptable at the time, but again I wasn't aware of the discussion.  Considering this new information, you don't have to worry about me trying to put it up again. :)  Thanks for the message. HonouraryMix (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete
Apologies - i wasn't aware. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Assault (1983 video game) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Assault (1983 video game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Assault (1983 video game) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Namcokid47 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)