User talk:Hughcharlesparker/2006

Howdy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contribution. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page (below).
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Looks like you've already got a good head start, but I wanted to welcome you all the same. Happy editing and good luck! All the best, --Dvyost 15:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I received your email regarding the blocked IP. Registered users are supposed to be able to edit pages regardless of IP. In fact, I didn't block the IP address 80.249.48.45; I blocked the anonymous User:80.249.48.45 (which is the name the Wikipedia assigns for that IP). Users of shared IPs are in fact encouraged to get a username in order to avoid being trapped in a block intended for others. If you use a username, basically nobody can see your IP without a very good reason. Please try again, because I don't see how this could be happening. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Hugh thanks for the email - have voted - but the block remains! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 15:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Polar Bear Band
Why would u add a dead link to a disambiguation article ? SirIsaacBrock 23:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have rescued Polar Bear (band) from speedy deletion but you better establish its notabilty pdq. Like how long on have they been going and what disks have they released? -- RHaworth 00:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Fanya Baron
If she wasn't executed for an offences, what was the official reason of her executions? Anarchism? Banditry? Vess

The Game
Hi, I don't know how much attention you have been paying to The Game deletion review you commented on, but the article has a source, the issue is whether the source is satisfactory. In light of that, you may want to alter your comment there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 April 2006 UTC.

Daniel Brandt's article
In real life I am a public and published critic of Brandt, and he has recently (on the talk page) complained about me trying to make sure accurate criticisms of him appear on Wikipedia's entry. So I think it best that I move slowly and cautiously. I think it would be very useful if you tried to make the entry conform to Wiki guidelines about sourcing and NPOV. Brandt's notorious arrogance, bullying, self-aggrandizing, and whining about criticism makes his entry difficult to work on without causing havoc to Wikipedia. But I do object to the way this tends to force legitimate criticism off his entry.--Cberlet 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I did put a proposed addition on the talk page, after thinking your suggestion over.--Cberlet 15:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping the notice about Brandt's http redirects from Wikipedia.--Ktdreyer 14:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * :) You're welcome.

Elisa Villar
I noticed that you tagged the page Image:ElisaVillar1.PNG for speedy deletion with the reason "not used on any encyclopedic page". However, "not used on any encyclopedic page" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use WP:IFD if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks!

Additionally, I've reverted your blanking and redirecting of User:Elisa Villar. It does not appear to violate the user page policy, although if you think it does, please let me (or WP:AN) know which specific parts it violates. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I was surprised by your post on my talk page.  The page is entirely a personal homepage, and WP:NOT and WP:USER both state firmly that user pages are not to be used as personal homepages.  I do understand that userpages need to be given much more lattitude than articles in the main namespace, but it's not as if it was an ambiguous case, especially in the light of the fact that the user has never made an edit to wikipedia other than her user page.  It seems to me that wikipedia needs defending against being taken over as a free webhost, so I really do suggest that you revert your reversion.  I defer to your final judgement, though, as an admin.  You're right about the image though - I should have read the deletion policy more carefully.  I added  as you suggested.  --Hughcharlesparker 18:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a judgment call; the page isn't really doing any harm and isn't several screens long or anything. Thanks for understanding and discussing. Stifle (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete the image--images on user pages are commonplace. I have no opinion on this issue either way, but the policy isn't clear presently, so if you'd like to have it out you should do so at the policy level; probably best to start at Wikipedia talk:User page.  Thanks.  Chick Bowen 03:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant to say also that I understand and sympathize with your annoyance at people who create user pages and do not otherwise edit, but I don't see what I can do about it under current policies. I don't know whether there'd be widespread support for adding a clause about such people to WP:USER; as I say, you're welcome to bring it up on the talk page there.  Chick Bowen 03:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The policy is clear. The "What wikipedia is not" page has a section on free hosting, blogging, webspace provision and social networking which says that user pages should be "used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia", and that images not used in encyclopedic content will be deleted.  The first line of WP:USER says "your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian.".  It does talk about latitude, but what it says is that "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants"  (emphasis added).  I note as well that WP:NOT is policy, and WP:USER is a guideline.  It seems from this discussion that it needs to be made a bit more explicit, so I'll take your advice, and suggest something on Wikipedia talk:User page  --Hughcharlesparker 09:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just spent some time trying to compose a suggestion for how to make WP:USER clearer, and I can't do it without making the guideline unduly daunting to users, particularly new ones. --Hughcharlesparker 10:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, let's do a test run and see if we can establish a precedent. I've listed the page for deletion here; you can comment and state your case.  Chick Bowen 16:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't realised that was an appropriate way forward. It makes a lot of sense, though.  Thanks.  --Hughcharlesparker 16:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Digbeth Coach Station
I removed the external link you added to Digbeth Coach Station - it doesn't work. I'd be interested to see what the station will look like, though - where did you find the link? --Hughcharlesparker 16:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hugh. As you could probably tell from the url, this links to a local chat group that I'm a member of, so I can get to it easily enough. It was posted by someone who works for NatEx, supposedly from their press release, though I haven't been able to find the image elsewhere. Obviously I can't just paste it into Wikipedia, so I think we'll just have to wait for something more official to appear. It's been a very long wait already! If you really want to see it (bear in mind it is still subject to planning permission) join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/moseley_free/ then go to the Files (not photos) section of the chat group and find DigbethConcept_big.jpg --Shantavira 17:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shantavira"


 * Further to the above, if you go to http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/planningapplications and search for application no. C/01623/06/OUT and click on "related documents", the plans are there, though unfortunately without the full-colour front elevation of my original link. Also some of the plans are too big to display because of the way they have scanned them. Still, better than nothing, for now.--Shantavira 14:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Content on PopiethePopesters User Page
Sorry about deleting the content on his page. I know him in real life and was just doing it as a joke. We were in the same room you see? So please don't report me for vandalism or somthing he knows I was just messing around. --Caleb09 14:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * :) Don't worry, I won't call in the thought police. I'd steer clear of that sort of thing, though - I didn't know that, and neither will others.  A lot of people consider it bad form to remove comments that people have left for you, by the way - when your talk page gets too big, you can archive it, and no-one will think less of you for having a few warnings early on in your editing career.  The lack of them on my talk page only reflects my cowardice early on.  --Hughcharlesparker 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay I didn't know you weren't supposed to delete stuff so how do you archive it? --Caleb09 22:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Help:Talk_page explains it well. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 22:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tone's RfA thanks
Dear &mdash; Thank you for your support on my recent RfA. It succeeded with a final tally of 46/2/3 so now I am an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the new tools, but please let me know if there's any anything I can help you with in the future. And please correct me, if you spot I make a mistake. Thank you again. --Ton e  00:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

Icons for RfA votes
Hi. I noticed that you've started using icons with your votes on RfA. Briefly, I'd like to ask that you not do that. It's been discussed before, and the consensus is that icons at RfA aren't helpful and can cause harm and inconvenience; there's a quick summary at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship. It's one of those things that may seem like a neat idea at first, but sort of unravels in practice. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I had this conversation with User:MarkGallagher aka fuddlemark at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard. It seems to me that they're already next to the word support, or delete, in bold anyway. They add nothing but a bit of colour, and take nothing away. I don't see the problem, but if people are happier without, then meh, OK.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 17:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Pile-on! I came here to offer the same suggestion... we must have run out of articles to write, or vandals to whack or something. ^_^ One thing that I don't think has been mentioned is that we're a bit funny here about voting. Even for things like RfA which is for almost all practical purposes a straight vote, we shy away from saying that it is.  And if the icons start to spread, the fear is that they'll end up on XfDs.  There they are an actual harm, as that's really not a vote at all.  Enough from me already...  brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 11:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * :) You all forgot to provide me a link to WP:CON and WP:VIE. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 11:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I like you. - brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 12:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

HighInBC's rfa
There has been a further development related to your vote and comment. You may wish to reconsider in the light of new information. Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 22:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I hadn't realised that a diff page doesn't tell you that it's giving you the diff over several edits.  I'll be more careful next time I follow a link to one.  I've changed my vote.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 12:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This was my mistake, I should have made a series of diffs to illustrate this event. I contructed the diff over several revisions as vandalism/rv had struck the page in mid talk. This was in retrospect an error compounded by the lack a signature by the other person. HighInBC 19:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Editor Review
Hi! My name is Evan Robidoux. I noticed that you were on the editor review page, so I decided to review you. Check out my comments by clicking the link I gave you. Excellent work so far! :) -- Evan Robidoux 00:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: I also asked you a question on the editor review page. If you want to, you can answer it.

good judgement and faultless civility
In reference to. Wow, that is high praise. Did you know that a Google search yeilds no results for such a compliment? Once google crawls the page I will have the distinction for being the only hit for "good judgement and faultless civility". *sniff* I am touched. HighInBC 19:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
I moved Richardcavell's reply of 22:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC) to his talk page to keep the conversation together. I also nominated him for admin. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 14:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit
Yes, I did talk to him about it less than 24 hours ago. However, he pretty much ignored me, even after I told him they'd have to go off one way or the other (if you look below the post you cited, you can see he replied to it but not mine). If there has been a misunderstanding, I apologise to him, but as far as I can see I gave him ample time. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD!  01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did see that he'd replied to other messages after you posted yours, but I still think it would be wise to assume that he's acting in good faith. Maybe he's thinking about how best to reply, or he's working on an explanation to put at the top of the pages, or maybe he's working on rationalising all his subpages down to just one or two.  Maybe he's not, but let's give him a few days.  To paraphrase somebody or other, we have to be fair, and we have to be seen to be fair.  I think you're on fairly solid ground with the first of those, to be honest, but I think a few more days would leave you on more solid ground with the second.  After all, the user is an active contributor who isn't misbehaving.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 11:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, not misbehaving, but even after I scheduled them he didn't really give any indication he'd like to keep them; no note or reply that "I'll think about it and get back to you later." You're right that I should have perhaps waited longer, but to be frank, I don't really appreciate being shunted aside to be attended to at his later convenience. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD!  15:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ken Hart
Hi Hugh, Would you mind terribly reviewing the latest version of this article? I tried my best to wikify and fix it up, yet I have 0 reviews of it so far in the AfD. Thanks, Crum375 15:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Crum. It won't get reviewed in the AfD - that's not what an AFD is for.  It got kept, though, which, looking at the new version, was certainly the right decision.  It seems to me that the article now is in a much more WPish format.  It could do with the references being made more explicit - so could most of WP's articles.  Some of the stuff about his wife is still more the stuff of an obituary than an encyclopedia article, and it looks to me as if most of the Dogface Soldier section would be better off split into its own article.  I hope that's useful.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 11:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response (I guess better late than never). Yes, it did get kept, hopefully my changes to the original obit style into encyc style helped. If you wish to start a page for Dogface, feel free to do so. I am just an AfD voter that decided to do something about the article which you nominated for deletion (which was pure obit at the time) and rolled up my sleeves and fixed it (and wanted your opinion on the revised version as the original nominator on it, but it's ancient history now). Thanks, Crum375 11:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like)
Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. &mdash; WCityMike (talk &bull; contribs) 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Henry
Thanks for flagging this page; I've fixed it. --Runcorn 15:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again!

Cool3 talk 20:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

A haiku of thanks

 * Thanks for your support
 * In my RfA, which passed!
 * Wise I'll try to be.

I really appreciate your support and the positive comments about my answers. The mop has been passed - thanks again!

-- Nataly a 04:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My Thanks
I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. &mdash; WCityMike (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE (why?) &dArr;  04:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold talkcontribs 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey there
Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! --Osbus 21:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion debate confusion
Hi there. You voted delete in the debate here. I'm a little bit confused as to why the nomination was made in the first place, as you will see if you read my vote/comment. I'd appreciate your views as to what is going on. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel made the nomination because the page was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user. Pages created by banner users (or their sockpuppets) are subject to speedy deletion under general criterion number 5.  The other thing I said was that this sort of stylistic change should be suggested on the talk page of the Manual of Style (links).  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 10:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hugh,

Thanks for nominating me for adminship. It's very flattering. I must admit I'm going to enjoy using the new tools... it's very frustrating to list an anon IP on WP:AIAV and just sit there watching them continue doing damage. - Richardcavell 04:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey Hughcharlesparker, thanks for supporting my request for adminship! Unfortunately, it ended with a final tally of 5/17/3. Thanks again! -- Underneath-it-All 17:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Dubedelia MfD
Hi. I've re-tagged Dubedelia with AfD, which you can follow here. ... disco spinster talk  19:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * D'Oh! Thanks.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Gurch
Thanks for the support; I have taken on board the concern re edit summary usage – Gurch 16:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert on sandbox
thanks for the revert but its ok a friend was just helpin me out (just so u know).

thanks anyway--Childzy ( talk 19:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Although no consensus was reached in the end, I still wanted to thank you for your vote in my recent RfA. Thank you very much. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Editcount
Lol. (Hmmm... Maybe I should move that to a real template page...) Anyway, if you want to use that heading, just use either User:GHe/E1 (For names not ending in s.) or User:GHe/E2 (For names ending in s.). Also, if the name has more than 1 word, be sure to include the 2nd parameter like this:. Happe editing! :) G .H  e  00:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah
Hi I really appreciate your efforts but I think you've missed the point. It's not that comments are unverified. They're simply a) untrue and b) totally and unquestionably defamatory. I'm not worried about me. I think Wikipedia should be protected. Dweller 12:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I got that. As an aside, don't think that I and thousands of other wikipedians don't appreciate your protective efforts.  I've edited the talk page slightly so it's clearer who said what.  The "unsigned" thing came from this line: " Rhombusgroup " - I got the username and the time from the history page.
 * The difficulty is that an editor like me who has never heard of the guy needs to be able to check that the article is as it should be. OK, I might make certain assumptions from the tone of various edits on the talk page, but as I conscienscious editor I should try not to make those assumptions.  Wikipedia's answer to this is the same as any other reference work: truth is not a criterion for inclusion, but verifiability is.
 * As it is now, all anyone going to the talk page can see is one person says one thing and another saying another. There is no solution to that argument.  As soon as one of you can cite a source, though, it all changes: I can simply look at that source, and confirm that the article reflects what the source says.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 14:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Dear , Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuivi é nen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
--Pilot| guy 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA


Hello Hughcharlesparker, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Supporting my RfA!
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which passed by a margin of 54/6/1. Sorry for the late notice, as I have been busy as of late. And when you are busy, hand-crafted "thank you"s take a while. I anticipate to be "thoughtful" and "civil" in future admin dealings. Thanks for the birthday wishes in your vote, and good luck to "Eng-er-land" (as you put it). (Though admittedly, I wouldn't mind seeing the underdog go far. In this case, Ghana. But, they'll never make it versus Brazil. Sigh. But only if Portugal upset England... hm...) ;) Achem. If you see me doing anything that I shouldn't be doing with my newly-acquired admin powers, please let me know at my talk page. Thanks again for your support. Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Somali Civil War - suggest Deletion
Hello there, I checked out this page on the supposed Second Somali Civil War and I see the author of the page has apparently linked the article to various other pages such as Islamic Courts Union, History of Somalia and (before I reverted the change) the Second Battle of Mogadishu. The "Second Somali Civil War" article seems suspicious however, since there are absolutely no sources and when I did a new google search today, the only pages that came up were the Wikipedia article itself and other Wikipedia articles linked to it (those I named above) - I couldn't even find the blog that you found (which says to me that the author of the blog realized his/her obvious mistake). I think the article should be deleted and its contents merged into the Somali Civil War, History of Somalia, etc (if the content isn't already there. Perhaps you could suggest the article for deletion at the relevant web page?208.131.185.65 07:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I copied your comment to the article's talk page. You'd find it easier to take part in these discussions if you created an account - it only takes a second, and it's free.  I think you're right about the article, so I've nominated it for deletion.  If you log in, you can add your comment to that discussion.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 14:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A belated thank you
Hi there:

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA, especially because you gave a full rationale for your vote, which no doubt helped bring others to support my RfA. Unfortunately, my RfA was still not successful, but it was still a good experience.

Thank you very much. — DLJessup (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion
A portal created recently by - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at: Thanks. --Mais oui! 08:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Miscellany for deletion

Re: Image:Reflected sunset.jpg
Hi Hugh, The image was taken at Swifts Creek, Victoria, Australia - thanks for the message! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fir0002 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 18 November 2006, in response to.

fyi
The game is up for deletion again. Rdore 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)