User talk:Jimmi Hugh/Archive

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, 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  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:
 * some General guidance.
 * Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Take a look at Consensus of standards
 * Create a User page

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   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)

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)

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. -- Vision Thing -- 19:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Civility
Jimmi Hugh, your comments on the AFD debates Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed and 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)

Please use edit summaries
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 15:40Z 

"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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

replacement page
Merges can get complicated because of the need to keep from losing the edit history. What you need to do is 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)
 * 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  tag on it, and say "remove temp page" in the edit summary

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 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 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted and salted. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 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. --Core desat 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * The speedy delete request again is appearing at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. It might be something transcluded onto this talk page, where that something has a request for speedy deletion. If you find out what is causing this talk page to be listed at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion, please let me know and I will see if I can get it fixed. User talk:Blahblahme seems to be having the same problem. -- Jreferee   T / C  17:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

David H. Bates
According to A7, mere claims of notability that are plausible should exempt from a speedy deletion. See the article's talk page: the evidence of his notability in the way it was presented is out there. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there was no biting, it's all good. Mistakes are how we learn.  Hope you don't mind, but I replaced your speedy deletion notice to the creator of the article instead of simply adding to his page.  Thanks for your efforts in enforcing notability.  Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Proprietary
Thanks for being bold here. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i do what i can. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional articles with the same problem as the Afro-Europeans article
Hello. I noticed you nominated the article Afro-Europeans for a possible deletion, merger, or name change. I totally support your action on that article because I've also never heard of that term and I'm pretty sure it is not a commonly used term in academia. I'd like to also bring to your attention other articles that have the same issue. Can you please look into them as well?

Here's a list:
 * Afro-Irish people
 * Afro-Portuguese
 * Afro-Germans

Thanks in advance. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.132.46 (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'll have a look at any article which is possibly unsuitable, however i'll only opt for deletion if they are indeed unencylopedic. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Articles for deletion/List of Canadians of Asian ancestry
First of all, there were two users who wanted to keep the article (and it isn't up to you to judge whether or not votes are "good faith"). Second, we don't cont votes anyways. I read the page, and realized that there was no consensus to delete it, so it was kept. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of humor
In recognition of your humorous edit. Thank you!
 * Thanks :) *Takes a bow* - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You did it again! Congratulations on your win. *a standing ovation* for your edit at the Computing help desk. Kushal (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a joke... we must not let the little people suffer anymore! - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Comments such as "masses of drone religious idiots" and "laughing at the fact they believe in an imaginary man in the sky" are inflammatory, childish, stupid, and wholly unacceptable. Keep your opinions to yourself; do not denigrate the beliefs of others. Further rubbish of this kind will see you blocked, by myself or another administrator. fish &amp;karate 12:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I forgot only large numbers of people are allowed to put others down... and I do laugh at the fact they believe in an imaginary man in the sky, that's not inflammatory or stupid, but way to be a hypocritical waste of oxygen, which I could be using. So please, block away, it will be such a great loss to my life to not be able to insulted by a childish admin who uses his power to threaten other people on the internet. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To be fair, you are entitled to your opinions. However, Wikipedia relies on the creation of a harmonious editing environment that welcomes all contributors, regardless of religion, ethnicity or any other choices they choose to make. What counts is their contributions to the project, not what else they may be outside of Wikipedia. There is a line where stating your opinions disrupt that environment, as it both diverts your time away from more worthwhile activities (as you've mentioned) and it draws others into a battle of opinions rather than allowing them to continue contributing as well. It's this disruption that could potentially lead to you being blocked. Let the closing bureaucrat ensure that all arguments within the RfA are weighed and measured fairly, as this is what they are entrusted to do. Hope this clarifies things for you.  Gazi moff  13:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really... I still don't see why "Fish and Karate" is allowed to call my comments stupid... and i'm not allowed to insult a fictional being, who even if he was real couldn't care less about what I say. I however, do care when it's considered acceptable for an admin to be allowed to insult my opinions, because I don't have a Major religion backing them. But, back to proper editing it is. Oh, I also consider comparing my comments (which are backed by their own religious texts, and weren't directed at any actual people) to a guy who insults millions of people in quite a nasty manner, as "equal" to be an insult to me, but who cares, he's an admin, I'm just a User. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Andrew received a similar warning to yours, Jimmi. I called both his and your comments "stupid" because they were both equally inflammatory and scathingly dismissive of other people's views - this is a good definition of stupid.  On Wikipedia, you are not required to believe in any particular religion, or in any at all; you are, however, expected to refrain from pushing your beliefs on other people, and to refrain from mocking or abusing the beliefs of others. Please try and do these things in future. fish &amp;karate  13:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So, if I call atheists idiots too that's ok? Also, I still stand by the assertion that my calling people idiots, is nothing like the horrible and down right nasty comment made about all atheists, so comparing them is incredibly childish, especially considering you clearly have a bias in the comment made here and just wanted to save face by posting the other. You were completely out of order calling my comments stupid, and more so in comparing them as equal. I didn't push my believes on anyone, and I notice that similar insults weren't made by you to all the people who made the exact oppostte comments in the oppose section. You're a terrible hypocrite. Please stop trying to play the bigger man admin... Gazimodd got it right, you just sound like an idiot. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been reported for personal attacks
You have been reported here for using personal attacks on the computing reference desk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Personal_attack_by_User:Jimmi_Hugh 98.221.85.188 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh noes! My life is over... - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign
The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, P retzels Talk! 15:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Civility
Please try to comply with Wikipedia's policy on WP:CIVILITY. Your comment here ("Way to be total dick though, if there was barnstar for people who should be castrated, I'd give it to you.") was way out of line. Please don't do it again. -- Why Not A Duck 22:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to think about not doing it again. But thanks for getting worked up over it instead of the comment it was responding to... maybe I'll find it in my heart to send some barnstar your way too. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - but then you went and did it TWICE more the following morning. SteveBaker (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering your "sources" for backing up your lies, I'm not suprised you can't read. This is just embarrassing, I didn't promise anything you illiterate, just hurry up, get your panties a bit more knotted and waste your time having me blocked... - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your subsequent posts to that thread have crossed a threshold that is unacceptable - I was prepared to humor you and to reply nicely the first time - but now you passed my personal tolerance threshold. You may either apologise - profusely and convincingly - or it becomes my personal mission to get you kicked off of this site for life - as has happened to so very many before you. Lest you think that's unlikely - realise that DOZENS of people have trodden this path before - and the result is almost always the same:
 * (cut) see edit history

...or you can apologize now, consider signing up for a program like "Adopt-A-User" where someone can help you to be a better Wikipedian. Sadly, the odds of you doing that are about one in twenty...that's about the historical rate for people who do this...but it does happen - which is why I make this plea to you now before you step off the precipice.

But the odds are good you'll just try to insult me again or put out some clever(ish) rejoinder - perhaps you'll just take the cowards' way out and delete this post (we have "History" remember!)...so go ahead - it's just words on a page - I can take it.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, Jimmi. I understand it can be kind of frustrating posting on this forum, being an MS fan among so many open-source fans, but Steve seems like a good guy. He's a fellow computer fan. There may be some history I'm missing between you two, of course. In the future, just insult open-source software -- not the OSS fan. It shouldn't be too hard, as their programs have lots of flaws. LOL.--Account created to post on Reference Desk (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jimmi, your comments on the Reference Desk are not welcome in any way. It is a Reference Desk, not "Jimmi's immature playroom to throw insults around about things he has clearly failed to comprehend." If you believe something is incorrect, you provide a reference, not an insult. Try to mature a bit and learn the difference between civility and stupidity. Then, try to make constructive comments. Continuing to act the way you have will only lead to having your account blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- k a i n a w &trade; 16:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jimmi, I made some edits at Reference desk/Computing in the interests of harmony. Check WP:5P if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, they weren't meant to stand out to anyone but him anyway. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm gonna have to say that, while your attacks were unneeded, unconstituted, and highly offensive, at least they were creative. Most attacks like that come from bored teenagers who are on Wikipedia only to contribute a nice little, "fck you ur edits are bullsht and i bet ur house smells like hairy taco meat dipped in turkey poo plus a side of poopoo with fries. haha i said poopoo." flaminglawyerc 02:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Psychonaut
The article states "a person who uses altered states of consciousness, intentionally induced, to investigate his or her mind, and possibly address spiritual questions, through direct experience". Psychonauts are not scientist, and do not need to prove anything in order to "investigate" one's OWN mind and interpret it subjectively. I don't understand why you feel your edit was superior to the original, please explain as what I get from "and claims to use the experience to investigate his or her mind" is comparable to saying one who has a spiritual experience claims to be affected subjectively.

The edit will be reverted to the original (pre-conflict state), if you wish to revert it back please discuss it in the Psychonaut discussion page to see what other editors feel is best suited before re-adding it. If you wish to discuss this between ourselves before taking a action feel free to contact my discussion page or continue here. Best regards.--Astavats (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that psychonautic experiences are merely "self induced visions that provide no insight into anything", or have I misunderstood? I hope I have. I'm going to end this edit war for the sake of civility and not from agreement. Good day.--Astavats (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess a part of Wikipedia is realizing when there may be no correct answer, or even many correct answers. Understanding this I realize both versions could very well be equal, though obviously each of us preferring a specific one, and it would be a waste of both of our Wiki-editing effort to continue this. So unless a third editor on their own has a say down the road, I'll agree to let it be. Happy editing friend.--Astavats (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary insults
Please do not be rude as you were in this comment here. cf WP:CIVILITY pgr94 (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, next time, we'll leave your edits, then we can add a section all about how owning things is evil and we should spread the wealth! I know it has nothing todo with the topic, but you don't seem to care about that. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to you describing my edits as "idiocy". Simply because you do not agree with the changes does not justify your personal attacks.  This is not the first time.  pgr94 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't agree, it's that you're wrong, and you're reverting for the sake of it, which makes it impossible to have a sensible conversation. I'd happily give better reasoning if you were making changes that were logical or with the slightest amount of thought. If you want to think it through and work with me to balance the article, fair enough, I'd love that, and I could cope, but I don't know how to communicate with someone who does things for the sake of being stubborn and has no idea why topics they make reference to have nothing todo with the topic being discussed. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I care for facts, accuracy and NPOV. Your rudeness is unhelpful. pgr94 (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well I care about encylopedic editing, content related to the topic and consider you to be far ruder than myself. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Smear job alert
FYI, you've just (unwittingly) become part of a hit job by a notorious anti-Microsoft blog. Sorry for the anonymous comment. --Gordon Michaels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.104.228 (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome, does this make me famous? Perhaps Microsoft will hire me to implement all of their propaganda. *Takes a bow* I'd like to thank my mother, my alien abductors, and of course the little people, whose unrelenting stupidity made this possible. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Closed-source software
Jimmi, have you considered writing a separate article on closed-source software cannibalising useful parts of proprietary software? This would help other editors see your position more clearly. Then if desirable you can propose replacement or a merge. I have seen other editors develop a draft in their user space to not get interference of other editors too early on. Just a thought. pgr94 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, it was decided in previous discussion (see the talk page) that they're the same topic and the closed source software article was merged. I'm not trying to push a view... the term is a generic way of saying the same thing, I've never even seen the term "proprietary software" used to mean close in real life, so, to me at least, it seems a fair enough compromise. I don't think there's ever going to be any chance of having any open source advoacate agreeing to use anything but that term; And considering there's no such thing as closed source advocacy, and the nature of the site attracts the first, I'll just step away from the matter, I'll stick to less debatable topics any work on areas I know a little less about. Thanks for the suggestion though, sorry for all the antagonistic editing between the two of us, I don't think there's anything personal in it, but I'm never sure what I mean. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A remark w.r.t. our discussion on the Asthar Command talk page

 * Hello, Jim.
 * Don't worry, I'm not here to call you names or anything. Actually I have a bit of sincere personal advice for you. It seemed more appropriate to put it on your talk page. (I suppose most people would consider it inappropriate all the same to give people personal advice after just one discussion that didn't even end well, but I'm going to do it anyway.)

"I don't take your claims that I drew judgement on a set of people I don't know lightly"
 * For your own sake, I think that maybe you should take these things a bit more lightly. It might be a good idea for you to learn not to let things get to you. Because if you take every little hint of reproach as personally as you took the things I said, you are very vulnerable.
 * For one thing, you are vulnerable to trolls. (For example, the people at 4chan would have a field day. You'll probably say now that you don't go to places like that, but people from there do come here, and not always with benevolent intentions.)
 * For another, you are vulnerable to your own human nature. Anger invariably leads to bigotry if you indulge in it; thus, getting this pissed at people a lot will wear out your intellectual honesty and make you much more certain of your opponents' being wrong than you should rightfully be.
 * Decide for yourself what to do with that advice. Since it's coming from me, you'll probably feel a natural urge to disregard it, or take even more offence; know however that I'm not saying this to insult. I'm only trying to help. - Fyrius (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I have no problem with you saying any of that. Perhaps I worded it badly. I didn't mean that I become infuriated, just that I always take criticism on board and always attempt todo something about it, even if I don't show it in the debate at hand. Thanks for the comments though, sorry If i came off as preaching perfectionism. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good. Well, you're quite forgiven. :) - Fyrius (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling me out
No, I want you to question me, and call me out, I say so at User:MBisanz/AfD. The only way we can build a complete encyclopedia is if people question things to make sure they are done correctly. Thanks again. :~)  MBisanz  talk 04:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: User talk:Aunt Entropy
I'm glad to hear you're willing to walk away from this. This situation has been a little strange, as I personally wouldn't take what you said as an attack (except perhaps a few little comments) but it's clear everyone draws a different line when it comes to being offended and Hervegirod did find your comments to be offensive. He's stated he's willing to move on, as have you, so I think we should just leave it at that. There's no reason why you should walk away from the related pages, you're clearly a good editor and your help would be a benefit to any page. My only advice is that if you don't know the user you're dealing with, try and be overly cautionous. Cheers, and happy editing! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't make it personal
Take your hatred against RMS somewhere else, not in proprietary software. So what if RMS uses the term pejoratively? Lots of other people don't. 189.141.133.30 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What? I never made any comment on RMS. It was you who added that line to the article. Use of the term to fit the definition expressed on this article is 100% negative in all situations. It was designed to be that way. I don't agree with the term, I think proprietary software should mean "to own", like the word proprietary. However, that's not the way reality, and your unfounded accusations are unwelcome. You're a liar. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility
Please don't be uncivil when you make edit summaries as you did here. Remember to assume good faith. Thanks. Alun (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry... It wasn't actualy aimed at anyone. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wilders
Oh come on Jimmy! You know better than I that Wilders is a controversial character. I don't mean to gratuitously paint brush him but it would be a mistake to deliberately avoid calling a spade a spade (as you are inclined to do). There are numerous issues here. The Islamic lobby is quite strong here in London. I quote from a recent article published by The Times: More than 60 percent of school children in the London borough of Westminster speak a first language other than English, with Arabic, Farsi and Kurdish among the 10 most common languages, according to the local government. So things are filtered through this perspective. Intolerance does not sell well here. Wikipedia is an universal project so we have to accommodate the local sensitivities with the global/universal ones. Perhaps my choice of words reflect my seeing the Wilder issue from this localised, London perspective. You get my point? Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You MUST read this

This meeting had been postponed after Lord Ahmed had previously threatened the House of Lords authorities that he would bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords if Wilders was allowed to speak. So now you know: that's why they banned him! Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The truth is I haven't seen the film apart from short snapshots on youtube. But I don't think he is being banned because of the film itself but because of the stir up that his presence might provoke here. Personally I think he's an opportunist who is making out a comfortable living (as an MP) by being a "professional" provocateur. Now this episode will only enhance his "aura". Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See here his blog if you wish. Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! You are kind of right! There is no such a thing as a free lunch as they say! So perhaps I hurried into presuming his life is carefree which is not the case given the fact he's permanently surrounded by bodyguards etc. P.S. Have you seen this? It's a step to far too call him 'idiotic' but then don't expect solidarity fom the Perfidious Albion (just joking :-) ) Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.'   Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 21:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to the Iraq War
Hello Jimmi.

I see you've removed the line about religious leaders condemning the Iraq War again, saying "there opinion has absolutely no effect on politics, even indirectly, and still doesn't matter to the article."

I have to strongly disagree with that, and say that religion has a massive effect on politics. Picking one example arbitrarily, the British House of Lords has 26 seats reserved for Church of England bishops. Since the UK is the second-biggest contributor to the war, it seems extremely relevant to me that two successive heads of the CoE have used their religious authority to criticise the war (as detailed in the article). I don't see how the Church's position could fail to have an impact on those peers and hence decisions made in parliament. There are plenty of other examples - the influence of the Pope, for example, is massive.

Even if I personally didn't think these people had an effect, the fact that news organisations report their views with similar weight to those of politicians means they would satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidlelines.

Could you explain why you think the opinion of religious leaders has no effect on politics? Olaf Davis (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The House of Lords has no Military influence, except in oversight, and it's opinion is considered in the context of the House of Lords, not as religious leaders. The CoE's opinion on the matter, does not matter to the article, I don't see how he possibly could, their stating of that view has had no effect on anything. Again, opinion on the War does not effect the decisions that can physically be made by the Lords in that position as it's the Upper House of our Parliament. The Pope may influence the decisions on men in Power in Italy, but he has no legal say and his churches officail "opinion" doesn't have the same meaning as the official condemnation of 54 states.


 * On the other hand, that last fact about the unfortunate representation of the Media does give it slightly more representation, even if it has no influence, than the average fan club, I'll give in to that one. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, given that we agree on the issue of the media, and given my comments about WP:N above, do you still object to the inclusion in the article? If so, why? Olaf Davis (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No... as I said, I conceded that one reason, so all other points are meaningless, it's a valid point, go for it. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, just wanted to double-check that was what you meant. Thanks for your time. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's all good. Thankyou for calling me out on it. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

NPA
Be nice.  Will Beback   talk    10:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't attack anybody... infact I specifically said I wouldn't make negative comments unti lI was sure his comment was aimeda t me, and my response would of course then prove it with sources. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, since you changed it from the template, I can support that one :) Sorry. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Muslim Girls
Please review at the AfD two newspaper articles re the organisation if you have time. Thanks. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
There is a great deal of disagreement about what discrimination is, but it has been discussed for over 100 years in sociological journals. If you have a good idea about the subject of Sociology, I suggest you can edit the page. There is a long history for this term, and I don't see why the encyclopedic entry on discrimination, which is historically perpetrated against minorities, should emphasize affirmative action. Furthermore, the discussion clearly indicates that whether affirmative action is discrimination is controversial. If we still think it should be part of the introduction, then it must be clearly defined as a recent controversial issue. FYI see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=discrimination+%22affirmative+action%22 and UN general consensus. Twocs (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What is this gibberish? My revert had nothing to do with the line on affirmative action, I had a problem with the definition. Only people who can't comprehend the english language could possibly ignore my edit summary, make hypocritcal edits which contradict their own and eventually entirely miss the point so badly they complain about the wrong point. For the record, affirmative action IS discrimination according to the definition you reverted to as well, it's not my fault you suffer from an extreme intellectual defecit. If you have a problem with the affirmative action, change that AND ONLY that, not the rest which is clearly of no concern to you, and which you shouldn't lie to uphold. Oh, and don't you dare ever come to my talk page and state "UN General Consensus" to me as a source for any fact. I couldn't care less what an organisation the Majority of members which to see my homeland ravaged for the benefit of numerous rhetorical lies including the idea that Affirmative action isn't discrimination. The British courts have stated that Affirmative Action is unconstitutional becuase it disriminates, that's all I need until you provide a serious source, not "UN General Consensus" about an organisation which has countries as members who treat Woman as second class. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you tell me "Don't you dare come to my talk page"? This is a page where I should come to discuss an issue to avoid an edit war. I feel like you want to attack me. Secondly, your point about affirmative action being unconstitutional under UK law is strange. Wikipedia is not designed to be an encyclopedia of one country, it is to be worldwide. If the laws of one country are different, why not point it out? It's encyclopedic. But why be pedantic? Twocs (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And by the way, affirmative action is not illegal in the UK. See Affirmative action: "... affirmative action... [refers] to policies that take race, ethnicity, or gender into consideration in an attempt to promote [b]equal opportunity[/b]..." I agree that giving preference to someone because of their race or sex is illegal in the UK, even if that preference was given because they were a member of a disadvantaged group. Affirmative action is not illegal when it takes positive steps towards ensuring equal rights, especially in situations where they have historically been denied equal rights. Affirmative action is a controversial issue, especially because sometimes it might effectively give preference to one group over another, but not all affirmative action is discrimination. Twocs (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with you and this extreme selective reading. If I said, "don't breathe, when there's poison gas around", would you actually have the audacity to claim I told you not to breathe? No, then how can you claim I said don't come to my talk page. What I said was that you shouldn't come and cite "UN General Consensus". I refuse to read the rest of this rubbish, if you don't know how to read common law decisions and ignore that FACT that affirmative action is considered unconstitutional (that's unrelated to government breaking the law in action) and the as of yet unrebutted statement that it is discrimination which is part of British case law. Affirmatve action can not take positive steps towards ensuring equal rights because thats not affirmative action, don't lie about the definition, it makes you look idiotic. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In case you forgot, the UN is widely considered a reputable source, and you are not. In the UK, affirmative action is referred to as positive action, which is legal. You are incorrect to use the term "affirmative action" to mean positive discrimination, which is indeed illegal in the UK, though not in many other countries around the world. Is it then possible that denial of service must arise from discrimination?Twocs (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, but you didn't provide a source from the UN, you made comment about some "UN General Consensus". That's the end of that, you're now contradicting blatant facts, not even interpretations. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, I did post a source from the UN. It's called a reference. It is from a guide that refers to discrimination. It was posted after you changed the introduction to reflect your point of view, but before you suggested "you didn't provide a source from the UN". I feel that you are neither polite nor seeking compromise on this issue.Twocs (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You idiot, you did not provide a source for this imaginary "UN General Consensus" you mentioned. I never relieved the article of the UN source, and it had no relation to what I was removing or to what you were imagining I was removing. Get this into you head, you liar. You invented this whole situation, based upon lies about things I never mentioned, you're a fucking retard. STOP LIEING ABOUT MY ACTIONS YOU PRICK. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for at Talk:Discrimination. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.
 * Awesome :). Even though you were actually idiotic enough to block me for the wrong thing, I haven't commited vandalism EVER, you liar, I was verbally abusive towards another editor, which despite his irrationality, vandalism, lieing and accusations of bad faith, was indeed inexcusable, but at least get it right fool. I know being an administrator doesn't really require any actual insight or honesty, but when you link to the correct action, you could at least portray enough mental capacity to not link to a page that doesn't describe my action (abuse) as something I have never done (vandalism). I'd also like to say, ha, I can't believe it took me saying I'd be blocked for my comment to be blocked, you're really pathetic. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and before I get back to not caring about the block, I have to add, to really show off the idiocy of this admin, that before incorrectly accusing me of vandalism, he wasn't even intelligent enough to read through the conversation which led to my (abusive, not vandalistic, you liar) comment and didn't warn, never mind block a user who has lied about my actions, verbally abused my edits, attacked my faith in a cruel and unecessary manner and actually vandalised a page to push across his own POV. Now, I'm no expert on idiocy, but is TimVickers isn't an idiot then I don't know what is. Please, I beg of you, block me for the right thing, and apply the rules equally you pathetic excuse for an admin. I've gone from not caring, to being embarassed that I haven't actually been fairly blocked for actions I wanted to be blocked for (as can be seen in the comments that lead to it). Imbecile. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish to be unblocked, use the template and try to provide some kind of coherent argument for why this block should be lifted. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you gibbering on about? I don't wish to be unblocked... Or else I'd have used to the unblock template. What I wanted was to point out how absolutely idiotic you are. You couldn't even block me for the correct reason, missed the context and failed to block a worse editor. I could care less about being unblocked, extend it longer for all I care, you fail to understand that it's the loss of the article's I improve, not my loss. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Home Secretary
Hi, I saw that a few days ago you moved the article Home Secretary to "Secretary of State for the Home Department". I have requested that the article be moved back. Please in future use WP:RM if you want an article to be moved, and place the case for the move on the talk page. Also, please remember that Wikipedia does not care about the official name of anything. YeshuaD avid  •  Talk  • 18:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where do you get off? When did I once claim I moved it to be the official name? When did I once say that, SHOW ME WHERE I SAID IT, you arrogant, presumptuous prick. How dare you MAKE UP the reasoning for my actions, and then use it to attack me, you worthless animal. Get on your knees and apologise for LIEING about my actions, when you were fully capable of using your minute brain to READ MY MOVE SUMMARY and see that wasn't even the reason. If you can't even get the reason right, don't go around telling people they did wrong. Also, for the record, Wikipedia does care about the "offical" name of things when it suits peoples bias, like whenever FSF-related projects rename something, you all get big fat hard on's as you scramble to be the first to change the artlce name to suit Richard Stallmans newest endorsment (See coreboot for the most recent example I noticed, changed despite people still using the term LinuxBIOS all the time). - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bloviate (3rd nomination)
You participated in the AfD discussion of Bloviate in July 2008. A year and five months after Articles for deletion/Bloviate (2nd nomination) was closed as keep, the article has been renominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the debate, please comment at Articles for deletion/Bloviate (3rd nomination). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Computer networkhimanshu
Do you know whether the Computer networkhimanshu redirect page serves a purpose currently? (I figured I'd ask you as you're the only user that shows up in its history) Any objections to my tagging it for deletion? Riick (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (for the record, it looks like someone had renamed Computer Network to Computer networkhimanshu so you moved it back.) Riick (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was simply fixing the rename. I doubt the redirect has ever been used; it is entirely unnecessary. Thanks. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I tagged it. I'm glad you were on top of the rename! Riick (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)