User talk:Jimthing

Jimthing: my quick help

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of Contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
• Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

• Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
• The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

• Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.

Good luck, and have fun. ---- Jimthing 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Discogs_artist

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 02:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have reverted your last change. I didn't look closely enough at it, I thought you were doing the same edit as before.—Chowbok ☠ 12:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of CDJ-100S for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CDJ-100S 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CDJ-100S until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for SNAFU

An article that you have been involved in editing, SNAFU , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How to close an AfD

Hi,

I saw your latest comments on the AfDs for the Apple and iOS outlines. Thank you.

By the way, to withdraw a nomination for deletion (AfD) that you have made, add an entry to the end of the voting section, like this:

• I withdraw my nomination - (explanation/further comments optional). Signature

Then contact an admin who closes AfDs (look at the edit history for a recently closed AfD for who closed it), and he or she will probably be happy to close the AfD. It must be someone who has not participated in the discussion being closed. The Transhumanist 18:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Origins of outlines and their exposure

Over at AfD, you wrote:

I'd never heard of these "outlines" either, so they need some decent exposure including info on how they came into being on WP.

If you have any ideas on how to improve their exposure, I am very interested.

Outlines have good exposure in their respective subjects, because there are links to the relevant outlines from there. Editors who stick with a specific subject generally don't learn about outlines until one is created for their subject of interest. The current exposure of outlines is:

1. A link to the outlines page is presented on the contents page which in turn has a link in the sidebar menu displayed on every page of Wikipedia. I tried to get the various content pages directly on the menu, but the community consensus was that one link to all of them was enough. Maybe someday.
2. A link to the main outline page is included in the navbar menu that appears at the top of the main page for each of the navigation subsystems of Wikipedia (displayed above).
3. There is a section for outline announcements on the Community Bulletin Board on Wikipedia's Community Portal, our main community page.
4. Once an outline is created, a link to it is placed in the See also section of the corresponding article, on the corresponding navigation footer, etc.
5. Outlines are generally categorized at the top of the corresponding category, at the front of the list.

Where did outlines come from? Well we've always had general topics lists on Wikipedia, some were alphabetical and some were structured. But because they competed for the same names, the alphabetical ones were renamed to "Index of", and the structured ones were renamed to "Outline of".

It was the "Lists of basic topics" WikiProject that took the initiative to clean up that mess. They ran into the odd problem that the basic lists they were developing continued to grow – editors simply wouldn't stop editing them! Wikipedia isn't set up to be static, and so the "basic" lists started to become more comprehensive than the corresponding "Lists of topics". It was as embarrassing as it was awkward. So, first they renamed them to topical outlines, but that reminded too many people of fruit toppings and skin cream, so they finally renamed them to "Outline of". While they were at it, they renamed most of the other topics lists as well (either to outlines or indexes).

The first general topics lists were created in 2001. We didn't have the category system back then and lists were the main type of navigation page. The basic topics lists (there were about 50 of them) were initially created back then too, by Larry Sanger (a co-founder of Wikipedia), as wish lists of red links from which to build new articles in major subject areas. The links quickly turned blue and the lists were forgotten. In 2005 they were rediscovered and moved to article space as Lists of basic topics. A WikiProject was formed and a standard format was developed for them. In 2008 they were renamed to "Topical outline of" and in 2009 to "Outline of", with slight modification to their standard format. Around the same time, the alphabetical topics lists were renamed to "Index of".

There are currently about 520 "Index of" pages and over 540 "Outline of" articles.

I hope this helps clarifies things for you. If you come up with any exposure ideas, please let me know. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Moves re Retina Display

Cut and paste moves aren't the way to do it as they do not preserve the edit history. See WP:MOVE. If the redirect is the issue, see WP:MOR for info. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying to do 3 things: (a) Delete wrongly created Retina Displays, (b) Move Retina display to a current redirect page Retina Display, (c) After doing b, then redirect Retina display back to Retina Display instead?? Mucked around hours ago, and nothing has happened?! Read the help but don't get it. Jimthing (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll sort this out for you, give me a couple of minutes. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Yunshui 雲‍水 11:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Retina Display, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PPI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc./iOS task force

Wikipedia ads	file info – #210

This user is a member of the iOS task force.

Would you like to become a member of WikiProject Apple Inc. – iOS task force? Seeing your recent edits to iOS-related articles, I thought you might be interested.

––  76.10.241.86  Talk  Contribs  22:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Leveson Inquiry".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 22:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Would continuing the discussion be necessary? The thread is still open. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Black Mirror Sorry, quick question: I'm confused as to why both the Channel 4 links should be there; they both point to the same file, they're not separate sites. Why is it necessary to link to a static redirect? drewmunn talk 20:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Nomination of Control Center for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Control Center 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jimthing reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: ). Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC) I have closed the AN3 report without taking any action against either editor. Instead I have protected the article. You both need to discuss in talk and attract other comments towards a consensus. If at any time you feel you have done this, I can look at lifting the protection. You need to be especially careful as you broke WP:3RR which is usually regarded as a bright-line blocking issue. Please don't do this again. Best wishes,--John (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Teamwork Barnstar For your cooperation [1][2] Frze > talk 14:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC) iPad Mini Did you decide what to do with iPad Mini and iPad Mini (1st generation)? I thought the first article should redirect to the second, but perhaps you have other plans? Frmorrison (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC) I've proposed redirecting iPad Mini (1st generation) back to iPad Mini. You're welcome to join the discussion at Talk:iPad Mini (1st generation)#Redirect back to iPad Mini. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Looping redirects Your page moves are causing articles' redirects to loop. I've already fixed one of them, and I just found another. gsk 07:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Same. Please don't intentionally point to redirects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Jimthing. You have new messages at Talk:IPad. Message added 01:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. I'm not sure if my mentioning your name flagged the discussion, but I thought you might like to participate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Template:Apple again? Look, I have never seen anyone feeling having won a discussion that involves edit warring or a trace thereof. Believe me, being blocked is most unlikely and yet the most forgiving outcome than can happen. You are yet to see what Wikipedia can do to a person who hits revert button instead of working towards a consensus. Discuss first, edit afterwards. If your discussion has reached a dead end, your next stop is WP:3O. Fleet Command (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Template:Apple". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.245.78.133 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC) About your recent move request on WP:RM/TR I went ahead and formatted your move request for IPad Mini (second generation) so that it appears properly on WP:RM/TR. For future reference, some instructions on how to post these types of moves are located on the WP:RM/TR page, as well as usually as hidden text when editing the page/inputting a request. Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Restless Soul (record producer) If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on Restless Soul (record producer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Moved to userspace I've moved the article to your userspace at User:Jimthing/Restless Soul (artist/label) so you can work on it at your leisure. The big thing to remember is that you'll have to show notability per WP:ORG by way of reliable sources, but at least with it in the userspace you'll have plenty of time and won't have to worry about it being deleted before you're finished. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry about the HTML comment Hi. I could swear I copied and pasted your entire proposal ad-hoc. Sorry if the comment was somehow left out. By the way, if we are to go absolutely by the book, we also have to wait for Fleet Command's consent but judging by her modus operandi, I doubt it is necessary. I think WP:SILENCE applies here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Soliciting comment... Hi! Would you be interested in reviewing my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Better Call Saul I'd like to ask you to stop your disruptive editing on Better Call Saul. You changed it to read "US" to suit your liking. Once I supplied you with a Wikipedia guideline link you then made changes to the article, inserting "UK", so that you then can use "US". That is ridiculous and you only did that so the article could suit your liking. The article is about an American subject, is written in American English, thus "U.S." is preferred and the article has always read "U.S.". You also do not link country names per WP:OVERLINK nor insert country name into location parameter in the infobox if it's the same as country of origin. You've now been reverted by a different editor, please stop your combative editing. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Can you STOP making the rules up to suit yourself! This being an "American subject" does not preclude it from following the US vs. U.S. guidelines MOS:ABBR, regardless of the edits I made or otherwise AT ANY TIME. Jimthing (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Yes it does. The article as it stood had "U.S." which was completely acceptable > you changed it to "US" for no reason > you then added "UK" to support the change to "US". You clearly made these changes to support your version. You ignored reverts from other editors. You ignored the long-standing version of the article. Whatever, I do not care anymore. Have it your way. Hopefully I don't come across you anymore. Bye. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Again, what time any other editor makes ANY edits has no bearing on WP, never mind the what the MOS rules very clearly stipulate. I reverted the other editor as well, because they broke exactly the same rule you were doing. So throwing your proverbial toys out the pram in a childish manner because you didn't get them to appear the way you like them, is plainly childish. Jimthing (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC) What don't you understand? The article was MOS-complaint until you came along and changed it to your liking. If the article had already used "UK", then fine; but it didn't, you added it afterward. You were the one being childish, kicking and screaming to conform the article to your wishes. Congrats, it works. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC) SO WHAT. I changed something afterwards, does MOS preclude that: NO. So stop whining, and follow the rules everyone else does. Jimthing (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Wow, you're ridiculous. Goodbye. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Yep, just following the rules, you seem to feel you don't have to, and then continually revert WRONGLY. Jimthing (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Edit warring You have now exceeded 3RR on both articles, and seem determined to edit war these two articles in an effort to make some sort of point, despite standing consensus, and having been reverted by multiple editors. It's fascinating how many policies you're prepared to ignore in your headlong effort to push this edit, not the least of which being WP:3RR. Oh, well. I've asked an admin to have a look at your edits, and if need be, the next stop is the edit warring message board. --Drmargi (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Have you actually listened to WHY I edited it to "US" in the first place? I even wrote it on the talk page, yet you still ignored it! Quote " "...use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. "UK" or "UAE"." The end. Nothing to do with personal preference whatsoever, just the rules." What argument do you have against what I even said: "it's an American article" misused by you, does not apply for the edit I made (per MOS:ABBR) – please point me to the MOS to explain your point... as it's not even there, that's why! "Standing consensus" as you put it, is NOT following the guidelines, and so is wrong, regardless of how many editors ignore the guidleines to suit their own preference. Jimthing (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Please stop edit warring. You have exceeded 3RR yet again and as such you should be blocked to prevent further disruption. As a long-standing editor, I'd like to think you'll stop discussing your beef using edit summaries and take it to the talk page. In any case, no more reverting please, or I will block you. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)