User talk:Jimmi Hugh

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Jimmi Hugh, welcome to Wikipedia!

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

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

You might like some of these links and tips:

• 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 (~~~~).
• 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 {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

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

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, which it appears you have not followed at Socialism. Thank you. -- 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed's rumor demonstrate a lack of good faith in other editors, who are free to express wrong or even silly opinions at risk only to their own reputation, a lack of civility in language, and several direct personal attacks. This is unacceptable behavior, so please cut it out. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for allowing my opinion to get in the way of being nice, i will remember to respect all views in the future.. after all, one day it might be possible that mine is wrong ;-P --Jimmi Hugh 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the best way to see it, then! Just remember, not every comment needs a rebuttal. See you around. --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. —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

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

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

Deathrash

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

Put in a speedy delete tag, with reason something like "deleted in AFD 2 weeks ago, recreated same content, delete + salting requested. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (9th nomination): 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. Thank you. --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 Wikipedia: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: Wikipedia: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

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Can myspace images be changed? Kushal (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In recognition of your humorous edit^[1]. 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&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. Gazimoff 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&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, Pretzels^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. -- kainaw™ 16:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Jimmi, I made some edits at Wikipedia: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." flaminglawyer^c 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)