User talk:Jonny Nixon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[change source]

Hello, Jonny Nixon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Sadly, one or more of the pages you started may not fit some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages and may soon be deleted.

There is a page about making articles you may want to read. It is called "How to write Simple English articles". If you need help, please post a message at "Simple talk", where other experienced Wikipedians can answer any questions you have. Or, you can type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will soon answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy changing pages here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will turn into your username and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Osiris (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Deaths in 2017[change source]

Great job mate on the progress on Deaths in 2017! Looking forward to the progress ahead old friend! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

William Margold[change source]

Hi, Jonny. Please remember to use the {{recent death}} template only when an article is getting a lot of edits from different editors. In spite of the name of the template, its purpose is to warn readers that there might be conflicting edits, not to point out that the person died recently. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

John Hurt, etc.[change source]

When you update an article to show that a person has died, please go through the entire article to update the verb tenses. Take a look at the changes I just made to John Hurt for some examples of what needs to be done, and feel free to ask any questions you have. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I had forgotten to update the page as I was working on the English Wikipedia. Thanks. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Conor McGregor[change source]

Ambox deletion.png

The page you wrote, Conor McGregor, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. DaneGeld (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[change source]

WMF Surveys, 18:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[change source]

WMF Surveys, 01:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[change source]

WMF Surveys, 00:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

adding stub template[change source]

What's up with adding stub templates to moderately long articles, like Bert Parks? I seriously doubt that article needed a stub template. Angela Maureen (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @September 1988: That article is still fairly short. Besides that, though, articles can be marked as stubs not only when they're physically short, but also when there's a significant amount of info left out. If you look at the enwiki article, you'll see quite a bit more information. The info in many articles here would be only enough for the lead section in other Wikipedias, and such articles here could reasonably be tagged as stubs. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I second that, Auntof06, thanks. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome Back[change source]

Welcome back old friend! Letting you know how great it is seeing you back in action creating awesome new articles! Cheers. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I appreciate your kind words, Lenin. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Kimberly Hamilton[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Kimberly Hamilton, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2018/Kimberly Hamilton and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Auntof6 (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Brenton Tarrant[change source]

Ambox deletion.png

The page you wrote, Brenton Tarrant, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. IWI (chat) 01:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ignore this, someone removed the redirect and made a highly offensive page. IWI (chat) 01:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Mountaineer articles[change source]

Hi, Jonny. Thanks for your new articles. I wanted to let you know that I changed the verb tense in the three articles about mountaineers from "As of 19 April 2019, it is thought that" to "As of 19 April 2019, it was thought that". That's because encyclopedia articles always use past tense for statements associated with a date. If they used present tense, the statement would become outdated after only a day. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course, my mistake, thank you for fixing it. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Deaths in 2016[change source]

Hey Jonny! This has always been the one regret I face to this day and that is not completing Deaths in 2016. That time period I took a period off for nearly half a year and just seeing how incomplete the page is starting at Deaths in July 2016 and beyond is heartbreaking. I was aiming at filling out the entire Deaths in July 2016-Deaths in December 2016 and as this year progresses to create the articles within those pages. I was wondering once I commence this task if you could help me maintaining it? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely @TDKR Chicago 101: I'd love to! I believe I also mentioned it to you a while back now. I look forward to helping out. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Excellent! I'm currently filling out Deaths in August 2016 and will continue the progress in the other pages. I'll start creating the pages once all Deaths articles are filled out. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Great! It may take time but I think we can accomplish this. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ellen Gibb[change source]

Hi Jonny Nixon,

I saw a headline somewhere about the death of the oldest person in Canada. I cannot find any reference to it here. Can you help? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC) https://globalnews.ca/news/5365752/canada-oldest-woman-dies-114/

Hi there, on the English Wikipedia "Ellen Gibb" redirects to the en:List of Canadian supercentenarians article. So perhaps, by Wikipedia's standards, she isn't notable enough to have her own entry, aside from a redirect :/. Thanks, —Jonny Nixon (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome Back[change source]

Great to see another great Wikipedian back at work! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, mate. Good to be back, I've had a busy schedule as of late. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

James Irwin[change source]

Help to expand the James Irwin's article. ArionEstar (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Heads Up[change source]

On WikiData John Davies (swimmer) and David Greetham (textual scholar) are listed as deceased, but I cannot find any reliable sources confirming this. I've added their entries on March 24 in Deaths with the hidden brackets <! name -->. Side note: great work on your recent articles! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! —Jonny Nixon (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar[change source]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Long overdue especially given your constant article creations/edits. Thank you for expanding this great Simple Wiki! Hope to hear from you soon! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Danke, mate. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

undid[change source]

reason I undid was there was a huge red link message. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Note about removal of infoboxes[change source]

Hiya! I've noticed that you've been reverting my infobox and commons additions on the following pages: John Ventimiglia and Brad Fittler. As Wikipedia, especially Simple Wiki, is known for being a platform to build upon and improve each other's work and I'm mainly here to contribute in every positive way possible, I would like to welcome this opportunity to learn more about any guidelines and policies here on Simple Wiki that I may not have been previously aware of? For example, I always under the impression that as long as edits are done in good faith and to help improve an article, they shouldn't be reverted. Instead, we should (1) discuss the issue(s) in the problematic article's talk page (2) the talk page of editor who has made what you may have personally deemed 'faulty' edits talk page. I noticed you haven't done any of that and went straight to reverting my edits. I would welcome either resolution to help us come to a consensus. That way, we can resolve the issue and avoid it from propping up again. Also, as you created the article, anyone's welcome to make helpful edits and if you wanted to add more info (as the info in the article you've created are quite sparse), you could have built upon it. As you seem to have been with the community much longer than I am, I'm happy to learn what were the reasonings behind those reversions, and would appreciate it to be clarified and resolved. — Infogapp1 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Jonny Nixon is right. An info box that contains only the subject’s name, birthday, and photo is pointless. We’re adding info boxes for the sake of adding info boxes. Info boxes are not required in every article. When an article is a stub, the info box is generally unnecessary because all the relevant information is available in the couple of paragraphs of text. I’m not sure why you’re taking his removal of the info boxes so personally. You’re telling him that he could have expanded the info box instead. If the info box can be expanded, why didn’t you do that from the outset yourself? Basically, you’re saying his only option is to keep it as is or expand it. Well he chose an option that also exists and you disagree with.
remember the BRD cycle: bold, revert, discuss. You were bold in adding the info box. He reverted. Now you discuss. You’ve added an extra revert in there.
You’re also basically saying in your change summaries that people can’t remove it unless they discuss it with you. Sounds like ownership. Only (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
My suggestion was to either expand the infobox itself, instead of completely discarding someone else's work (especially when it's not even a vandalism- and even vandals get notified as to what they did wrong. There was none of those followed in this case. A note in the summary saying 'it was lazy' or 'pointless' didn't provide any objective context as to what's missing and how it can be improved. When I reverted the edit, I added more information and not just revert without any context. The reason why I'm leaving this note is that there were notes either in the article's talk page, or my talk page so we can avoid this issue again. As far as I know, infoboxes don't have any minimum information requirement, but I'd be happy to read any additional documentation I may have missed. I have been adding infoboxes here in other stubs under the impression that they're not only helpful for the user's experience, but for the overall improvement of the articles. If those were not helpful, I didn't receive any memo earlier on hence I am discussing as I would prefer for it to be resolved and for such issues to happen again. — Infogapp1 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
My personal preferences and opinions here are irrelevant. I'm here to help improve Wiki and abide by the community policies and guidelines - again, not opinions. If any of the admins told me earlier on that adding any of these infoboxes to stub articles were unhelpful, I would have stopped immediately and focused most of my contributions in other productive avenues or ways. However, my only concern is that none of these was present in these two aforementioned articles: no discussions, no talk page notes, etc. Hence I am bringing up this dialogue and have those resolved, so they don't happen again. I'd be happy to help honour any guidelines brought up to me, as I'm only concerned about unholding any policies and guidelines in place in this community. — Infogapp1 (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm here exclusively to make helpful and productive edits. As you both have been here much longer than I have, you ultimately know better as to what's right or wrong. So now if you both are telling me the rule is that to don't add any infoboxes to stub articles, I would gladly honour that moving forward if that's the policy. As always, I simply would have appreciated if I was informed earlier on to save everyone involved their precious times, hence this discussion. Also, as for the 'extra' revert, I didn't simply reverted the previous edit. I've actually added more information in the infobox. Hope that clarifies. — Infogapp1 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Per en:Wikipedia:DISINFOBOX, I am not against infoboxes in general. Wasn't in an attempt to be "disrespectful" either, I was just stating that the infobox is lazy, reason being that adding one that basically only contains minimal information is practically worthless on a page that is already a stub. Generally when I create a page, I assess whether or not the article is long enough to have a massive infobox on the page. Stub pages often contain all the information an infobox, which are not a requirement of biographies, already have. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. This is exactly why I've opened this conversation because then I would continue what I'm currently doing without any context what others are on about. If the article had more information - which is usually the case for the places I add infoboxes on, I would have gladly added more information like I usually do with my other edits. But since it's a stub, I was simply added the information that was available on that stub. For example, was just browsing another random article to work on, and noticed this. Being a stub, had an infobox in it. Forgive me if I'm such a stickler for details, but I simply want things to be black and white, as I simply want to keep my edits productive and be respectful of other people's time. If admins have somehow established that all stubs shouldn't have infoboxes, I wouldn't have a problem following such policy at all...but seeing other stubs having infoboxes as well simply sends a mixed message and creates unnecessary confusion. — Infogapp1 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hiya again. Came across this resource today EN:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Infoboxes. I have to admit, I wasn't aware of these guidelines before and honestly thought I was doing the community a favour adding them and I didn't know it can get controversial, haha so I appreciate when more experienced editors inform me where I did wrong, so I can immediately fix them (like I did here). — Infogapp1 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)