User talk:hmwith/January09

Of course. You too! Don't mistake my semi-inactivity this past year for anything but just that. =) Have a wonderful 2009, and I look forward to future collaboration. hmwith τ 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled

Your most recent edit to the Toledo Science Center article has me ... puzzled. You moved the article from COSI Toledo, but then deleted [1] the only line in the article that explained the name change? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was having trouble with Wikipedia during the edits. It kept disconnecting when I tried to save, so it took about 10 times. That's a little different than I originally intended it, but I felt that line, especially being unsourced, sounded a little POV. I'm not sure exactly why they changed the name myself, but I feel it still gets across everything we can at the end of the intro. If you have any ideas to make it clearer, please let me know. I was a little confused myself by the exact situation. hmwith τ 19:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffar-ur-Rehman

Just a friendly note on Jaffar-ur-Rehman. I declined the speedy deletion request because Dean of Faculty at a university is a claim of importance. If you think this article needs to go, AfD would be the place. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice call. I wikified and cleaned up the article, so it looks a lot better now. hmwith τ 16:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II

Hello Hayley, We are looking for help on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and eventually ‘Featured Article’ status. So, I though I would invite you to take a look. Any help would be much appreciated. Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 02:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I get some time and/or have some suggestions, I'll let you know. Thanks for the heads up. hmwith τ 23:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TuneyFish

Hi, I appreciate your efforts for wanting to keep Wikipedia clear of spam, but I have to admit that deleting a page about someones lifes work and passion by calling it spam is over the top. The purpose of the page was to describe the mission behind utilizing video as a means of learning, by watching things you understand difficult concepts and people can become that much more knowledgeable about subjects that they may never have thought they could learn. I used to think that Wikipedia was something that would embrace these types of things but instead you all seem to treat it like it belongs to you and on that note I will let you have at it.

The change that needs to take place in this world should begin in places where people like you decide what is and what isn't good information. Do you want to know how the auto industry will become fully capable of producing electric vehicles? Do you think it will come from the automakers or possibly from collaboration and communities like TuneyFish.

Its good to know that companies like Youtube stay and ones like Common Craft who are creating helpful videos get deleted Kwick6 (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps when you're finished soapboxing, you can take a look at the guidelines set out to determine whether or not an article belongs on Wikipedia. Administrators are neutral parties that are supposed to enforce these rules without prejudice, and you're not making it any easier. GlassCobra 04:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GC said it well. Please don't feel like the article you created was streated differently from any other article. Wikipedia has notability guidelines that I did not create. My job is to simply enforce these long-standing standards. If TuneyFish becomes more notable in the future, it may certainly warrant an article. Thanks for your patience, and let me know if there are any further concerns, hmwith τ 04:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the guidelines, and the notability guidelines and it seems that had I provided the sources that "back up" what I am contributing this may have been avoided. I understand the role of administrator and have spent years donating my time on message boards and cleaning up the threads, so I know what that is all about. Kwick6 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If TuneyFish becomes more notable in the future, it may certainly warrant an article." Notable meaning there are sources posted on the article, as mentioned in Note 2. of the notability guidelines? If that is what you mean then I apologize that I didn't have time to create the entire page before saving it to come back and finish later. Also, I noticed mention that someone other than myself should be the one who creates it? It seems to me that it would be much more valuable to have the information coming from the source, with additional input added by others who consider it notable. Kwick6 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If an article isn't quite ready for the mainspace yet, you can create/edit the article in your userspace (at User:Kwick6\sandbox for exmaple). As for you not creating it, are you talking about a conflict of interest on your part? hmwith τ 06:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was referring to this: "The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic." from note2 here notability guidelines Kwick6 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, there have to be independent, reliable sources cited regarding the subject. hmwith τ 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I have decided to become active on this Wikipedia once again. Just thought that I would let you know :). Cheers, Razor flame 19:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. =) I hope you choose to stay. hmwith τ 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wish you would become more active on the Simple English Wikipedia. We have been losing editors lately and could use a good brand new infusion of editors :). Cheers, Razor flame 19:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. I'd been busy IRL lately, so I hadn't been editing anywhere much, but I'll go scope it out. hmwith τ 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my page?

[removed personal attack] how could u erase a page on a famous rapper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livereport (talk • contribs)

Looking through your deleted contributions, I will assume that you are talking about the T-Shyne article, which I recently deleted after another editor pointed out that it did not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. If he becomes more notable in the future, he may warrant an article. Have a good day, hmwith τ 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Regendi

Hi,

You recently deleted my first article. I have sought some advice and am about to resubmit this with cleaned up links and more references. I hope it now meets all criteria but, if there is any problem, please let me know what I can do to fix it.

Cheers, Ystradband (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to fix the article would be to add reliable sources in English. If it's most notable to Germans, as it seems to be, it may be best to start the article on the German Wikipedia. hmwith τ 05:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification. I appreciate your point: I don't understand why there has been no entry on the German site and have suggested that someone rectifies this quickly. I guess there are more German sources as that is where the game originated but it is equally relevant in English. From a personal point of view, I would have appreciated the presence of an article on this subject when I stumbled across 'NationStates' at Wikipedia and the Category page for Government simulation games is more complete with this addition. Thanks again, Ystradband (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether or not it would be more likely to meet the standards on the German Wikipedia, as I cannot read German, thus cannot verify any of the references. It may be worth trying (if you can write German). On a side note, that article (Jennifer Government: NationStates) was nominated for deletion one before (see here), & it was kept. I nominated it for deletion a second time (located here), as I still don't feel that it meets Wikipedia's requirements. You're welcome to voice your opinion the articles for deletion discussion. hmwith τ 03:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]