User talk:hmwith/January08

I didn't know you were editing about Suri and TomKat recently until I glanced at the edit history after making a revision. First it was Sanjaya Malakar, and now this. You keep popping up on all the articles that I edit. Chantessy 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, we apparently both seem to be on the fringes of pop culture. I actually created the TomKat article! нмŵוτн τ 18:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Since nobody knows what Suri's last name is for sure, I just edited out all instances of "Suri Cruise" to plain "Suri." The birth certificate could be a fake or made by unauthorized personnel. Chantessy 18:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. нмŵוτн τ 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signature contrast

Your signature is difficult to see. Consider something with slightly more contrast (darker). Whether or not you change it is up to you. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think that you have a screen with much less contrast than any of the ones I use. Perhaps less resolution. I see a gray a little darker than what I would think of as a "medium gray" along with a very dark gray. I haven't been on a computer where there was a issue seeing it, so I'm not sure why it would be so difficult to read on your's. Odd. нмŵוτн τ 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not complaining too much. The "T" part is visible. The other part is also visable but easy to miss. Happy editing ! Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think it's just different computers. I checked it on a flat screen (non-laptop) out of curiosity after you said this, & it was hardly visible. On my screen, there's a great deal of contrast, apparently. If I can borrow a computer from someone to see the changes, I'll change it sometime. нмŵוτн τ 18:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I tried some work on my signature. Does it appear more easily readable on your screen now? Can you see enough contrast between the background of "hmwith" and "t"? Thanks for your tip! *нмŵוτн τ 04:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LG Chocolate (VX8550)

I've restored this at your request, but I am not very happy about it. To me, it is very blatant, with all the information about prices and where to buy it. If you took all that away, the information could easily be included in the parent article. I hope you can get someone to make some improvements to it pretty quickly. Deb (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done нмŵוτн τ 15:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's loads better - thank you! Deb (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed

Hi Hmwith. I think you inadvertantly deleted the AfD page for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Nanduri Bapiraju instead of the actual article.--Kubigula (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How embarrassing! I must have bumped the back button. Thank you so much for letting me know, haha. нмŵוτн τ 03:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an accidental deletion, that was pretty unimpressive. I once deleted a user's talk page by accident, and we won't even mention the guy who crashed WP when he deleted the sandbox... :o)--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I'm sure I'll mess up worse in the future... I'm a pretty big klutz in real life, so it's inevitable. Watch out! нмŵוτн τ 03:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Republican

Ron Paul is the Libertarian Republican, not Rudy Guiliani. I personally think Guiliani has more conservative leanings. LittleMsP 16:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy has also been described as having libertarian view in the recent past. I agree with Rudy's views over Ron's. I'm not controlled by parties. I am unbiased, and choose the candidate whose views are closet to my own. Therefore, Rudy's the best guy for me. Since it doesn't look good for him winning the primaries at this point (damn it), I'll have to find another guy, though, and Ron would certainly be my second choice. нмŵוτн τ 17:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MFD

I hope you don't mind, I finished two closings for you by deleting the MfD templates and adding {{oldmfd}}. I also left a note at WT:MFD#Closing Procedures as I had trouble with the link to the discussion - maybe you could take a look - thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you can tell that I wasn't previously too experienced with closing MfD's. I suppose I should have researched that first. Thank you for correcting them and letting me know this. нмŵוτн τ 01:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Smash Forum

I don't suppose anyone will ever convince me that the Fat Smash Forum is an encyclopedic link, but then I'm probably way at one end of the bell curve in terms of being hard on external links in general. I guess if we've got an article on the The Fat Smash Diet, the forum may as well stay too... MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say the sections "What is the Fat Smash Diet?", "Getting Started", "BMI Calculator", "News", "Recipes", and collections of articles pertaining to the subject make it into the WP:EL standard. The fact that the site is called a "forum" doesn't change most of its content, even if there is one "forum" tab on which to click. нмŵוτн τ 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio State michigan logos

You will lose them if not in a thumb box. Just ask the guy who used the BYU-Utah logos as decoration, not as informative. Now he has no logos on his page. He refues to listen . . . trust me on this. I would rather have logos in a box than no logos at all . . . up to you12.41.183.194 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...What? нмŵוτн τ 02:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

If you truly felt I was uncivil, which I didn't believe I was being (believe me, I pretty much know when and how to be a *^%#@). The "volley" was all in fun, no disrespect intended. I felt you made good points but when it comes to improvement, counter points must be made. I've learned this the very hard way when being shot down like a skeet disk. I wasn't trying to make it hard on you, you just have to understand, it was a hard fight to keep the article in the first place and some of your thoughts have already been addressed. Again, my apologies if you took my passion as incivility. It was not intended to be as such. Good night!IrishLass (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]