User talk:hmwith/March08

Are you suggesting now that authors cannot in fact, add a picture of the book cover of their own books to their own articles? This appears to be the situation here. Wjhonson (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted, so it was removed from the article. нмŵוτн τ 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was it not you who deleted the image? Was not the image added by the actual author of the work?Wjhonson (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're wondering why the image was deleted. I thought you simply asked why it was removed from his article. WP:FU claims that "Cover art [is] for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item", which usually only means in the article about the book itself, not the author's article. Did I answer all of your questions? нмŵוτн τ 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth (Cherish album) (cont).

Actually, yes I think that the article should have been kept. For one, the lead single, "Killa", has so far peaked at #66 on the Billboard Hot 100 [1], and the album is set for release on April 29 [2]. Admc2006 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't have one source, that was the issue. I'd suggest you take it to WP:DRV if you think it should be undeleted. =) It's too late to relist. Thanks, нмŵוτн τ 01:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Truth (Cherish album). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Admc2006 (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prodding videogame articles

Hi, before you put any more {{prod}} tags on videogame articles, like you did for Blinx 2: Masters of Time and Space[3], could you please look for reviews of the game which would establish notability? Videogame reviews can typically be found on Game Rankings and Metacritic or even with a Google search. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was nominated for a WP:SPEEDY. I don't know much about it, so I prodded it, knowing that if I was wrong, someone would obviously remove it. нмŵוτн τ 18:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikismile

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 05:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I think that's actually the first time I've gotten that template. =) нмŵוτн τ 05:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered you

Talk:TomKat —Preceding unsigned comment added by VKokielov (talk • contribs) 23:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your timely reply. I responded there. нмŵוτн τ 00:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again. Please keep in mind that I haven't touched the article even once since you reverted it -- for a reason. --VKokielov (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your maturity in the matter. The discussion is greatly appreciated. нмŵוτн τ 10:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Murder Machine

? Why did you removed the link to 'The Marder Machine'? Eog1916 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Eog1916 (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to what article you are referring, but the link was removed when The Murder Machine article was deleted. нмŵוτн τ 10:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Thank you for your compromise. :) --VKokielov (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! There's always something that makes everyone happy. нмŵוτн τ 17:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it takes courage and a dose of good humility to step over your pride. --VKokielov (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With which also forgive me for reacting the way I did. --VKokielov (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's not uncommon for article discussion to get heated, or WP:Staying cool when the editing gets hot wouldn't exist. нмŵוτн τ 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USFtv

Hi; this is in regard to the speed deletion of USFtv

to be clear, i'm not from the school, never been there, don't live within 1000 kms of san franciso; this is just something i came across through random link-surfing, but it seems to me the article should not have been CSD'd

granted, i haven't read the content, but it's the only student-run tv channel @ the oldest post-secondary school in san franciso; not clear if it's broadcast tv or just cc/online, but even if the article doesn't rate stand-alone status, surely it should be merged into the University of San Francisco article, with perhaps a redirect to it on the original page, rather than simply wiped out; at least i think it rates a deletion debate.

as a side note; i googled USFtv in search of more info, & the wiki article on USFtv was 5th in search ranking, meaning: a) the article has been around long enough for google to take notice of it & b) it was a useful link for anyone googling for more information on the subject

please take this as a good faith comment, apologies if i come off as blunt; it's not intentional rudeness, i'm just trying to be concise in my arguments, & i'm in the middle of some other writing atm, that i would very much like to get back to :)

Lx 121 (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind message. The issue with that article wasn't necessarily whether it or not was notable, but, rather, the fact that it did not stress this importance with verifiable, reliable secondary sources. нмŵוτн τ 16:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what about adding it to the usf article then? if you'll make the content available, i'm willing to have a go. also re: CSD criteria; if i'm reading the relevant WP properly (CSD: A7), verifiability isn't a CSD criteria in this context, if it asserted notability, but did not provide verifiable sources, then it should go to a deletion debate instead. apropos: i'm entering the debate on CSD: A7, in present form it seems to be causing more problems than it's helping to fix & there are now a plurality of ongoing discussions about this; i think it either needs re-wording, or removal as a csd/to be transfered to ordinary delete protocols instead. do join in, on whatever side of the argument you favour Lx 121 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, it didn't assert notability. That was the issue. What I meant is that I'm not saying it's not notable, but I'm saying that it didn't assert the fact that it was notable. You can expand the page, if you'd like. Would you like me to restore it to User:Lx 121/Sandbox for you to work on it? нмŵוτн τ 17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please & thank-you; im not sure if i'll re-do a separate article page, but i'll at least try & find a way to stuff it in the usf article, under student life/community/activities or something Lx 121 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done нмŵוτн τ 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Well, it certainly has the virtue of brevity. i'm sorry, i thought there was some actual content on the page; if we ever interact over a similar issue again, involving such a short article, feel free to just quote it on my talk page, our discussion on the matter adds up to several times the length of the subject under discussion... XD ty for the info tho; i'll see if i can find a place for it on the usf page Lx 121 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, not a big deal. For GFDL reasons, I kept the authors there. нмŵוτн τ 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of club colours

You have removed a number of club colours, citing that better ones exist, are you to link these to the red-links we now haveLondo 06 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just replace any of the ".png" in the image names to ".svg", and that's it. нмŵוτн τ 23:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfB

You girl, you rock. Thanks for your support at my recent RfB which passed successfully with (133/4/3). I know you know this already, but I just wanted to personally thank you for you taking the time and effort to be part of that process and I wanted to let you know that I'll do the best I can to live up to your (and the community's) expectations. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, sir. Congrats! =) нмŵוτн τ 23:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images

Hi, got any ideas of areas besides Flickr and Commons where there might be large numbers of free images? That white horse image you deleted is going to be very hard to replace (most "white" horses are actally grays... ) Images of white horses -- i.e. includes pink skin and blue eyes -- really are tough. (Most blue-eyed horses in free images are cremellos. I can live with your deletion (though must grumble a little, of course ;-) but I really am stumped where else to look. Any suggestions? Montanabw^(talk) 05:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you would find them. We could wait for someone to upload one of maybe you could find an actual white horse and photograph it. Since free images could possibly exist, and "we can (and will) wait for a free image to be created or released." (from WP:DYKI). нмŵוτн τ 22:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These horses are so rare that in my 46 years of life, I have only seen a few (lots of grays and cremellos, few true white) ... the reason is that "Dominant White" (WW gene) is a genetic lethal, so the only ones are heterozygous. The other way you get to true white, the SB1 gene, does not produce a lot of completely white animals even though it isn't lethal when homozygous, most have some spots of their base color and some are not blue-eyed. That's my frustration. Ah, but the technical stuff isn't probably of a lot of concern to you. (grin) I suppose I could try to see if the people at the white horse registry will release a photo to the public domain, that's probably the best bet. Have you a link to that page (I can't find it) where the proper permission protocol is explained for asking people to give permission for a GDFL or free use image?? Montanabw^(talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I first want to say that I totally understand your frustration, and I honestly appreciate how you're remaining very friendly about this. =) It's definitely hard to keep cool with these sorts of things. If you can't find some free or public domain images at Wikipedia:Public domain image resources or Wikipedia:Free image resources (which I doubt you will if they're as rare as you say), then here's how to ask for permission (the link for which you were looking): Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial#Ask for permission. I hope that these things help, and let me know if you have any further questions. нмŵוτн τ 21:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I appreciate the info. I am frustrated, but see no reason to get upset at the messenger because I understand the direction wiki has to go with this stuff, and I always DO give a nod to a well-reasoned reason that accurately explains the guidelines at play - as opposed to a " 'cause I decided" reason. (grin) (and should I need to prove this to others some day, I may tap your wiki-shoulder and say "help!" ). Take care. Montanabw^(talk) 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Hope you can an image to use. нмŵוτн τ 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peadar andrews.gif

Why was this deleted , i'm sure i stated where is was fair use but may be wrong Gnevin (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a replaceable image, meaning that a free alternative could be taken/found. нмŵוτн τ 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on ? Gnevin (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the fact that another picture can be taken. Also, there was no fair use rationale for the image. нмŵוτн τ 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These guys aren't soccer players they don't have free images floating around every where , also see User_talk:Jtdirl#Just_dropped_by for my feelings on the no fu rationale Gnevin (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images in the userspace

I have removed the non-free images from your userspace User:Hmwith/quilt. Please be aware that images that are clamied as fair use have a restriction in location:

From the policy page Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)

Placing image in the userspace such as User:Hmwith/quilt is a violation and has been removed. Please do not restore this image without consoltation. Thank you. — Κaiba 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it was placed in by someone else other than you: [4] If you could just check in on your pages to make sure that fair use images aren't added to your userspace, that would be great. Thanks, — Κaiba 19:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea the image was there, as it was just placed by some random editor a few days ago. I am well aware of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, and I wouldn't restore it, as I didn't put it there in the first place. Please direct your comments at the editor who placed the image, and thank you for removing it. нмŵוτн τ 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. — Κaiba 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship

Thank you for offering to act as a mentor to pedophilia related articles. Please see the above link for the mentors noticeboard where users involved in disputes on the topic pages can act for input from the mentors. I would appreciate help in forming this so changes to the page would be very welcomed and also ideas of how to link the page so it is well seen. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay

Happy 1 year on Wikipedia anniversary! --Shark face 217 20:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! нмŵוτн τ 00:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My New Messages thingy

Thanks for adding that header to my page--it was a way better idea than mine, so I just took the latter out and merged my name into that one.

PS: I'd appreciate it if you could help me with my...erm, "substandard" user page design (read: nonexistent user page design). I'd do it myself, but the lead section in my page clears it up. (And I already have a logo in the works, in case you're wondering. A nonfinished logo. That I'm procrastinating on.)

PPS: What's "hmwith" mean? Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll check out your userpage... see if I have any ideas. I basically just stole mine from the main page & changed the colors. And about the username, if I told you, I'd have to kill you. =) нмŵוτн τ 00:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's really strange: just this morning, I was puttering around my apartment and suddenly realized what the name was. I was both surprised and confused as to why I suddenly thought about it (nothing personal, Hayley, but I don't often think of you at the same time I think "where are my pants?"). I hadn't even seen this thread at that point, making it all the more random. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, glad you figured it out. нмŵוτн τ 00:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I messed around with your stuff on my sandbox here. Check it out, and let me know if you're a fan of the layout. It's just the mainpage. I can change the colors to what you like, but this is just the general idea. Do you like it? нмŵוτн τ 01:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frickin'. ZOMG. I love it. I only need two changes:

Dark gray/regular gray color scheme would be even better than the Main Page colors.
I can't get my SHA hash to fit in my {{user committed identity}}. And, for that matter, I can't fit said box into either column.
I'm still ~~working on~~ putting off working on my logo, so we might have to hold off on the transfer to my page for a little while.

I hope you don't kill me for this, but I'm assuming "HM" is for Hayley M.? As for "with"...my brain blue-screened. Oh well. Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 15:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just gave up & made the hash go at the bottom, below the columns. Let me know when you finish up the logo, & I can make it gray, and things will be good to go. =) нмŵוτн τ 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not exactly reminiscent of Mysid's work, but it's good enough. Check my userpage. -> 21 655 ^τalk/_ʃign 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I really like it. Nice work. It's a lot better than mine. нмŵוτн τ 20:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can fuck with the page in my sandbox as you will. If I start working on something else before you copy the code, it will (obviously) be in the history. Cheers, нмŵוτн τ 20:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Thanks.

So...how about the subpages? How do we go around doing that? 21 655 ^τalk/_ʃign 19:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well... You can just copy/paste the codes onto your pages & change the words in the headings. Let me know if you need help w/ that. =) нмŵוτн τ 23:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Do Not Drink

But I am wondering if oddly-named accounts are making Alaskan Brewing Company spamish. -WarthogDemon 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User notified of WP:COI issues and username policy and blocked. нмŵוτн τ 15:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about User:24.237.16.87? ALL its edits have been to that article and seems to be from Alaska. Perhaps a 2 week block for it? I'm not really sure because I'm not confident I can tell what's spammy and what isn't, so for all I know it could be a different person making constructive edits. -WarthogDemon 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours. Thanks for the heads up. I'll clean up the article now. нмŵוτн τ 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done I just reverted everything either has done. нмŵוτн τ 18:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the edits to the Alaskan Brewing wiki entry are being done by Alaskan Brewing Co. The reason there are so many edits is that we didn't know about the sandbox at first. We would appreciate our edits being restored and the block being removed. It seems that if all the edits are coming from the same user and IP address and that no other sites were being edited by this user, it would not be interpreted as being spamish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StellaKeta (talk • contribs) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the edits to the Alaskan Brewing Company article were spam/advertisement-sounding. нмŵוτн τ 20:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you think is spam/advertisement. I would suggest that you look at Alaskan Brewing's peers Sierra Nevada Brewing and Deschutes Brewery Wikis. It is common practice to list factual information about the beers that a brewery produces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.126.211 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yeah, but not with what it goes well and excessive external links. нмŵוτн τ 21:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your call. If you reinstate the edits and unblock AlaskanBrewing we will remove the offending material (being links to the corporate web page and the food references). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.126.211 (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The username wasn't blocked due to spam. It was blocked because it breaches the username policy. The editing can continue, but you'll have to use another name. Also, please read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline. нмŵוτн τ 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Gras

I was just wondering why the Patricia Gras page was deleted and if I could fix the problem and have it put back up. Thanks (Mlreynol (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There was a prod that was uncontested for 5 days, stressing that she's not notable outside of the Houston area. If you'd like it undeleted, you're welcome to put it through WP:DRV. нмŵוτн τ 15:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for Patricia_Gras

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Patricia_Gras. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mlreynol (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Hmwith, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! User:Hmwith (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idontknow 610^TM 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21 655 ^τalk/_ʃign 13:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kairos Retreat

There is a nationwide Christian renewal movement known by this same name, so I added some referenced material to this page which was then removed. Why exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolesrock (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources. Information on Wikipedia needs to be cited (in order to be verified) with reliable, secondary sources. You only had a primary source: the website. Also, there is no proof that this is notable in Wikipedia's terms (see WP:Notability). If you have any more questions, please let me know. Thanks, нмŵוτн τ 19:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]