User talk:hmwith/May08

Hey there! I've added you to my friends list here on the English Wikipedia. I would also like to tell you that I am going to try to become an administrator on this site too. I am still working on becoming a better editor, so it will be a while before I am able to even think of running for adminship, but I am working hard, and hopefully will be able to run a successful RfA here in a few months. Cheers, Razor flame 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad that you're working here a lot, as well. =) That's a great goal, but I'd just worry about editing productively for now, and the next step should come up naturally if you do as great of a job here as you do on Simple. hmwith τ 21:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. All I am worried about now is making sure that I'm doing the right thing and I am also (as far as I know) editing productively. If you want to talk to me, don't feel shy, leave me a message on my talk page. Cheers, Razor flame 21:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image at Danny Kirwan

Hi, is there never to be any discussion of a contested non-fair use image? There was a reasoned rationale on there which someone put a tag on, having failed to read it. I contested it, and the next thing, it's deleted. Can you explain why it was deleted, please? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you said in your edit summary that the uploader was notified more than 48 hours ago. The fact is that I was never notified - the tagger failed to inform me and I only noticed because I had the image on my watchlist. There was a valid rationale on there, what else was I supposed to do? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it said on the tag "If this image is determined to be replaceable within one week from (whatever date it was), the image may be deleted by any administrator." Please show me where the image was determined to be replaceable. The tagger was also supposed to explain his reasoning on the talk page. Not done. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image was of a living person. Therefore, free alternatives exist or can be taken. However, it was a mistake by someone that you were not notified, but the image still would have been deleted regardless of anything you could have done, so it's not a big deal. Let me know if you have any further questions. hmwith τ 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is still alive. However, he is a recluse and does not appear in public. Free alternatives canNOT be taken. I understood there was room for this within the non-fair use system. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they technically can, there is room for one to be taken. Wikipedia can and will wait for a free alternative to surface. There is no deadline. hmwith τ 06:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well when someone technically gets a room in the same institution as Kirwan, Wikipedia might get a picture. The image policy is a joke. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LG Chocolate article

Why did you revise the article into older version, which directly deletes the major image? Please look deeply before revise thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.16.89.21 (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reverts

How have my reverts been so far? Cheers, Razor flame 16:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but make sure to still use edit summaries & make sure to still make other edits besides reverts. Pick an article that interests you, & fix it up! hmwith τ 07:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_trends_in_Italian_music&action=history, I don't think you really wanted that version back on. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Yeah, I reverted it. How embarrassing. You caught it before I did, and I wasn't paying attention. Thanks. =) hmwith τ 15:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NP, figured it was some sort of edit conflict..happy editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bigtits69

Hi. I saw you warned this user for vandalism. I think an indef block for the username might be quicker! M♠ssing Ace 08:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't look closely at the name. Good call. I provided a username block. hmwith τ 08:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! M♠ssing Ace 08:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Reiner Hartenstein has been blanked three times by an IP who is saying he is the subject of the article and contesting the content. I noticed you reverted him the third time, and wondered if you could look into the situation a bit more closely being an administrator. This has been posted on BLP/N by someone else, and I responded by re-blanking the page and adding a BLP template (hopefully the correct one). If this is the subject, we should not be reinstating a page full of uncited material, nor should he be getting threatened for vandalism. I've left him a note how to address the BLP concern, but thought perhaps you could check the article again, making sure I placed the correct template, and perhaps locking if from anyone re-adding the content until it's straightened out. --Faith (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just looked like page blanking at first glance. Interestingly, it looks like RainierH is him, as well. If so, I don't see why he doesn't sign in as his username. If that's simply someone trying to appear as him, that's another issue. Thank for you pointing this out, by the way. hmwith τ 06:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I just wanted to make sure if it is this guy that we aren't biting him when all he's trying to do is get rid of a bad bio. --Faith (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I'll assume it's really him, and he'll see, from the link you provided on his talk page, what to do with the situation. hmwith τ 08:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is and that this wasn't a waste of time, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. Thanks for the assist :) --Faith (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image

I uploaded an image of Chesterton windmill after the sail came off in 2006 (File:Chesterton mill 2006 sail off.jpg"). You deleted it with a rationale of CSD17 (user notified more than 48 hours ago). I have had no such notification. I believe the rationale I gave was correct, as if the sail broke again, there is no guarantee that the same picture would be produced. Please advise what what wrong, and what I need to do to correct the problem. Mjroots (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that the original user who tagged the image forgot to tag you. However, regardless of whether or not you were notified, the image was deemed replaceable, meaning that a picture does not contribute more than text can illustrate. Not having the picture in the article does not interfere with the reader's understanding of the subject. Let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, hmwith τ 22:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]