User talk:Smithh

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Smithh, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are some tips:

Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page, and the Manual of Style.
Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
Learn what the proper tags to place on stubs (short articles) are.
Learn how Articles for deletion works.
Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board.
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Use the Show preview button.
Provide an Edit summary.
Read the Picture tutorial for help with images and remember to add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload.
Create a User page.
Be bold.
Ignore all rules.
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. There are also the help pages for self-help and the village pump and IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance. You should also feel free to ask me on my Talk page.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes(~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Please do not add this signature to encyclopedia articles you may edit, however, even if you have created them. Wikipedia articles are owned by the community, not by any one person. Again, welcome! —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}•22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software as a Service vandalism

Please do not remove encyclopedic content from articles, it is considered vandalism. If you feel that a major change is necessary please discuss it on the talk page. Blanking of sections and replacing them with links to blogs is not okay under any circumstances. —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}•22:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southbeach notation

Hi Smithh

In your recent comment at the above-captioned discussion, you requested that I make my identity known to the Wikipedia community. Could you explain how my identity would be relevant to the discussion at hand? If you look at my edit history, do you see any indications of a particular axe to grind with respect to this topic?

Also, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) after them.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 15:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.[reply]

Please see my last comments on the Southbeach Notation article for delete page here. I am presuming that you are hiding your identity in order to hide behind your insults. Its easy to do this in the safe anonymity of such ridiculous forums. I really had hoped for a more informed debate. I suggest you take a good look at yourself in the mirror some time. Smithh (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have made any insults. Certainly, putting together two plus two on the connection among editors participating in the AfD discussion on Southbeach Notation was not intended to be an insult—it was intended to give the closing administrator information on which opinions might be disregarded per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. If you think I have insulted anyone, please let me know where / how.

I have been an editor on the project for nearly four years, and have made more than 11,000 edits. I try to maintain civility even where there are significant disagreements among editors (though I haven't always lived up to this aspiration). If you care to review my contributions to this project, you will see that I engage in a few sorts of activities here quite regularly:

creating articles on obviously notable people;
tagging newly created articles that have (what appear to me to be) issues, particularly notability, COI, or tone issues;
nominating for deletion (whether using the speedy, proposed deletion, or AfD process) articles that I believe do not meet the inclusion guidelines;
copyediting articles that I come across that have various stylistic, grammatical, or typographical problems/errors.

I'm not ashamed of my contributions here and my choice not to disclose my identity should not be so construed. Many editors choose to disclose their identities; many do not—everyone has his reasons (though I suspect a common one is so an editor's boss doesn't see how much of an editor's work day is being dedicated to this form of volunteerism). ^Bongo_matic 12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your insulting remarks and language are clear for all to see. As are those of other 'Wikipedians' who used inappropriate language towards my colleagues and associates. Suggest you get back to real work if your employee would not approve of your 'work' at Wikipedia, to the extent that you feel the need to hide your identity. Perhaps your employer should install Spector360. Suggest you try to create things in the world instead of knocking down other people's achievements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.157.194 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's truly amazing about you guys is that you actually seem to believe that having a vote among two or three ill-informed people with no background in a topic is somehow valid, and simultaneously you disregard comments of anyone who knows about it. What are you expecting, hordes of people who don't know about the topic to somehow hear about your important 'vote'. Your votes and procedures appear to me to have little or no validity. And, it was not necessary to use such language. We did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.157.194 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Howard's test page

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willy van de Wiel

Do you really think it is appropiate to slap {{citation needed}} tags all over an article like you did with the Willy van de Wiel article, would it not make more sense to put a {{BLP unsourced}} tag at the top of the article. I see you haven't done much editing, so remember that it is OK to make mistakes every once in a while. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk ^guestbook 17:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Bongomatic.

Language

Do you think that your language such as allusions to sucking off a pit-pony is abiding by Wikipedia rules? It abides perfectly and breaks no guidelines I can think of (and I've been here for over five years and have seen most of them). If I had said "why don't you go and suck off a pit-pony?" that would have been a problem or something similar but the actual allusion itself is fine.

Do you think it is polite and appropriate? That's debatable I think it's fine, clearly you don't.

Do you think that complete strangers should talk that way to each other? Yes.

Do you think it sets the tone for a reasonable debate? Yes.

hope this helps. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the standard, goodbye. I have no interest in trying to hold serious debates about serious subjects when me and my colleagues have been assaulted by vulgar, insulting and other language, verging on libel.

Be very careful about using the word 'libel' as any hint of legal action can lead to an instant block of your account. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Rubbish' isn't a statement about anything in the works themselves, it is a comment about the nature of the works when considered against our criteria for notability that I was commenting on. Simply put, if something has notability, then independent agents (such as journals, newspapers) will write about it. For our purposes, a series of documents written by yourself are 'rubbish' in terms of providing evidence of notability. Do you see what I'm getting at? It's not a comment on the standard of work itself but a comment on how it measures against our guidelines for reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Trying to establish the real life identities of editors if they do not wish them to be known is strictly prohibited (except in very narrow situations - this is not one of them) - I've removed your recent addition to the AFD, if you persist in re-adding it or trying to link users to their real world identities, your account will be blocked. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Look at the history on the article's delete discussion page. Get your facts right. Are you applying the same rules to the people who not only tried to link me and colleagues to identity, but tried to imply that their professional integrity was in doubt by creating links between us. And, we had never 'hidden' our identity in the first place. It seems like you are saying there are rules for one group, and not for others. (As for whether you think I care a jot about having an account here, see my other final comments on the deletion discussion page.)

The fundamental difference is this - you can't out people who out themselves - if an individual turns up here with an account called SmithH and then proceeds to write an article about a product by Harold Smith and also makes it clear that they are Harold Smith then there is no outing. However, if you had turned up here with an account of "Wazzo" and *then* people had said "Oh well I think that's Harold Smith and I have looked on the web and he is..." that would be outing. Similarly, I can't make any claims of outing as it's pretty clear what my name is. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, get your facts right by looking at what occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.157.203 (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are so funny!

This is the best joke ever! I'm sure you looked at the history of my user page and saw that the basis for your jesting inference was the childish horseplay of some editors friendly (if you can call that friendly) to me. Put your tongue-in-cheek accusation everywhere, on talk pages, article pages, AfD pages, whatever for all I care. You made my day, week, and month with your! Thanks, funny guy! ^Bongo_matic 11:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Willy van de Wiel is an interesting example for you—in "normal" terms he appears to be a totally non-notable individual. But it seems (I'm not an expert in this particular area) that he meets the (unbelievably over-broad) criteria of WP:ATHLETE (otherwise I'd nominate the article for speedy deletion). Go figure! ^Bongo_matic 11:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, did I find Bongomatic? I strongly suspect I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.157.203 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]