User talk:hmwith/June09
| 2007 | <<
|
<<
|
<<
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
| 2008 | •
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
| 2009 | •
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
| 2010 | •
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
Your deletion
Whey you made this and the related deletion, you seem to have missed the point. Those paras were in articlespace before I moved them to the talkpage. Good faith editors wanted to keep the content in the article to answer reader questions. As suggested by WP:TALK, I moved it to talk rather than delete it outright. I agree that Wikinews would ideally be a better place for it, but WN simply has far too few contributors to support complex ongoing topics and has barely touched this one compared to the extensive attention that WP editors have given it.LeadSongDog come howl 05:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just because Wikinews isn't covering something as well as we'd like doesn't mean we should move into its scope. The users who wanted it in the article, although certainly good faith, are (I presume) new and not really aware of how Wikipedia operates. It's an encyclopedia. WP:TALK says that "The talk page can be used to store material from the article which has been removed because it is not verified, so that time can be given for references to be found" (boldface for emphasis). However, that's not the situation here. There are references. It was removed information goes against WP policy. It also is not meant to stay in the talk page permanently, but just until people find references. New, up to date information is welcome in the articles, but not in such a newsy format. Information can be added to the relevant pages/sections/tables, and not in a new section of its own. New information should be given no more weight than old information (per WP:NOT#NEWS). I hope that I've addressed your concerns, hmwithτ 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- We seem to agree on intent but not method. We've always maintained considerable lattitude in the content of talk pages provided that it is directed to improving the article. Having one editor find a reference is one thing. Having multiple editors examine the content of that reference is quite another. Clearly the one editor that added a ref in the first place thought it important. Other editors should at least have some chance to consider that the adding editor might be right in that assessment. It is absolutely a legitimate use of talk pages to share these potential additions for consideration, otherwise it would have to happen in articlespace, which would be altogether messier. If five days on the talk page is too long a consideration period, name another time, but let's not exclude the consideration on a misconstrued reading of WP:TALK. LeadSongDog come howl 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do see your point. I just didn't want people thinking it could remain there forever and have people updating it constantly while it was on the talk page. However, if you really think it should be on the talk page, I trust your judgment, and I won't revert you re-adding it. hmwithτ 14:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you.LeadSongDog come howl 15:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do see your point. I just didn't want people thinking it could remain there forever and have people updating it constantly while it was on the talk page. However, if you really think it should be on the talk page, I trust your judgment, and I won't revert you re-adding it. hmwithτ 14:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- We seem to agree on intent but not method. We've always maintained considerable lattitude in the content of talk pages provided that it is directed to improving the article. Having one editor find a reference is one thing. Having multiple editors examine the content of that reference is quite another. Clearly the one editor that added a ref in the first place thought it important. Other editors should at least have some chance to consider that the adding editor might be right in that assessment. It is absolutely a legitimate use of talk pages to share these potential additions for consideration, otherwise it would have to happen in articlespace, which would be altogether messier. If five days on the talk page is too long a consideration period, name another time, but let's not exclude the consideration on a misconstrued reading of WP:TALK. LeadSongDog come howl 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
A note re: Rorschach test
Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xenotalk 14:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I will be participating in that discussion. hmwithτ 15:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Mrs Rey
I note that you have reinstated Hayley Rey in the list Hayley as a reality TV entertainer, even though this is not mentioned either in the article about the stated program or in the target article about her husband. Notability is not inherited, nor gained by marriage; why include her in the list? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- She's one of the main characters on Dr. 90210. If I can find a reliable source later today that states she is in the show, I will add that to the Dr. 90210 article. hmwithτ 18:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Done hmwithτ 15:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers - well done. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for coming out
I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I wish you didn't withdraw, but best of luck! hmwithτ 15:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Abd/JzG
Sorry hmwith, I've been out for the last month with exams, travel, and various other obligations. Sorry I wasn't around for this case; when it closed, I was right in the middle of exams. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. The issue was that my computer charger broke during the cases, so neither of us were available. They both closed & are alright now though. Cheers, hmwithτ 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not that cool. I just fake it...
Trust me... I just bullshit REALLY well. Just sound convincing when you say something, and anyone will believe it. Thanks for the encouraging word anyways. How you been, anyways? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Never been better. Life is good... except spring finals being next week, but it will be summer soon enough. How about yourself? hmwithτ 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, you know, alive and survivin. We had a another baby in January, so now I stay at home with a three year old and a 5 month old. Its a lot of work, but somehow I still find time for teh drahmaz... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ooh, the dramaz. There's always time for that. hmwithτ 17:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, and congrats on the new little you! Just what the world needs... hmwithτ 17:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, you know, alive and survivin. We had a another baby in January, so now I stay at home with a three year old and a 5 month old. Its a lot of work, but somehow I still find time for teh drahmaz... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Templates for bot
Hey Hmwith, Thanks for doing those templates-I know very little about that stuff, must learn one day! I think I'm probably going to use the top one, basic but will fit in with most people's userpages, if that's OK? Thanks! Dotty••|☎ 14:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
|
The Template Barnstar | |
| Thanks for doing those templates for me, appreciate it. Dotty••|☎ 14:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC) |
- Of course! :) I figured you wanted something that was the most simple, but I made a few others just for kicks. I'm glad that you found one that you liked. Enjoy! hmwithτ 14:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Title for Template:2009 swine flu outbreak table
The table gives the WHO figures for detected cases. "Human cases by country" clearly implies an estimate of the total number of infections/deaths. Where credible estimates of actual numbers exist these are an order of magnitude or two greater than the number of detections so the difference is important. Leaving the title as "Human cases by country" is seriously misleading and is not justified by a minor aesthetic point. This is to notify you that I've changed it back. Barnaby dawson (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your point fully. I just wish there was a way to have a title that didn't span two lines when transcluded on the 2009 swine flu outbreak article. hmwithτ 14:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Outlines
Sorry I didn't reply, re the post on Help Desk about Outlines of Knowledge. I agree that it would be a good idea to start a discussion re. the outlines, becuase I can see potential problems! Dotty••|☎ 07:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I moved further discussion of this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge hoping to get some response/discussion started. hmwithτ 14:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the request for comment.
Hello Hmwith. The link to the request is hereTalk:Rajneesh_movement#RfC:_Title_for_this_page . (Off2riorob (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC))
- Thanks. I would participate, but I have no knowledge of the subject whatsoever. It's posted on WP:Requests for comment/History and geography, so it should be getting some attention. I'd post a note on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/History and geography asking for an evaluation and possible closure. hmwithτ 14:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. I will do that. regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC))
Straw poll on displaying time since last edit
Hi, you weighed in on the "display time since last edit on article" discussion at the Village pump. I have now started a straw poll on the subject at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Straw poll. Your opinion would be appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the heads up. I commented on all 3 polls. hmwithτ 16:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Kings
That's a very good rewrite. I voted to keep and recommend closing as speedy keep. Thanks for all your hard work. -- ₪ Amused Repose Converse! 19:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
|
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
| For totally blowing away WP:HEY on the Kings article, I award this barnstar to HMWITH. Thanks! ₪ Amused Repose Converse! 19:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
- Thanks! I'd been meaning to do that for a while, but the nom motivated me to get it done. hmwithτ 20:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Swine flu article moves
You missed a couple, but they weren't protected so I just went ahead and did them myself. The only one I didn't move was 2009 swine flu outbreak actions concerning pigs, because this is the one article where it probably makes sense to stick to the original title.
Additionally, most of the various templates haven't been renamed, but I see no point in renaming them since their titles aren't seen by readers anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I figured I missed some, but I had to leave. I knew that a few people were hanging around, so I figured that someone could cover me. :) Thanks for doing just that, & thanks for the barnstar. The flying pigs are hilarious. hmwithτ 17:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I've no issue with how you read or implemented consensus... The "immediate" consensus certainly supported the move. I shouldn't really complain in the first place; I took the main '09 swine flu article off my watchlist because it was too busy. I only noticed the change when you passed through the Canada article =) Curious, what are your thoughts on the different country articles not necessarily taking the same name of the main article? I know in Canada, it's definitely still swine-this, swine-that. ;> –xenotalk 22:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd prefer that they would all follow the same format for consistency, and if consensus is to add swine flu back to the name, then I'll get to work renaming. I honestly didn't think I'd see much objection judging from previous discussion there. I didn't know it was so quite this controversial. :) Thanks for the clearing up though, as I thought (originally) that you saw my move as going against consensus. hmwithτ 04:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree (re: consistency). We'll see where it goes, I'm not particularly fussed one way or the other =) –xenotalk 08:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Swine Flu Barnstar | |
| For diligently moving and updating dozens of swine flu outbreak articles to reflect the new pandemic classification, I hereby award you this special barnstar. Congratulations! ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC) |
Taking me out of context
Hi, I noticed you taking part of my statement on the paid editing RfC out of context—please see my reply on my statement and my comment on the talk page for my two replies to your comments. Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 04:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, my mistake. I'm very sorry. I apologize and cross out anything referring to you n my comment. I was just making my point, and I wanted to refer to the place in the conversation when I originally said it. Read my full response here. Cheers, hmwithτ 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks; don't worry about it. I just don't want to be misquoted on a controversial topic; I don't hold it against you. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 06:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Missing the point
Talk:2009 flu pandemic#disappointed archiving bot archives so quick Nil Einne, it's not off-topic. One sets (on a specific talk page) whether or not a bot automatically archives it and how often it does so. Therefore, that talk page is where one should discuss it, as that is where the code for frequency is located and decided upon. hmwithτ 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to be completely missing the point, please read what I said carefully. It is on topic to discuss the timing of archives and any code that is modifiable on the page which I made clear on my post. It is off topic to request that the maintaners of the bot, who are unlikely to be reading the page, add features to the bot which are not currently available, as Daniel.Cardenas requested and which I pointed out what off topic and which is indeed off topic. Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think he knew that he was suggesting a new feature for the bot. It seems he thought we could actually set it like that, perhaps because bots are capable of cutting off an archive at a size limit (example). However, I didn't mean to belittle you at all, and I apologize for making you feel that way. hmwithτ 14:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Apologies
Please forgive my persistent stupidity as I couldn't find the appropriate section from which to gauge consensus from about the swine flu move. However, there are/were a few left confused by the dropping of swine. Likely none more than I. Thanks. -Pecoc (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Haha, no problem at all. The only reason I have been able to somewhat keep up with that talk page is the constant checking of it. It gets pretty ridiculous. No worries. :) hmwithτ 13:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Quoted
Not too shabby! :) ceranthor 00:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Oh em gee, I'm famous! Too bad that they capitalized my username though, haha. hmwithτ 14:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but need help with prodding
I put up the Engineering college rankings in India question on the help desk a couple days back, which you answered and, as I can't quite find a specific barnstar to thank/award you, I'd like to give you:
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| For helping me (a rather inexperienced editor) improve a troublesome article. Thanks! --Leif edling (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC) |
But I need a bit more by way of help: as you are a mod, could you please tell me if a page listing educational institutions by rankings based on quality (or any such "rankings" article) is a valid entry to wikipedia? Does wikipedia have a policy against this? I ask this because this would be an important reason cited within the prod message. Hope you don't mind me asking this on your talk page. Thanks. --Leif edling (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, thank you for the barnstar! :) And this is a great question to ask on my talk page. I don't mind at all.
- To answer your question, WP doesn't have a specific policy against those, but all articles must have reliable sources and be both verifiable and encyclopedic. I'd say that they are taken care of on a case-by-case basis. If you have any particular articles in mind that you'd like me to check out, let me know. hmwithτ 14:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with the article I've been talking about is that the rank lists are haphazardly (and, in places, incorrectly) presented. Yet, as wikipedia does not have a specific policy against such articles, it's not as if the article should not be there. This is why I feel putting it up for deletion could be too harsh a step. Then, again, I feel that as the sources vary vastly in their representation of rankings (are these actually reliable sources?), and there is no material apart from rankings, there is little scope for improving the article. Should I prod it? And any are there any strong reasons I could provide in the prod message? (Sorry for contacting you here again as, on the help desk, the questions tend to become obsolete fast and I often end up getting half answers). Thanks. --Leif edling (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I cleaned it up a lot. I also removed a lot of WP:COPYVIO information. As long as the article is not a list, and it just discusses the fact that rankings are done in general, I think it can stay. Maybe a history section would help out. It should be an article, though, if it is written in prose. hmwithτ 20:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow! Can't thank you enough for cleaning up the mess. I know this note of gratefulness feels a tad insipid, but I can tell you that seeing that an article which was so poorly written has been cleaned up so nicely feels like closure. --Leif edling (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! It's amazing what can result from some spare time and motivation. :) hmwithτ 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow! Can't thank you enough for cleaning up the mess. I know this note of gratefulness feels a tad insipid, but I can tell you that seeing that an article which was so poorly written has been cleaned up so nicely feels like closure. --Leif edling (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I cleaned it up a lot. I also removed a lot of WP:COPYVIO information. As long as the article is not a list, and it just discusses the fact that rankings are done in general, I think it can stay. Maybe a history section would help out. It should be an article, though, if it is written in prose. hmwithτ 20:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with the article I've been talking about is that the rank lists are haphazardly (and, in places, incorrectly) presented. Yet, as wikipedia does not have a specific policy against such articles, it's not as if the article should not be there. This is why I feel putting it up for deletion could be too harsh a step. Then, again, I feel that as the sources vary vastly in their representation of rankings (are these actually reliable sources?), and there is no material apart from rankings, there is little scope for improving the article. Should I prod it? And any are there any strong reasons I could provide in the prod message? (Sorry for contacting you here again as, on the help desk, the questions tend to become obsolete fast and I often end up getting half answers). Thanks. --Leif edling (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Ping
It's not a problem, I just needed to ask an Arbitrator or a clerk something, and at that point, you were the only one on that had not been idle for like four days :P J.delanoygabsadds 16:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, makes sense. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't something important. I hope that you got the assistance you needed. hmwithτ 16:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Rodents
Hi Hmwith! Just wanted to drop you a line, letting you know I've proposed a new Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Rodents. I'm not sure how much time you have to devote to a wikiproject, or how focused you'd like to be on rodents, but feel free to comment there or add your name if you're interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zappernapper (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for the heads up. I support it, & I'll definitely help out. hmwithτ 01:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)