User talk:Hmwith

your so stupid how could u erase a page on a famous rapper.

TuneyFish

Hi, I appreciate your efforts for wanting to keep Wikipedia clear of spam, but I have to admit that deleting a page about someones lifes work and passion by calling it spam is over the top. The purpose of the page was to describe the mission behind utilizing video as a means of learning, by watching things you understand difficult concepts and people can become that much more knowledgeable about subjects that they may never have thought they could learn. I used to think that Wikipedia was something that would embrace these types of things but instead you all seem to treat it like it belongs to you and on that note I will let you have at it.

The change that needs to take place in this world should begin in places where people like you decide what is and what isn't good information. Do you want to know how the auto industry will become fully capable of producing electric vehicles? Do you think it will come from the automakers or possibly from collaboration and communities like TuneyFish.

Its good to know that companies like Youtube stay and ones like Common Craft who are creating helpful videos get deleted Kwick6 (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when you're finished soapboxing, you can take a look at the guidelines set out to determine whether or not an article belongs on Wikipedia. Administrators are neutral parties that are supposed to enforce these rules without prejudice, and you're not making it any easier. GlassCobra 04:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

GC said it well. Please don't feel like the article you created was streated differently from any other article. Wikipedia has notability guidelines that I did not create. My job is to simply enforce these long-standing standards. If TuneyFish becomes more notable in the future, it may certainly warrant an article. Thanks for your patience, and let me know if there are any further concerns, hmwithτ 04:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the guidelines, and the notability guidelines and it seems that had I provided the sources that "back up" what I am contributing this may have been avoided. I understand the role of administrator and have spent years donating my time on message boards and cleaning up the threads, so I know what that is all about. Kwick6 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"If TuneyFish becomes more notable in the future, it may certainly warrant an article." Notable meaning there are sources posted on the article, as mentioned in Note 2. of the notability guidelines? If that is what you mean then I apologize that I didn't have time to create the entire page before saving it to come back and finish later. Also, I noticed mention that someone other than myself should be the one who creates it? It seems to me that it would be much more valuable to have the information coming from the source, with additional input added by others who consider it notable. Kwick6 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If an article isn't quite ready for the mainspace yet, you can create/edit the article in your userspace (at User:Kwick6\sandbox for exmaple). As for you not creating it, are you talking about a conflict of interest on your part? hmwithτ 06:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Was referring to this: "The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic." from note2 here notability guidelines Kwick6 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, there have to be independent, reliable sources cited regarding the subject. hmwithτ 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

I have decided to become active on this Wikipedia once again. Just thought that I would let you know :). Cheers, Razorflame 19:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. =) I hope you choose to stay. hmwithτ 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)