User talk:Hellno2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Hellno2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Res2216firestar 19:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Résumé and employee fraud

It's not customary to discuss two similar yet distinct topics under a split title. If you want to combine the topics, it'll need to be something that encompasses them both (and possibly other things). Otherwise you could end up with countless pairings of similar topics in articles that duplicate what is said in their standalone articles. Obviously, that's a worst case scenario, but they should either be separate or the article should be renamed to be broader. Leebo T/C 01:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I was first thinking of having these in separate articles, and I am still considering it a possibility. But at the present, I am in the process of researching these ideas and looking for the exact terminology for various acts. I have found a lot of contradictory information of numerous websites, so for now, I am trying to sort out fact from fiction, while providing the rudimentary information on these concepts.

I have renamed the article to "Job fraud" so that it not sound so split. Hellno2 16:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've gone through the redirects to the page and made sure that they all redirect to job fraud. Moving pages multiple times tends to result in double redirects which slow down people trying to get to the article. Leebo T/C 19:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Bayview.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bayview.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hacking (taxicab)

I noticed that you put a {{notability}} tag on the new Hacking article I am working on.

I personally feel this tag is controversial, since a Wikipedia article can be about any topic, as long as valid references can be provided. I know there are valid references on hacking. The most memorable one I have ever seen was one in the Baltimore Sun some years ago that described in detail the practice of hacking, its pitfalls for hacker and customer alike, and how local law enforcement was cracking down on such activity. As I have searched on Google for other sources on the topic, many of the articles I have found that are suitable as references also describe the city of Baltimore, which leads me to believe that Baltimore takes such action very seriously, perhaps more than many other cities.

In order to be more global, I am considering renaming the article to "Illegal taxicab operation" or something similar, and expanding its topic to also include the unlicensed operation of a marked taxicab vehicle (sometimes known as a "gypsy cab"). There are plenty of online references available on that. Hellno2 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In order to establish notability, please list the sources like the Baltimore Sun article you've mentioned. It is easy to believe a topic to be notable, but until you list the specific references per main point you're writing about in the article, it is not only technically not notable, but also unsourced. As to renaming the article, I believe you should rename the article's title, but have the term hacking still in reference inside the article. You may also want to establish a disambiguation for the term as well. Happy Holidays! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 21:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes

Hi Hellno. I appreciate why you have made a chart in Common outcomes - however, it makes editing more difficult - just difficult enough to outweigh any neat visual advantage. The ease of reading of a chart v paragraphs is debatable, and runs counter to Wiki consensus and guidelines. Unless you have strong opinions on this, I will restore the article to easy editable paragraphs. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of United States death row inmates

An editor has nominated List of United States death row inmates, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States death row inmates and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:BAYVIEW.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BAYVIEW.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 911

Thanks for being bold and trying to improve the 911 articles. However, there is a consensus on Wikipedia not to do this--see the talk page, for example. I'm working now on undoing the changes. Matchups (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Years are given the primary article. That is why 1 is about the number and not the year. Do not move these pages back around.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legality of Piggybacking

Hi, please don't create subpages in mainspace. We don't use subpages in mainspace because it can have problematic issues. I have moved the content of Legality of Piggybacking/to do to Talk:Legality of Piggybacking. Cenarium (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Curious George

Hi Hellno. An edit you made in February 2007 was recently the subject of a blog post and was then removed. Just FYI, here is the relevant thread on the talk page. If you actually have a source for this material, you may consider restoring it. Otherwise, the matter may as well be closed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allowance (engineering)

I suggest adding many references to the article while do the major edit to keep it off the deletion list. Cheers! WikiZorro 23:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is under construction, and will take several days. It was actually part of another incoherently-written article that I have split into a dab page.Hellno2 (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Old car

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Old car, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Being "under construction" does not exempt an article from proposal for deletion, when the article obviously has no place at Wikipedia. I am proposing this for deletion again, and if you remove it again, I will immediately submit it to AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Old car

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Old car, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There's already a used car article. This material might be better placed there instead. Most of your sources would lean more toward "used car" than "old car" anyway. Think it over. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I do have each article listed in the "see also" section of the other. But I do believe they belong separate, because an old car is one that is up in age, and may have its original owner, but a used car is one that simply was previously owned by someone else, regardless of its age. I have thought that perhaps "Vehicle age" may be a good title for this article. This way, it can describe at a NPOV the impact a vehicle's age has on the vehicle and its owner.Hellno2 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pin the Tail on the Donkey

Your request for an "expert" on this game fits, in more ways than one, a bit of dialogue from Duck Soup where Groucho Marx says, "This document is so easy a 4-year-old child could understand it!" Then, in an aside to an advisor, "Go out and find me a 4-year-old child. I can't make head or tail of it!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The expert request was not for information on the game itself, but for one who knows of references in order to establish notability. This article just survived an AFD, so I thought it would be a good idea in order to help improve the article.Hellno2 (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the tag said, "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject", so I took it literally. Hee-haw! :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of the {{expert}} tag is to attempt to recruit someone who does not simply have the knowledge, but someone who is familiar with Reliable Sources on the topic. For example, most people know the earth is round. But an "expert" as requested by such a tag would be able to provide official documentation beyond word of mouth of the fact.Hellno2 (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Then maybe the tag should be re-worded to actually say that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Old car

I have nominated Old car, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old car. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)