User talk:Kmsom

Notes about me
I am affiliated with Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) and focus on articles related to SOM. Kmsom (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ross Wimer
Thank you for creating the article Ross Wimer. I noticed that you signed this article. Signing articles is only for talk pages, not main article pages. I have removed your signature, alone with making other changes to the article. Please do not sign any other articles that you edit. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! This was my first article and for some reason, I thought I was supposed to sign new articles and changes--sorry about that. I will keep that off in the future. Thanks-- (Kmsom (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Pearl River Tower
Your additions to the Pearl River tower page are fine, but they do not belong on the pearl river page. Create a page about Thomas Kerwin OR document with facts that Thomas Kerwin worked on the project (not just that he talked about it or that he works at SOM). I still contest that the references belong elsewhwer. Prove me otherwise with valid references (see wikipedia's policy on sources). 03:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Brad Wilkins (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Additions to the page are nice. thank you for your hard work. but some of your references still do not meet standard.Brad Wilkins (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You cannot remove information that is referenced or change it for marketing purposes. You must not remove referenced information without discussion on the talk page. Refer to Wikipedia standards. If you continue to blank information and violate Wikipedia standards action will be taken against you, your company and all ip addresses associated. Revert your changes or make them comply UNBIASED. Brad Wilkins (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Burj Kalifa
Correct, yes. Important to the heading of the article, no. The managing partner is not of interest to the public. And usually the engineers are not either (this is an exception where the engineering is very important). The managing parnter could be mentioned in this article, but it should not be at the begining. This introductory paragraph has already become too much about people claiming portions of the project. The wikipedia mission is to introduce the building and key points only. Your inclusion as the mangaing partner is not of general interest. Please follow wikipedia standards.

If you think it is important, and that this must be included let other opine on the talk page before editing. Instead you are soley looking out for your own interests. This is why your inclusion will not remain. If you can get other administrators of wikipedia to agree that it is pertinent to the opening of the article, then I will allow it to remain. Brad Wilkins (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Thank you! Shirt58 (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk
- Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Any affiliation with Skidmore, Owings and Merrill?
I see that you have edited Skidmore, Owings and Merrill and related articles quite a bit. You also have "som" as part of you user name. Are you affiliated in any way with the firm? If so, please read and follow WP:COI. Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am affiliated with SOM (which is why I included that in the username, in an attempt for transparency). I missed including the affiliation on my talk page + will do that now. I monitor various SOM-related pages, so I noticed that citations were required for some items, so I added citations from various independent sources. Kmsom (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits
You marked each of these ten edits as minor. Some of them are clearly not. Adding an entirely new source is not, though cleaning up the format of an existing sourxe may be. Please read WP:MINOR for more on when to properly tag an edit as minor. Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I will certainly re-read the minor edit guidelines. Thanks so much. Kmsom (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ross Wimer for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ross Wimer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ross Wimer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Removing AfD template
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Ross Wimer. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t &bull; c &raquo;  14:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Wimer
Hey, I've closed that discussion. I'm guessing the step you missed was fixing up the deletion log.

In general, if there are any remaining delete !votes, even if the nominator withdraws you should wait for a proper "close", not just undoing the discussion, and since Alan L still had an outstanding !vote, well, I'd usually suggest just waiting in such cases for an admin to come along and close the discussion, usually it's not too long of a wait. No worries, just thought I'd mostly answer your question about why getting rid of the AfD template at the article didn't take. Have a great day! --joe deckertalk to me 16:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I am a complete novice when it comes to articles for deletion so this information really helps. Thanks again! Kmsom (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)