Jump to content

User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2009 November

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is an Online Ambassador on the English Wikipedia
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

OOO as alumnus of Northcentral University

It is important that people who are in the military and are derployed in war zones realise that one of their leaders has taken an MBA and PhD from this school which is recognized for promotional and other purposes by the US military and US Educational Department. This an educational opportunity as the programs are pretty much offered online and can be taken in Baghdad or Kabul provided they can get their hand on the course books. Apart from reducing trauma and providing focus and a goal to look forward to, the university can provide them with confidence to take these courses and help in acquiring skills to reintegrate into civilian life in the future. The details of the courses that Gen Olin has taken can be foun d here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.209.100 (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect Kushagra Nayan Bajaj

Kindly unprotect my Kushagra Nayan Bajaj article. In future I will keep the proper information. Kapil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranakapil (talk • contribs) 10:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jaicko

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jaicko. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrewsilb (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Alvin Fields

[Message and my reply deleted by its author.]

Re: Sock

Hi, I am new here and quite surprised with the harsh words u threw to my page. I really want to know the reason why my first article on Start-Up@Singapore was deleted, so that I can improve on it. You guys mentioned conficts of interest? But what I do was just trying to produce an article on this competition (on which I m doing a research) with due objectivity. I am trying to do it by improving on the old one, which I have a copy before u guys took it down for biased tone and lack of reference I believe. I can't understand why improving a supposedly biased article is prevented here! I am planning to write about not just start-up@Singapore, but also a series on entrepreneurship environment in Singapore, which I am very facinated about and find it the most appealing topic to start my contribution here. So pls advice me on what I can do. Thks a lot.

Kelsie Nguyen (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello RHaworth. An aid towards better understanding Ms. Nguyen's fascination can be found at http://www.linkedin.com/in/kelsienguyen. Best, MuffledThud (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your geo converter

Note to self - action. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverts of 80.47.96.220

The last two reverts you did weren't vandalism, any reason or perhaps you just got carried away :-) ? --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Welcome

I actually do. Usually if the username is a name I will, or if their first contrib looks like their userspace (lots of companies put up their 'ad' in userspace, ha). This one slipped by me as I'm sure a couple of others have, but technically spammers deserve a welcome too I suppose. If anything they can ask me about COI/RS. But thanks for letting me know. JoeSmack Talk 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

untruth

Oh i have forgot to delete those things.I had to got someplace a soon as I reverted the edit.I WILL delete it.--Anesleyp (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I have deleted the things that are untrue after this you should not edit my user page unless you have a specific reason and I will not contact you anymore,so you have no reason to contact me anymore nor will I contact you.--Anesleyp (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I have edited them that's why I put them there now after this DO NOT edit my user page or contact me and I have nothing to prove to you so leave me alone.--Anesleyp (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Hines

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen hines. You had previously prodded this article, but the prod was removed without explanation. I just nominated it for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Kyle Conway

Was it an attack page? I tagged A7 because presuming it was an article written about the author that was intended to be more humorous than negative. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Notifying of CSD noms

I'm a little surprised to see an administrator who is nominating articles for speedy deletion and not notifying the creators of those pages[1]. When these users return and see their creation is gone, and they don't know why, they are more likely to simply re-create it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, CSDWarnBot may be up and running again soon, there is an ongoing discussion of how to fix the issues that lead to it being shut down on the CSD talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There are many additional reasons to inform the article creator/uploader. Many people, newbies and not so newbies, upload material that doesn't comply with our policies through good faith mistakes and misunderstandings:
    1. Personally, I believe our civility conventions should oblige our quality control volunteers to make an attempt to let good to good faith contributors know they are making mistakes, because it is a disservice to good faith contributors to let them go on, and innocently make the same mistakes all over again. When our quality control volunteers don't bother to attempt to explain that they are making mistakes they are squandering the good faith uploaders time and energy.
    2. Not bothering to inform the good faith uploader of their mistake, so they keep making the same mistake, all over again, makes more work for other quality control volunteers. Somebody is going to end up dealing with the innocent mistakes they make the first quality control volunteer didn't make the effort to let them know they were making mistakes.
    3. Not bothering to inform the good faith contributor of their mistake(s) is damaging to the project because it makes that promising new contributor think the wikipedia is unreliable. Newbies usage can be intermittent. They return to the wikipedia after a sufficiently long time that their deleted article doesn't show up on their watchlist. They might not know how to use their watchlist. They are unlikely to know how to use the deletion log. So the good faith contributor who make innocent mistakes will puzzle over why they can't find the material they contributed. They deserve to know their contribution is gone for a good rational reason, that it didn't disappear because the wikipedia is broken and unreliable. In my opinion it is essential that the uploader/creator gets a permanent record of its deletion.
    4. The final reason might be the most important. Humans are fallible. Humans entrusted with administrator authority remain fallible. They are going to make mistakes, and, occasionally, innocently, and in good faith, delete material that didn't actually merit deleltion. It is damaging to the wikipedia when administrators who forgot that they too are fallible don't inform the contributors when they delete material. How else are they going to get the feedback that lets them know that some of their deletions have been mistakes?
  • Let me mention a related phenomenon. Maybe you have never encountered it, or haven't recognized it. But I have. Where do our vandals come from? Some vandals never had any intention of cooperating, or making a positive contribution. But other vandals started off as promising newbies, whose contribution habits weren't yet formed. They really need the quality control volunteers they interact with to make an effort to strictly comply with both the spirit and the letter of our civility policies -- in order to set an example. When newbies see quality control volunteers take liberties with our civility polices they think our policies aren't supposed to be taken seriously. They think the wikipedia's more experienced contributors are hypocrites, who want to run a closed club -- no newcomers allowed.
  • IMO not being respectful to new promising contributors, who made good faith mistakes, and silently deleting their contributions without notice, risks creating new vandals.
  • It is distressing to see a once promising newbie go rogue, and follow the example of the quality control volunteers who showed them the example that it was okay to cut corners with our policy. I have seen once-promising newbies start trying to get away with ignoring our policies. They get caught, get slapped down, escalate, and end up being permanently blocked. It is heart-breaking.
  • So I encourage you to follow both the spirit and the letter of our policies, and make sure the uploader/creator is informed their contribution was deleted, in every single case. Of course if you are merely concluding a deletion where someone else tagged the article for speedy deletion, the tagger should have already left the necessary heads-up.
Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • A key word is "good faith" - the majority of cases where I do not issue warnings are patently not good faith contributions. As to going rogue, I suspect that this is a very rare occurrence. But this all a bit theoretical, please cite some cases where an editor has gone rogue or otherwise generated extra work for quality controllers because I did not give them a warning. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I am a good faith contributor. Yet I have had other contributors -- even a couple of administrators who should have known better -- swear up and down I am a bad-faith contributor. Because our corps of administrators remain human, and thus fallible, I believe it would be best if a heads-up was left on the uploader/creator's talk page, in every single case.
    • I can provide no evidence that a once-promising contributor went rogue solely because you didn't give them any warnings. No offense, but I don't recognize your wiki-id well enough to know your activities. I can't remember if we have engaged in a dialog before. If you are suggesting I conduct some kind of forensic examination of your contribution history I think I will decline that invitation. I don't think it would be a good use of my time to write, or anyone else's time to read.
    • But as to whether the time of other volunteers was wasted because a good faith contributor wasn't advised they were making serious mistakes -- if they made one mistake, and you didn't let them know, surely you will agree they are very likely to keep repeating that mistake? And surely you acknowledge addressing their future mistakes consumes other volunteers time? Geo Swan (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Please look at this Twinkle message where I have been forced to say "welcome" three times. Now if I were going to say anything by way of welcome to this person it would be: "if you can demonstrate that you understand what an encyclopedia is and intend to make useful contributions, then I might be prepared to welcome you". If Twinkle gave me some control over the welcome message, then I might be prepared to use it more. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You can't control the message, but you can control whether you will put in a welcome message at all. I believe TwinkleConfig.welcomeUserOnSpeedyDeletionNotification is what you are looking for. Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In your monobook.js, add this:
TwinkleConfig = {
welcomeUserOnSpeedyDeletionNotification : []
};
I think we are all agreed that the inflexibility of automated messages does not help personalized communication. I use twinkle, but I look at what it has done, and edit it, by adding and deleting. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In reference to Untruth

Just a little non-too-important note... Anesleyp might possibly have taken yet something else of someone's. You never know. He/she has been known to do so in the past. But one thing to add... I remember when I first started editing, I thought being able to have my own page was the coolest thing. I started looking at others user pages (which led to me doing crazy stuff about reporting people, but anyways). When I saw what one user had, it led into me taking their idea. So basically what I wanted to say was is that he MAY (and also MAYbe not) have taken someone else's idea and/or content.

Also don't let the 52 mainspace edits fool you. Because at least 21 of them are complete reverts. But possibly more than 21 because he was also having an editing war with Uker; so who knows how many extra are just "revert" that he removed content "manually" (meaning without the easy one-click revert button, but "reverting manually" by removing content by editing the page). So we are only looking at a maximum of 31 edits. Not much more than me; I was just informing you so that you didn't have to go through all the work of looking through his contribs as you have in the past. But I just found it interesting that almost 40% of his total mainspace edits were complete reverts. (21 out of 52) ⊥m93 talk. 00:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

^^The "52" link above is broken, but if you go here, then click another one, then click the last out of the 4, then click the address link, and then type his username. You'll see what I mean. I tried to give you the exact link, but that's the closest I could get. Every "closer" link wouldn't work oddly enough. ⊥m93 talk. 00:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The "52" link was trivially easy to fix - try it now. But why don't you use the edit counter that has a link at the bottom of your contributions page: Tm93 and Aneselyp. You could both spend more time actually editing articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Look at special:contributions/Tm93. Do you see an "Edit count" link at the bottom? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I do now. Thanks. ⊥m93 talk. 04:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Summer scene

I'm not sure how to handle this, either. Please show or tell me. Talk:Summer scene ⊥m93 talk. 01:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your explanation was a little fuzzy to me, but I think I got the gist of it. ⊥m93 talk. 03:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

*sigh. Lemme explain what part I said was "fuzzy". You said, "Obviously you include The Swimming Hole." The reason this was "fuzzy" was because I saw no reason as to how it related to our topic of discussion except for maybe that it too is an "Oil on canvas". The reason I didn't see it clearly was because I have no involvement what-so-ever in that article. I'm glad we have another featured article, but that's beside the point. But I did have an overall understanding of what you were saying. You were saying if I felt it needed to be fixed, that I should make a disambiguation page.
On a second note: I know things written on WP are written in plain text. But all those exclamation marks and your wording implies that you are frustrated. Now maybe you are, are frankly I don't care. I was coming to you for advice. If you wish not give advice, I'll ask someone... anyone. But no. I asked you because I felt like it and I see you as someone who, even in past experiences, has always shown me what's right. But I could continue without your implied sarcasm. ⊥m93 talk. 04:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

  • Excellent. Are you going to offer any explanation of why you plagiarised? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I rather not,im too ashamed of what I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anesleyp (talk • contribs) 01:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

my spelling

has been a joke ever since the 2nd grade. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

NASA copyrights

Just for your information, I noticed you marked Observer (Quantum Physics) as a copyvio. Technically it's more like plagiarism, because the NASA site is in the public domain. (Work of the U.S. Government, see {{PD-NASA}}.)

Best practice would still be to rewrite the article independently, citing the NASA document as a source. TheFeds 08:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hortatives

Thanks for the cleanup, I missed a lot of those. And thanks for the reference. That was a new feature for me and one I couldn't figure out. --Drew.ward (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

IR theory

As you tagged Great Debates in international relations theory as OR I'll assume you're not familiar with this area. Yep the article on international relations theory should be twice its current length (all offline sources so coverage woeful) though if you look at the page history I am slowly expanding it and trying to give it a bit more structure. The stubs I'm creating are capable of being decent standalone articles at some point. I just need time/help!  Francium12  07:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Vdiest

Do not confuse National Park with the Transfontier park?!! I did not find any spelling mistakes?!!This also applies to the greater Addo National Park, not to be confused with the Addo National Park. The same will be done for some parks that will merge in the near future.Flagman (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry , looked completely over that spelling mistake, oooeeepsFlagman (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Coffey Article

I left a response for you on the articles for deletion page. You comment seems a COI, on it's own but thank you for the critique.Siinda (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion tag

Why did you remove my placement of a CSD:G7 deletion tag on the MorphThing article? It is an extremely poorly put together article with no secondary sources. I created this before I really knew Wikipedia guidelines. It was nominated for deletion and was kept as no one else voted and therefore, consensus were not reached. I would like to have this article speedily deleted, hence my tag. $©@®©Ξ 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Actually, I did not notice that it was a db-author request - I just assumed db-web! It seemed a well-written article with sufficient claims for notability. It had survived for several months and a glance at the history suggested multiple contributors. But why bother to ask me? Just take it to AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Ashley-Hacker

Just a quick, friendly note on Mark Ashley-Hacker. There's just barely enough of a claim of importance to avoid the speedy, so I had to decline it. However, a gsearch shows notability may well not be there, so feel free to prod or take to AfD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Howard Unruh/Camden massacre

Your message to me is:

Unruly numbers of cats

If you want more cats, what is wrong with this edit? Category:Massacres in the United States Category:Spree shootings in the United States

Category:Murder in New Jersey

There is nothing wrong with it except that each of those categories consists mostly or entirely of the name given to the incidents, usually the city in which it occurred, rather than the name of each individual killer. Of course, there’s nothing posted in that category ruling out a person’s name. If there’s a way of posting rules for a category, I’m unaware of it.

I call to your attention to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Disadvantages of categories, specifically

  • Categories give no context for any specific entry, nor any elaboration; only the name of the article is given. That is, listings cannot be annotated (with descriptions nor comments), nor referenced.
  • Alternative names for the same item can be included only by including redirects in the category.

That problem will be solved when Wikipedia creates the option to categorize a page under a name different than the name of that page. Suppose the following example
Category:Massacres in the United States|Camden massacre
placed on the page of Unruh results in
Camden massacre
displayed at the page Category:Massacres in the United States. That’s one way to solve the problem. Another way would be the option for annotations to accompany a page name displayed in a category. I hope you can use your influence with Wikipedia to bring that about.Aardvarkzz (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sortase

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Sortase, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. It looks like a proper article is emerging. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Favonian (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WebDNA deletion

This wasn't a promotion at all, it was terse and yes, unbiased and was by no means an advertisement.

People want to know what WebDNA is, just like they do Lasso, Perl, Tcl, and other scripting languages.

It was deleted for: (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). It took me a long time to find the pertinent relations.. so please let me know why you think this was an advertisement.

Donovanbrooke (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Is it too difficult for you to create a link to the article? In fact it was 147.70.242.54 (talk · contribs) who applied the spam tag. My view was that since there was absolutely no evidence of notability, it was patently deletable. What on earth are pertinent relations? If the company was notable the pertinent relations would throw themselves at you in a Google search. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I'm not sure what you mean by "create a link to the article". What I meant by "pertinent relations" was internal links and the reference that I provided and that took time. I disagree with you about evidence of notability. Though WebDNA is not as well known as some of the other scripting languages, it has been around since the dawn of the internet and yes, you can easily find references to it using google. Type: "WebDNA" or "Server-side scripting language". I also provided a reference to the U.S. trademark office for verification of it's official registered history. In fact, I only created the WebDNA page because wikipedia already had a reference to WebDNA in its server-side scripting page, which was flagged as a blank page which needed to be created. Though I did make a correction to the suffix mappings on that server-side scripting page at the same time I created the WebDNA page, I did not initially create that reference. I hope you see that this was not meant as an advertisement/spam and that the article was created to simply be informational. In the delrev, it states that we should try to resolve the issue with the administrator/editor first, so this is the effort that I am making. Please consider re-establishing the article/page: "WebDNA". Donovanbrooke (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • "Not sure what you mean …" For goodness sake man! All I meant was what you have just done in this edit. Again regarding evidence of notability, we require links, in this case external ones to reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The link to the company's website is necessary but provides no evidence of notability. The link to the Trademark Office is almost pointless - any two-bit company can register a trademark. In fact it gives support to your "since the dawn of the Internet" claim but you failed to bring that out. (NB. you mean "since the dawn of the www" - remember there is more to the Internet than the web.) As to the link in server-side scripting, that was probably created by you last week. But here's the deal: recreate the article in user:Donovanbrooke/sandbox and come back to me. If you have provided sufficient evidence of notability, I may even move it to the (article) namespace. Or you can take it directly to delrev. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You state that you are involved with WebDNA please expand. If you work for the WebDNA company, that would make you dubious as a contributor. If you are merely a developer using WebDNA, that would be OK. Also what on earth does "ram-based" mean? How does WebDNA's use of ram differ from MySQL's use? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for the questions. I am a long-time (10 years) user of the language and yes, I recently took and held a position with the new owners (from June of 2008 to just this month). However, I no longer hold any position with them which is why I felt qualified to add that page. I am simply a fan and user of the language at this point, and really have always been as such. Regarding links, I thought I provided those, but if you can please send my previous contribution (noting your comments on your user page), I will post them on my SandBox for your consideration. Like I said, it took quite a while just to come up with the small amount of text and references/links that I did, so it would be helpful to have them back. (yes, I should have saved a copy). Regarding the link that "was probably created by you a week ago".. absolutely not, I have only registered to wikipedia for the first time ever this week. Regarding links, I thought I was contributing according to the rules, but if more external links are needed for validity, I can sure find those. Donovanbrooke (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Feed back requested on my user talk, thanks:User talk:Donovanbrooke/sandbox (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

YOUNG TRAE'

Hi. You may wish to salt this as it is re-created exactly as shown. ArcAngel (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

from Lando09

Sorry, I am now have a full understanding of the situation. Many thanks for the info on the Lee Sanderson article. I closed down the talk page as it was getting a little full, and didn't expect the swift response, which was obviously very welcome. Many thanks.Lando09 (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

from Scothill

Thank you for your help re Moffat Hills. I have uploaded my photos to The Commons and I have put the statement you gave me, complete with tags, onto the pages with the images - yet the radio active warning is still on the pages with the picture information warning that the pictures will be removed by 8th November if I don't put on tags. Do I do something about this or do you?

I am not sure what the problem is with my map. I created 4 master maps for the 4 main sections of my website when I first started the website around 10 years ago - by hand drawing layer upon layer in Photoshop over a scan from the relevant Ordnance Survey map much as you would use a light table. There is nothing of the Ordnance Survey map left in my maps except in so far as it has informed my drawing and every single pixel of it I have put there. My master maps cover the whole area for each of the four principal sub-sections within my site and from these I simply take the small section I need for each individual web gallery and work it up as required. So the base map that you asked about is a small reworked section from my West Borders master map and is entirely my own work.Scothill (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting things out for me Scothill (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Woo-woo prodding

Just to note that I think you meant to prod-warn User:TheThomas (who wrote the whole "woo-woo" article in one go today), rather than User:Antmusic (who created it as a redirect back in January). I'd already given him an explanation of why it wasn't great content for Wikipedia, earlier today, so it'd be good to have another editor formally backing that up. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Leigh Arnold page deletion

Hi there again, just dropping back to ask why the Leigh Arnold page was deleted when it was a biographical reference page of an actress. With links and citations to various TV shows etc that she appeared in. If you can tell me what was done wrong grand I will correct it, but there was no copyright infringement and having this notice on her page when clicked is quite damning.

I would appreciate a response to this as it has been almost a month now since my last request. Alex Gogan (1968- gulp!) (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fernando Torres

re caption; I was informed that one could not add such a detail, it was either available without restrictions or not at all.Lando09 (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Schell's Unconquerable World

You put a deletion notice on my book summary which I have removed with reasons given on the discussion page. I can discuss further. I also come from Croydon! Well Thornton Heath. There's a Flickr page... Szczels (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pankration (Holiday)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pankration (Holiday), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankration (Holiday). Singularity42 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Help!!!!! on the Dyslexia article

Sorry to bother your
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi. We have some disruptiove continually deleting content he personally does not agree with, nor wishes to discuss in any detail. — dolfrog (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness: I have discussed this, and in great detail. I'm not "deleting content", I removed a sentence that didn't jive with the references given; the user fails to understand that I don't object to the content, just its definiteness and novel synthesis. I have since made an attempt to reconciled problems rather than remove them. Given the repeating characters and clearly rushed comments, the user is getting very upset over something very trivial. DKqwerty (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not think DKqwerty is "talking drivel" and if anybody needs to "calm down", it is dolfrog. I suggest you continue your detailed discussion at talk:Dyslexia and solicit opinions from others who have edited the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alvin Fields

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alvin Fields. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim Song (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

edit

Would you mind editing something? I posted this request on wp:an, but nobody has done it yet. I need you to replace the content of user:btilm/signature with the following. 

<span style="padding:1px;font-size:11px;-moz-border-radius:1em;background-color:green;
border: 1px solid">[[User:Btilm|<span style="-moz-border-radius: 1em;
color:#FFFFFF;padding:1px;font-size:11px;background-color:green"> <b>Btilm</b> </span>]]</span>

Thanks.  Btilm  23:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion logs for the Effusia article.

Hi RHaworth,

I just noted that a stub article titled 'Effusia' I posted on Nov. 9th, which is an Instant-Messaging software provider that I once used, was apparently not only speedily deleted, but apparently all of the deletion logs were also deleted. I was able to back-track this reference:

  • 00:38, 10 November 2009 RHaworth (talk · contribs) deleted "Effusia" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I created the article based on the list of other relatively unknown IM software providers listed at Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients, which I probably should have listed as a 'see also'. Even though I was somewhat surprised to see the article deleted, my main question here is, why the deletion of the deletion logs? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

subpage

I am trying to make a subpage for Billboard Hot 100 50th Anniversary Charts but it doesnt appear to be a proper subpage, there is supposed to be an automatic backlink I believe. —  MateyAhoy  00:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article namesepace doesn't allow subpages. --Closedmouth (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you do when you have 2 much info for 1 page? —  MateyAhoy  00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is big, I wanted to keep all of the 50th anniversary info on one page, but this chart would double the page size. Oh well seperate article with links to the 50th it is then. Thanks —  MateyAhoy  01:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I created the page Every No. 1 Song: 1958-2008 should be able to load the entire list in a few hours. I was wondering if it was possible to delete the talk page there? I have seen that on a couple of articles hmmmm or maybe those were templates. —  MateyAhoy  01:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

You might find this interesting. NW (Talk) 14:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Especially considering User:Matrena balk is an admitted sockpuppet of User:NuclearWarfare, as now specified on the "newbies" user page. Seems like a massive violation of WP:POINT to me. <>Multi'‑'Xfer<> (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I have totally lost interest in the matter. I shall leave them to play, return to new page patrolling and hope I don't fall into another trap. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to let you know, I sincerely regret the distress my actions with NEWT have caused to you. I was wrong to so publicly single you out like I did. I hope we can put this matter behind us and look forward to working together some time in the future. NW (Talk) 02:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted but, as I said, the real act of contrition would be to create the proper article about the woman. I did not consider myself singled out but I was very surprised to find an admin wasting their time on such a pointless exercise. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons

Regarding this discussion, how is it an insult to upload a file locally rather than on Commons? I know in some (possibly most) cases, it is better to upload eligible images to Commons instead, but how is it an insult if it is not put on Commons?--Rockfang (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The file was uploaded roughly 5 months before that article in the other language was made. It could be that the uploader just didn't know about or understand Commons and figured it could just be easier to upload it here.--Rockfang (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Jen Dawson

Jen Dawson would like to know why this page was deleted (23:48, 9 November 2009). All information is true. Jen Dawson is married to Virgil Howe and is a successful fashion model,and she has a large fan base. i understand it was the first page i have edited so i may have made a few mistakes. i was very proud of my first attempt. -- Bessiya (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Colorado Russian newspaper

Dear RHaworth

Many thanks for your kind attention and suggestion to improve the article about Gorizont (newspaper) American-Russian newspaper. I understand your concern regarding тхе luck of notability. Well, I do not know how to deal with this issue. --Михаил Дмитриев (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for advise. I will place this information in article discussion page. --Михаил Дмитриев (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Deprodding of [[:{{{1}}}]]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from [[:{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Михаил Дмитриев (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter Christopher (author)

Here are links from reliable sources which suggest that Peter Christopher (author) is notable: this and this. I found them on a Google News archive search after you prodded the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Army of Earth

Hello RHaworth. A part of this article is directly copy-pasted from this website. Note the Copyright © 2007-2008, Fundictive LLC. All Rights Reserved at the bottom of that page. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. It was not completely copypasted, but I think it is clear copyvio. Another opinion is always welcomed. Thanks for advice. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm Army001 the author of the article “Army of Earth” proposed to delete and I'm fully agree with those who proposed this article for deletion, but on the other hand, I can say the following: although maybe this game is not well known, it has over 500 [3] registered players and some elements of originality, I play this game for several months and without being accused of partiality I can say that this game has something special, fact which encouraged me to write this article among the other dozens of articles on computer games. I am very sorry and I apologize if I'm wrong. Thank you for your time and if you think this article should not exist on Wikipedia there is no problem, otherwise I will ask for help to improve this article to meet at least a minimum of requirements for a good Wikipedia article. Best wishes, Army001. Army001 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dad's Army Appreciation Society

I declined the speedy, and have raised an issue about this article/the editor who created it at WP:ANI. You input would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wikipedia Watch

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Wikipedia Watch. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Watch (5th nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

About "PowerEsim" Page

I would like to know if your "no evidence of notability" tag is added to Poweresim page because of not enough reference or other reason. Could you explain more to me? Thanks a lot. Currently I had add a reference, I am looking for more reference or publication about PowerEsim and will add them when I find it. I had removed that tag, if I am not supposed to remove it, please kindly tell me and add it again. Thank you very much. — Shirleyei (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Evidence of notability in my book means external links to reliable sources. How many of those did you provide? You are allowed to remove a prod tag. I have moved to the next stage: AfD — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

About constitutional violations page

Hello, I'm a college student working on a research paper in which we are supposed to contribute to a Wiki page then write a paper about our contributions. I'm sorry if any of the information I posted upon the page in question was incorrect. I do not intend to present any biased information on the Wiki pages wich I have contributed to and if any one disagrees with the information I have posted and wishes to delete it that is okay with me. And anyone has any advice about posting info on Wikipedia I would be grateful to hear it.Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimpsonRichard (talk • contribs) 22:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

LeTourneau Empowering Global Solutions

Hi, can you take off the message to delete LeTourneau Empowering Global Solutions? I have added several verifiable and legitimate citations and references which will back up the claims of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.98.203 (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Seduction Community Guy

There is an article on a guy from the seduction community called Adam Lyons. It seems like it most of its sources are blogs and dead links, making it not notable enough and lacking credit for an article. Could you have a look at it? 54Boofie (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Allan deprodded, sent to AfD

An article you proposed for deletion, Raymond Allan, was de-prodded by its creator. Accordingly, I have opened deletion discussion via AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/Archive_to_2009_November&oldid=1175547283"