User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2006 September

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

Up to:

[edit] ZEST

Uh.....hello....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZEST Thanks for your help !!!! ZEST 13:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Have you ever heard that stylizing brands with different types of fonts, including the use of all caps can be considered legitimate branding ????

ZEST

[edit] Bradley Joseph

Mr. Haworth, thank you for your input on this article. I see your point and I've tried to "cleanup" and if you could please re-review this article for neutrality please, I would be most grateful. Please note that I am not this person, never met or talked to him, but am interested enough in his work and career to try and write a valid informative verifiable article about him, and I would like it to be perfect and worthy of Wikipedia encyclopedic content. Any further advice would be appreciated. Cricket0825 05:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Haworth, I understand. I mistakenly thought I was supposed to find all related categories. Please, if you have time, please edit into the proper categories as you see fit. Cricket0825 17:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • For goodness sake, why me? You created the article - you tidy it up. -- RHaworth 17:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foothill Trombones

Hello, I was the creator of the recently deleted "Foothill Trombones" page on Wiki. A friend of mine who assisted me said somebody needed to provide a reason to keep the article in 4 hours or it would be delted. Acording to him while he was replying the time limit ran out. So i suppose il make my case(as the orginal creator) now.

To be honest I made it to amuse myself. But when i mentiond it to my section leaders they endorsed it because it was a good way to introduce incoming freshman about the section and its history. Seeing as we are in an ever modernizing age and most everyone knows about Wiki it looked, to them, like a novel way to make new freshmen feel welcome.

If the above is not enough to allow it to be undeleted i suppose there is not much else i can say other then thanks for reading my message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EastBeast09 (talk • contribs)

Did you see the box above headed "Wikify!"? Why should I bother to reply to you? Try again with an article about Foothill Marching Band but:
  • tell us where the band is based!
  • omit the biographies!
  • omit the crystal-ballery - you cannot predict what the band will be doing in 2009 or 2010.
Hints: That 4 hour figure is not an official rule - try and avoid getting a speedy tag in the first place. Create your article in user:EastBeast09/sandbox until it is big enough to stand on its own. -- RHaworth 08:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social capitalism

From the author of Social capitalism: Thank you for merging the various social-capitalism articles. I was unsure what the proper format for the title was. I assume that you are correct that it should be titled Social capitalism.

[edit] Paul Guffey

Thanks for your concern that Paul Guffey is not known outside of finishwell. In actuality Paul Guffey is very well known and respected by many in the Christian music industry. He has published many articles and collaborated on a number of worship albums. He even produced a worship album published by Integrity Music (see http://www.integritymusic.com/), one of the top Worship Album producers in the country. Also see http://syndication.crosswalk.com/fun/music/540530.html for more information on Paul.

He has also contributed to A Morning Like This by Sandi Patti (another well known Christian Artist) see http://music.barnesandnoble.com/search/results.asp?z=y&CTR=280031 for more information on that album.

Thanks for your concern that Paul isn't known outside of FinishWell. If you need more proof that he is known in the Christian Music Industry I am sure that I can find you some personal contacts whom you can call. Rodgerbales 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] disamb Stanton Drew

Thanks for your help with the disambiguation pages for Stanton Drew, I hadn't tried splitting a page before & tried to follow the lead of Avebury & Avebury, Wiltshire but your solution is better - I will just have to go & change all the links to Stanton Drew now... — Rod talk 17:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear - now I will have to do the same to Avebury! Using ", Wiltshire" to distinguish the two subjects is totally arbitrary. -- RHaworth 17:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Hi, I dare say you have long forgotten it now but I insulted your (actually rather funny) user photo back in January on Talk:Tam o' Shanter (Burns poem). It was my first real article and I was offended by something you had said to me (I was trying my best and I was only new!), but obviously I now regret it and wanted to apologise, albeit so long after the event. --Guinnog 20:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I had certainly forgotten about it, but apology gladly accepted. -- RHaworth 07:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry I have mistaken my readings. I thought wikipedia deleted my Wiki-Project my mistake. And im curios how do you request for wikipedia administrator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kings Of Cleverness (talk • contribs)

Requests for adminship are made at requests for adminship but if you are thinking of applying, I suggest that: a) you learn to sign comments on talk pages with ~~~~ and b) you get a few hundred (Main) namespace edits under your belt. -- RHaworth 07:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for your attention to the YaR GnitS situation re: Gay ICP etc. I have logged a full complaint against him at WP:ANI: [1] Feel free to add any details I've overlooked, and thanks again. Kasreyn 07:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with disambiguation (again)

After your help with disambiguation pages for Stanton Drew, could I ask for some more help as I can't get my head around correctly creating disam pages. I have done a stub for Draycott Sleights (an SSSI in Somerset) and was going to do an article on Draycott (village in Somserset) but found an article about Draycott railway station (in Derbyshire) with a red link to Draycott and a red link to Draycott in the Clay on the List of civil parishes in Staffordshire, and a red link (named Draycott) to Draycott, Gloucestershire on List of places in Gloucestershire. I am very confused about the best way to write the article about Draycott (Somerset) without the others around the country linking to it. Can you point me to a (simple) explanation or what to do or help me out here? — Rod talk 14:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • This message popped up while I was in the midst of sorting Avebury! Draycott is dead easy: create Draycott, Somerset ! I will check for anything that need tidying. -- RHaworth 14:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the redirect

Thanks for the redirect on Lincolnshire Score. I was cleaning up the numbers pages and had no idea what it was about. I inserted the proper link (Yan Tan Tethera) into 20 (number). Yoninah 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Essay Non-notability

Hi, not to be insulting, but you could have taken the time to look at the history and the discussion pages for WP:NNOT. I just moved the material yesterday, and theres consensus to move it to Essay:Non-Notability. Does it really have to be in either namespace you suggested? I'm going to move it back to the E:NNOT page, but you're very welcome to discuss the ridiculousness of a new namespace there. Fresheneesz 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, was the page ever put up for speedy deletion? Cause if it was that was damn fast. Fresheneesz 23:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, I noticed you changed my comment. Would you kindly not do that in the future? Fresheneesz 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

  1. What comment did I change? Where is the consensus for the new title?
  2. I am sure you would agree that the article does not belong in the (Main) namespace. The title Essay:Non-notability is in the (Main) namespace. Creation of a new namespace is a matter of changes to the setup parameters of the MediaWiki software, will only be done after careful discussion and must be done by a bureaucrat or developer. Similarly, there is no precedent for a redirect like E:NNOT. But I am perfectly willing to let you have User:Fresheneesz/Non-notability. -- RHaworth 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I guess it would be in the main namespace, but only in title. Obviously noone would think that its an actual topic. Whats wrong with having it in the main namespace as long as it looks like another namespace? Fresheneesz 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Special:search would think that it was an actual topic - that is sufficient reason. -- RHaworth 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re R Haworth

Hi my name is the same as yours but i dont have a beard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R Haworth (talk • contribs)

No. You are probably far too young. -- RHaworth 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Pilotguy (roger that) 01:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[The above edit was followed by page blanking by user:Arehoarworth.]
Thanks to all three of you who fixed recent vandalism. -- RHaworth 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the help cleaning up subpages on my userpage. I'll be following the examples now. Best, Sam 12:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goslar History

Hi there:

I found that the Goslar history entry has been removed. Given that Edinburgh has a seperate history site, and Goslar as Edinburgh holds UNESCO world heritage status it would be wishful, if Goslar too had a seperate history site too.

There have been a lot of evil crimes committed by the Nazis in this town during the second world war and this was only one facette of the history. So do we wish to blank out any historical facts such as slave labour? The history page would have gone much further,but I do not appreciate it very much if someone removes my work.

Cheers mate, merleauponty@supereva.it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.50.230 (talk • contribs)

Recommendations:
  • Get yourself a user ID, log in before editing, sign talk page edits with ~~~~, don't publish your e-mail address
  • do not talk of removal - I have not removed anything - it is still there in the history
  • read my edit where I made two alternative suggestions, neither of which involved suppressing your contribution.
-- RHaworth 10:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roger

You still here?

[edit] CSD

You removed a CSD tag without explanation as a minor edit, which I have reverted. Tyrenius 10:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

He gives reasons. It seems more like a case of inexperience. Anyway, his talk page has 3 messages about it now. But other editors also need to know what's going on from edit summaries. Tyrenius 10:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Guardian

Sorry for the inconvenience I did not know that. Geo. 19:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SD

Nice job on all the speedy deletions (I looked at the deletion log, and you almost totally fill the first page!) By the way, could you have a look at this page and see if it is actually a CSD, like someone has suggested? Cheers, Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 10:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deleted pages

Hi RHaworth. I'm wondering--are we supposed to subst: {{deletedpage}} now? --Fang Aili talk 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone has been putting a "long comment" after deletedpage tags (I can't find an example off hand) so that they do not appear in the short articles list. So I used subst to save them the bother. I have not seen it stated as policy. I don't think it important whether you subst or not. -- RHaworth 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Fang Aili talk 14:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] images

Moved to User talk:Wandalstouring

pilum is already under:

This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

pilum is a Roman spear which became obsolete two millennia before the Creative Commons was invented. -- RHaworth 08:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It is a re-enactment pilum. I do absolutely not appreciate to have my email adress published. Wandalstouring 08:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What thing is a re-enactment pilum. And where have I published your e-mail address? -- RHaworth 08:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lonsdale

Howcome you keep deleting the Official_Lonsdale_College_Logo.jpg Earlier today I updated it to the latest reworking of it by the Lonsdale College and JCR so that people who invariably pinch it off there by right clicking and saving it have the latest and most up-to-date version of it. Surely Wikipedia too would like to have information kept relevant and up-to-date? I realise the first one might have been quite large, so fair enough. But the second one was fine by all accounts, and was suject to the same copyright licencing as the image it originally replaced. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what you are doing this? As it's quite frustrating. Michaelliffen 02:15 14:15 BST, 4 August 2006

I suggest you actually look at and read the image description - you will need to scroll the screen to see it all. If someone else has not already deleted the image, you will see the text from template:permission from license selector. Do you see the words "speedy deletion"? Now since you are presumably at a student at Lonsdale College and therefore reasonably intelligent, since you had left a message about "speedy deletion", I assumed that you meant it!
OK, cut the sarcasm Haworth. Michael, remove the existing licence and replace with an acceptable one from Wikipedia:Image copyright tags - how about {{Univ-logo}}? -- RHaworth 13:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. -- Michaelliffen 15:14, 4 August 2006

[edit] Roitr

You created two redirects (1 2), citing that 'redirect may prevent its recreation'. Unfortunately, this doesn't prevent the vandal from redirecting to his POV fork instead or even replacing the redirect with POV fork, and even if it's fully protected, he will just create another slightly reworded article - see Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Roitr#Military_ranks for examples. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 20:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing that out... that was the first time I ran across him. I do a bit of newpage patrolling, so I'll keep an eye out. --SB_Johnny | talk 01:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dmitry, do what you think fit. I am really at a loss as to the best way to deal with this vandal. -- RHaworth 05:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redperson

Re: User:Backtothewoods and Russell Redman.

I don't think the original article was an autobiography,User:Backtothewoods and Russell Redman since it was written in a rather unsophisticated way, which strongl suggests that User:Backtothewoods and Russell Redman are two different people. I located a page about Russell Redman at the official National Research Council of Canada web site and expanded the article using that as a basis (and I also looked him up in the Canadian federal government telephone directory, since the National Research Council of Canada is part of the Canadian federal government.

I think that having a Ph.D. in astronomy and pursuing interesting research makes Russell Redman notable, but you're probably right when you say that an article in the main namespace on him "is likely to be nominated for deletion".

I find myself frustrated, though -- and this is no criticism of you -- when I run across an interesting topic and realize that there's no point writing about it because the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is likely to be to delete the article, even though it arguably meets notability criteria. *1*

I'm not asking you to do anything, really. I suppose I should never have bothered to do anything to the Russell Redman article in the first place. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I did actually notice that you had done more to the article than Backtothewoods so it no longer fails WP:AUTO (if it ever did).
*1* Having interesting things you want to write about sounds like a valid reason for starting a blog - unlike many people who use them just to chatter. Have you got a blog? -- RHaworth 06:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photo

You look like a bear who just came out of the snow. Don't eat me! Jay Gatsby(talk) 07:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading images and Ulcerative colitis

Image:Chronic_Ulcerative_Colitis_1.jpg

It looks like Image:Floride Coltis ulcerosa.jpg was erased or moved. I can't tell which... 'cause the history on images doesn't work the same way as on regular WP pages.

The reason I made it as it is -- 'cause the Upload file page doesn't have a Public domain, from other Wikipedia. The closest thing they have to public domain is PD self made. I didn't make the image myself-- so that isn't right either.

If you could explain to me how I should add a picture as such-- I'd much appreciate it.

Beyond that, if you could explain the relationship between wikicommons and the wikipedias-- in terms of file-linkage I'd appreciate it.

In an ideal world... I'd have moved the image to the Wikicommons-- so it is available on the German and English Wikipedia. This, however, does not seem to be easy to do; it would require an account on Wikicommons and probably a specialized script... and does not seem to be encouraged.

Personally, I don't understand why the wikipedias (English, German etc.) have to split their image databases-- seems this was a design decision that was made a while back. If the image databases were linked-- the different languages could feed off one another to greater degree. *1* Nephron  T|C 18:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you asking me this? Image:Chronic_Ulcerative_Colitis_1.jpg provides all the answers! The image actually exists at commons:Image:Chronic_Ulcerative_Colitis_1.jpg but if you treat it as though it were uploaded to the English Wiki, you will see it, as per the link above. If you treat it as though it were uploaded to the German Wiki, you will see it: de:Bild:Floride Coltis ulcerosa.jpg. If you treat it as though it were uploaded to the Cymraeg Wiki, you will see it: cy:Delwedd:Chronic Ulcerative Colitis 1.jpg!
*1* The image databases are linked - it's called the Commons! Keeping images on individual language wikis is the aberration (though I believe it is needed for "fair use" images).
Create an account on the Commons. Make sure you are looking at the largest version of the image. In this case, I think http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/2/22/Floride_Coltis_ulcerosa.jpg is the largest. Save the image to your machine (was this the difficult trick you were missing?)! Upload it to the Commons. In the image description put {{pd-author|J. Guntau}} and state where you got it with links to de:Bild:Floride Coltis ulcerosa.jpg and de:Benutzer:J. Guntau. (As a courtesy, leave a note at de:Benutzer Diskussion:J. Guntau saying what you have done.)
It would have been easier for me to do all this for you than to tell you how to do it! But this way you will learn better. -- RHaworth 18:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Regarding move of Susan glenn lampe to Susan Glenn Lampe, it seems kind of counterproductive to Move an article that's been tagged for CSD. Once the article gets speedily deleted, there's a leftover orphaned redirect page that also needs to be deleted. More housekeeping needed, when CSD's usually way backed up, anyway. Might be better to wait until you see if it's going to be kept. Fan-1967 19:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orkney Antiquarian Society

Kindly point to me the sentence or clause in this article which makes the slightest assertion of notability or importance. No, an edit summary doesn't count. --Calton | Talk 22:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • At last you have decided to take it to AfD instead of indulging in an uncivil edit war. -- RHaworth 06:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pictures

Roman military tactics is currently running with images of questionable legal status. This issue has been disputed already. But nothing changed. My personal experience with the uploader is not overwhelmingly positive and I do not want to extend it. Perhaps you can show him a way to find images he wants for his article and solve the legal dispute. Wandalstouring 10:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK Wandalstouring 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shane Briant

Note discussion at Talk:Main_Page#Complaint. Also note that the article was not created by the user. --Dhartung | Talk 13:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edmon Low Library

Quoted from RHaworth-

It is the height of idleness to copy a web page and think you have created a Wikipedia article. You deserve to have it deleted. The subject is probably notable and an article specifically written for Wikipedia will probably be accepted

Response from rdegler

It is the height of idleness to copy a comment and think you have created a contribution to a discussion. You deserve to have an copied response. Your involvement with Wikipedia is probably notable and comments covering a Wikipedia article will probably be accepted if you take the time to write an original one. rdegler 19:19 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please specify what comment you are talking about and whence you think it was copied. -- RHaworth 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit counter

I don't think that the edit counter you're using gives up-to-date data. I use http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/edit_count/Count.php?username=Runcorn --Runcorn 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:"100 Greatest Cartoons" Titles

Hi! Can you please delete this article? It is nothing but fancruft. Marcus 03:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • What's the hurry? Let the CfD run. -- RHaworth 03:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikproject pages

SynergeticMaggot was trying to move them... but you got there first. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My recent revert

The anon user who gave you that Barnstar is doing a hell of a lot of user talk editting tonight, including giving users {{test5}}s when the user has not been blocked, at all. This is why I have removed teh barnstar, again. Ryūlóng 07:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy of List of people by name: Fv-Fz

Your carrying out the speedy, despite the {{hangon}} is out of process, and more importantly breaks a resource structure of about 700 user-visible pages. I am restoring; if you have a problem with that, discuss at WP:AN before further action. --Jerzy•t 18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Placing an hangon without any explanation was not very useful - "I am splitting Fu-Fz into Fu and Fv-Fz" would have been a good idea. It still not obvious why the split was needed. -- RHaworth 19:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carlton is reverting userfication page moves by RHaworth

Carlton is reverting userfication page moves by RHaworth. Please see

TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's Calton -- learn to spell.

I stumbled over your inappropriate userfications this and began digging deeper today -- it's a slow day -- and I found them appalling. The first 32 I checked -- starting from early December -- had only 7 editors with edit counts in the double digits since them. Throwing out the one outlier gave me an average of 14.8 total edits each -- and a median of 5. These people aren't Wikipedia editors, and your track record in judging what an actual user page is pretty bad. (Oh, and the outlier, by the way, was Beckjord (talk · contribs) -- who's currently banned until April 2007 because in part of his attempts to insert vanity edits and articles. Not something to chalk up to the win column.)

Even a glance at the pages you userfied show an appalling lack of judgment regarding obvious nonsense and vanity. *1*

Worse is your user of a userfication template that misstates policy regarding User pages -- giving anyone reading it the misimpression that Wikipedia is some variant of MySpace. *2*

When I get the chance, I'm going nominate that template for deletion, and I'm going to compile a page of my findings, complete with the user edit counts and choice examples of nonsense that should have been deleted straightaway, so admins can judge your ongoing actions. --Calton | Talk 08:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

*1* - I judged them to be nonsense and vanity and that is why I userfied them because nonsense and vanity are allowed on user pages!
*2* - what policy does it misstate?
As you should have guessed without counting edits, I use userfication as an alternative to deletion because: a) it is more "humane" and b) it does not provide work for other editors in deleting the articles. Most of the people whose articles I have userfied have gone away and won't be coming back. But there are a few who don't distinguish between (Main) and User: namespaces and proudly show their friends their "Wikipedia article". In these cases, userfication has prevented the authors trying to recreate the article in the (Main) namespace.
There is enough to do keeping the (Main) namespace clean without fussing over user: pages. I suggest you drop the campaign. -- RHaworth 09:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

what is wrong with my judgement? Other than being very poor, not a thing.

what policy does it misstate? Oh, just Wikipedia is not a free host, webspace provider, or social networking site and User-page guidelines, that's all.

In these cases, userfication has prevented the authors trying to recreate the article in the (Main) namespace. Perhaps someone should explain the {{deletedpage}} tag to you.

I suggest you drop the campaign. I suggest you actually acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies and GOALS rather than enabling spam, vanity, and other abuses of Wikipedia space.

Meantime, I've compiled my findings, and I'm posting the link (User:Calton/User Page Abuse) to WP:AN#Abuse of User Pages? for comment. --Calton | Talk 07:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Reply being drafted. -- RHaworth 17:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your declining to speedy delete Kwai Chi

Hello. You removed my {{db-bio}} tag on Kwai Chi. While you of course are within your rights to decline speedy tags, I believe that the edit summary you gave - "given the edit history, speedy nomination looks malicious" - was inappropriate in the light of WP:AGF. It is also difficult to parse: the article has had some two dozen edits since being created in January, none of which are from me, so the speedy tag is certainly not indicative of edit-war-overreacting or any other immature editorial behaviour. At any rate, WP:CSD does not require, and nor should it, checking the edit history (for whatever purpose) if an article meets the CSD, which I believe this one does (the subject's notability is neither asserted nor apparent). Thank you for your consideration, and have a nice weekend. Sandstein 07:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Addendum: Obviously, the history ought to be checked to verify that an article's speedability isn't due to previous vandalism, but that's not an issue here. Sandstein 08:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith: the good faith of six editors who had contibuted to this article. -- RHaworth 08:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing their good faith, but does it follow from that that I lack good faith? I wasn't aware that bona fides is a zero-sum game - that's certainly not in WP:AGF. Sandstein 08:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I carefully said looks malicious [to me]. It was not malicious, I accept that. OK? -- RHaworth
OK, and thanks for this clarification. Sandstein 08:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userfication

Thank you for your note about userfication. You are quite right. Thank you for establishing the new templates. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Histmerge stuff on TS Nicholas

Yeah, we probably tehcnically don't need to bother, do we; but then what harm is there? Its just I've seen a lot of similar hist-merges required over the past few weeks involving Tropical Cyclone articles. Don't check his contributions unless you want to see some horrible use of the template sandboxes.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The harm is just that it clutters up the edit history - which I see as mainly for checking on edit "wars". But I have no strong feelings. -- RHaworth 18:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Yea, the reason for me instating the histmerge is from discussion of previous similar occurences with Titoxd who told me that under the terms of the GFDL the history has to be kept as intact as possible (even though with this article, like you say only one user involved).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

A portal created recently by User:Mallimak - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at:

[edit] King George's Fields

You may have wondered why I have not added a field or a list for some time. Part of that is a recent wikibreak, but another part is a dispute with another user over my categorising the individual locations that have a field with Category:King George's Fields. I have no wish to influence your opinion in any manner, but you may wish to contribute to the mediation discussion which is taking place under the umbrella of the Mediation Cabal initially here, and by the mediator's request at originally their own talk page and currently at an archived version of their talk page.

I recognise that your view may differ from my own, and am content with this. My thought is that this is likely to be solved more by a consensus of wise heads than purely by mediation. But what do I know? :)

Once this is settled I will get back to the rather long labour of adding new fields. As you can imagine I see little point in pursuing it while under what I perceive to be an attack by another editor. Thank you for the field in Corris. :) -- Fiddle Faddle 20:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A fresh mind with a different perspective is always useful. Many thanks for the suggestion. I've responded positively to it on the MedCab page. It may be the thing that allows this to move forwards. I've never had a problem with accepting new thoughts. Fiddle Faddle 16:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Regrettably the other user has now stated on their talk page that the proposal is unacceptable and that they have nominated the category "Fairtrade Settlements" for deletion (links man, links!). Fiddle Faddle 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So, we both vote to keep that category because it provides a very good precedent for KGVF. -- RHaworth 20:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I have done so, though did not want to be the first person to do so. I have also notified the category creator in case s/he was unaware of the nomination. I see each category as unlinked in many ways, but am strongly of the view that a correct and competent category may be created for even a small yet notable sub-element of any article that is shared with other articles. Regardless of the outcome of the mediation case I think it a great pity that Fairtrade Settlements has been hit by the fallout. Fiddle Faddle 20:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it looks pretty terminal for Fairtrade Settlements, I fear. Saddening since the motivation for the nomination was at best unclear, and at worst unusual. Fiddle Faddle 21:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive 2

I'll keep that in mind, thanks. JFD 06:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Callaway cars and other tuner stubs

Are you just targetting what I've written, or do you apply {{concern|non-notable / advert}}} randomly? It looks like RDSport has escaped from your attempts to make this a better wiki. I'm not saying you go and put your concern on that page. It's new... they're all new. They need time grow. The reason I added the quick and dirty stubs is that they're listed in the {{Auto Engineering}} template and I thought they needed a start to be expanded on. Do what you think is right. I don't give a crap as I have no affiliations with any of the companies, and I don't even drive a Holden Monaro, Corvette, or a Toyota.
--ric_man 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If looking at your contributions is targetting, then I am guilty. The phrase I would use is simply being consistent. My tagging was triggered by new pages patrolling hence I missed RDSport. But I agree it is worse than your stubs and I have tagged it too. A feeling frequently expressed is that it is in general better to leave a red link than create a really stubby stub. A red link highlights the need for an article; a stub can conceal that fact. -- RHaworth 07:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Understand what you're talking about now... RDSport is just one example. I have seen dozens of examples of stubby stubs, but since they've gone through a few edits, you don't appear to be looking for them. I would have thought that starting a stub article would have triggered contributers to come "out of the woodwork" to edit and amend content. *2* I think the articles are still valid (even though I have no interests in the individual companies - but I do have interest in things automotive in general). In the specific case of TOM'S, Google will usually put "Tom's Hardware" far above TOM'S link, even though the search term is "TOM'S". My intention is to get around to all the articles I've started (even the ones from long ago) to see "how they're doing".
On another "strategy", is there no in progress template that flags the article as being started but low in content, but still invites all people to come in and edit it? *1* This would stop people mis-interpreting one line articles as "useless", but allow time for the originating author to add something more substantial. Just thinking out loud on this one...'
--ric_man 23:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
*1* Yes - it's called a stub template! Which you had applied. A stub tag helps to keep the deletionists at bay but every article, however stubby, must make a claim to notability.
*2* Not everybody watches new pages. Another way of attracting attention to a new article is to create links to it. In the case of the three that I prodded, they have masses of apparent incoming links but I think most are via {{Auto Engineering}}.
I have offered my solution to the specific case of RDSport - but revert if you disagree. Also, if you remove my prods on the others, I will not take any action. -- RHaworth 06:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The {{Auto Engineering}} template was a creation of mine to try and spark some interest in the articles on tuners. Sometimes it works, and I see some articles being edited a lot, but sometimes it just links to other articles. I will remove the prods from TOM'S and from Callaway as I have heard of those companies before. I won't touch RDSport or Greenwood Corvettes as I hadn't heard about them - especially when I started the Greenwood stub. Give me some time with TOM'S and Callaway, then yell at me for the lack of information on them. :-)
--ric_man 11:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] penknifelovelife

Any reason why it was deleted? I couldn't find anything. penknifelovelife 782 Naumova 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Denni tagged it with "{{db|crashes and burns at WP:MUSIC. No listing at www.allmusic.com}}" and I agreed with Denni: classic non-notable band vanity article - no discography no references to independant reviews. -- RHaworth 14:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for what you did with my sandboxes. I don't quite know what it was, but I seem to be blundering around like a bull in a china shop at the moment and need all the help I can get.qp10qp 15:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy

Hi Roger, FYI WP:AN#Abuse of User Pages?. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 08:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Calton did at least tell me above. -- RHaworth 17:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Saint Stanislaus &Co.

Dear sir,
You wrote:

"I disagree with separate pages especially if you going to give them ponderous ugly titles such as The order of Saint Stanislaus.(re)established in Poland in 1990. What little you have to say about the re-established order can easily be said in the Order of Saint Stanislaus article. -- RHaworth 08:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)"

my reply:

  • I agree that it is a bit of a mouthfull! It sounds a bit like " The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" doesn't it? That is because it is a diplomatic solution in a quarrel without an end. They all claim to be THE Order of Saint Stanislaus, and then claim that the other ones are fake. In fact they are all somewhat questionable. Then there is the issue of the propper name and style of one of the Grand-Masters and the indissolved and unsolvable question as to who was the legitimite Polish government in exile.

Given a free hand a number of anonymus contributers keep adding and deleting the same words over and over again at an astonishing pace. They do not reveal who they are and they do not discuss the questions before us. One gentleman once contributed a list of books and I added them to the appropriate branch of the Order. All I ever wanted to do was describe the historic order, now I found myself in a quagmire of pseudo-orders and well intended charitable foundations that call themselves orders. If I put all the information on these orders on one page there is no possibility to keep the subject neutral. The zelots of the various orders will get into a frenzy and this will undoubtably result in a useless, opiniated article that will change every minute or so. But I am open to suggestions...

Faithfully Yours, Robert Prummel 21:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I started or contributed to dozens of articles on orders of merit, try my dutch contributions on the Military Order of William and Orde van Sint Stanislaus ( Dutch Wiki). These articles give a lot of historical facts and pictures. Here all I ever get to is restoring mischief. I am happy to say that this one is unique! I am allso glad that there are only two orders of the Garter, the American one is , I am glad to say it, very meek. Would they dare to call Elizabeth II an imposter?

[edit] Rec.sport.football.college

You deleted this page, but somehow the talk page for it survived. Would you mind dropping by and removing that as well? Thanks! Akradecki 17:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it might be useful to leave the task page as a record but I don't feel strongly. -- RHaworth 17:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, ok, no problem. I had already replied on it before I realized that the main article was gone. Akradecki 18:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rec.sport.football.college on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of rec.sport.football.college. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. BigDT 04:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] exicornt/switch

Hi! Thanks for deleting exicornt . and protecting it from recreation back in May. (I suspect) the same user also created the above article that's a duplicate of exicornt .. Was wondering if you could do your magic with that one, too. Thanks! Rkitko 04:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Err, and another one. Can't figure out which characters it differs from exicornt . but it does. Here it is in an external link 'cause I don't know how else to link to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exicornt%C2%A0. Thanks! --05:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Or nevermind... Sorry to bother you! DVD R W took care of it. --Rkitko 05:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have protected the pages to record User:ROY Bott as a sock puppet. If you notice him creating any more, let me know and I will block him. -- RHaworth 07:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Figgkidd

Can you please help.... The "Figgkidd" page keeps reverting back to an edit made by Chillicane the Manager of a rivel hip hop label.... he keeps vandalising my edits. And now I have to justify them to get them reverted .. Please, please help...Lui —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doppleganga (talk • contribs)

Since you are the manager of Unda K9, I suspect you of being biased. I know nothing about the subjects - find another admin. -- RHaworth 13:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

wow ... i thought you would help ..given i'm new to this ...and that non of my topics are offensive... what have I done to you to get this response...Lui

You have admitted to having a comercial interest - that is sufficient. But as I say, I know nothing about popular music and still less about its Australian flavours so I do not want to get involved. -- RHaworth 13:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

what commerical interest ???? I have specified the type of label it is and how it differatiates from the other labels. Thats what makes it "interesting" along with the artists and what they have done ... not unlike the Shady Label page or the Aftermath page... so why am I so different in content ?... Lui

Oh Yoda.... how do I fix the problem .. I need to put Figgkidds real bio up on his page, without you suspecting bias commercial, ulterior motives.... and how do I prevent vandalism...

You look like a bear who just came out of the snow. Don't eat me! ... lol I love that .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doppleganga (talk • contribs)

You do not destroy discussion threads. You do not do anything to the Figgkidd article: you wait until Figgkidd becomes notable and someone else writes an article about him. As to vandalism - find an admin who can be convinced that you are not the vandal. How do you find an admin? Look at the talk pages of similar articles and check people who write with quiet confidence against the user list. Please find someone else to pester - I am not interested. -- RHaworth 14:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have just discovered Figg Kidd. Duplicate articles are not allowed, therefore I have redirected Figgkidd. Find another admin to rule on which is the better version. Unda K9 has already been through AfD. If you want to recreate it, you must use Wikipedia:Deletion review. I forgot to say above that another way to find an admin is to post a note at WP:AN. Are you the same as user:LuiLui? If so, why are you using a new Id? -- RHaworth 14:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Juno picture

I had uploaded a picture of 3 Juno taken from a Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics press release, which you have deleted. Why was the image removed? It may be distributed for educational use with proper attribution, and is being used on at least one of the other Wikipedias (Polish). Thanks. Michaelbusch

When you uploaded Image:3JunoMountWilson.gif you selected the copyright holder only allows this work to be used for non-commercial and/or educational purposes. This automatically includes {{permission from license selector}} in the image description. You clearly did not look at the image description created by the upload. I suggest you read the template now and follow its advice. Also, if the licence allows it, please upload to the Commons so all languages can share. -- RHaworth 06:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Morning, but...

As usual you are just a bit hasty. I'd think you'd learn to ask first (at least when someone's been around as long as I have, and have thousands of quality edits doing it!) and question things like category and category contents, and in this case, transclusions.

Just so happens I was tied up dealing with the damn curly-brace mess we have to use for simple substitution language and among other things building some of those missing redlink templates on the commons. Please put it back. When I get back to WP, I'll be wanting it again. IIRC it was being transcluded into at least two files, so why would you think it did nothing? Moreover, my pagehead is clearly showing I'm in and I accept email from all and sundry... which chimes. Please let me know when it's back. Actually, just put it back -- I hear my pillow demanding my head! Thankyou... sort of! <g> // FrankB 07:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain a) what the hell are you talking about, b) why it must be in the (Main) namespace and c) why you are incapable of doing a move. -- RHaworth 07:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry--Must've been the hour--Double goofs and an apology to you!
     I think I figured out what happened. I'd pasted those edit links in to a list built using a list of {{w2|template:names}}, when I'd SAR'd the same basis list and replaced the 'w2|Template:' with 'Lts|' off line in Notepad and then saved that from the cut buffer through the XXXtmp sister templates from off this sister following links from the local {{Interwikitmp-grp}} links... but the local XXXtmp (I think on Wiktionary, See list: Category:Interwiki utility templates under '!') had a bad link... (I was fighting that too!) or because the 'W2|Template:' never made it into those braces. In any event, the 'Quick and Dirty remote save' went into 'Main space', not template space per intent. So much for speedy changes! Sorry for the hastle.
More, and worse, perhaps, I mistook your notation (the redlink) for a pipetricked (Working interwiki all over hell and gone, I use {{W2}} a lot these days so text presents the same on any sister project, so it's easy to mistake that as a pipetricked link— W2 is good at pipetrick's, saving work with interwiki link presentations) template link. So when I posted the above, I didn't realize it was Main space you moved it from. (The late hour again, I think! <G>) Hence my note. Again, apologies. // FrankB 05:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Noted and accepted. I do post to the Commons so I may try and understand your templates. -- RHaworth 06:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
re: I have moved Wikquote:template:SP to User:Fabartus/sandbox. Ditto. -- RHaworth 07:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
   Another Big Thanks--and another bad remote link... one problem with working in two browsers, you think you fixed something, but use it before you saved it in the other once in a while. Think that's likely the end of them! Checking back to the 19th, the only new Main space pages I created are redirects+one unfinished stub in another brower tab.
If you want to look in, start with Category:Interwiki utility templates and the whole 'group' of template tagging templates is signified and sorted under the '!'. In that, the {{Interwikitmp-grp}} is the central hub-it's essentially included in each, and includes itself, provides the links, and works with the sister templates to present the right links on the local sister... some of those were bad... so a remote save was going to Arg-2 vice Arg-1 or some such. Anyway, that's the key. Thanks again. // FrankB 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for River robert stuff

Hmmm... Ok well thanks for info on River robert. I see you have already nominated it for speedy deletion. How long do speedy deletions usually take? just wanna know. Felixboy 13:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WikiMe

Hi R, thanks for your comments and suggestions for changes on WikiMe. I've responded on the main page's talk page. --Wotwu 19:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Appologies

I feel i must appologise and thank you for deleting articles i made which violated the rules of the site, these violations were not intentional and i will try to abide by the rules in future


[edit] Deleting Images

I understand you are a grumpy old man but it would be nice if you notified people when you deleted their images. I uploaded an image that I created myself and I thought I gave it the appropriate rights.

You deleted it. Worse yet, you didn't even bother explaining to me, the creator of that image, why you felt it necessary to delete it.

I sort of understand your motives, but if you feel it necessary to delete someone's hard work, it would be nice if you told that person WHY or at least gave them an opportunity to correct their action.

As it is, considering the effort I put into my images and having had one deleted in such a manner, I can assure you that I will not be uploading any more images to Wikipedia.

If that sounds like a petulant child, well maybe its because I have one. TeraGram 21:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You have noted that I am a grumpy old man but you have not followed my advice. Which <expletive deleted> image are you talking about? I have deleted quite a few recently. Having had to guess it was a language immersion school, I still cannot immediately match that to any of the image names.
I think the explanation is that when you uploaded the image you selected the copyright holder only allows this work to be used for non-commercial and/or educational purposes. This automatically includes {{permission from license selector}} and {{db-noncom}} in the image description. You clearly did not look at the image description created by the upload. I suggest you read these templates now and follow their advice. Also, if the licence allows it, please upload to the Commons so all languages can share.
Given that there is a backlog in CAT:CSD and given that a very clear warning was available to the uploader at upload time, I feel under no obligation to notify every uploader. I have in fact notified quite a number of people who I spotted uploading more than one image with the db-noncom tag.
What's the problem anyway? It won't take you long to upload it again - with a proper licence tag. -- RHaworth 22:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it. I already explained what the problem is. This system has a very high learning curve. You claim that the db-noncom was added to the image. I didn't see that. Had I seen such a thing I would have taken another crack at it.

I have a catalog of over 50,000 high-res images that I have shot with my own camera. Wikipedia will not get any of them, now. The vast majority of my pissed-offedness is a direct result of your Holier-than-thou attitude. You are the third person I've bumped into on this system who just DELETES people's work. It is as if you are on some grand power trip.

I don't have time for that kind of malarky. TeraGram 01:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry you feel that way. The cheeky reply is "with CAT:CSD now running to two pages with 200 images awaiting deletion, we don't time for the malarky of patiently explaining to each uploader". I have restored image:Cccs.jpg - look at it - the message could not be more explicit or helpful. But how do you justify uploading the image when the page it came from is marked Copyright © 2006 Santa Barbara School Districts? -- RHaworth 02:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You have horrible reading skills. You just asked a question for which I already gave you the answer. And you have the gall to tell me that something couldn't be more clear or explicit. I believe you need some serious introspection, because you're projecting like a finely-polished mirror. I'm done with you. TeraGram 05:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] issue about the lukas zpira entry ...

See user talk:Lavoice

[edit] whatever

I didnt try to "promote" anybody, I just try to give some information. I tought it was wikipedia purpose . I posted a copiright free article , thats it . I tought if somebody wanted to change something , he could do it. like they did on bme, taking my entry as a base (btw, how come they could read it on bme but mot you on wikipedia?) . I never imagine that some kind of "elite" (?!come on?!) were going, upon personal opinions, juge it and just decide for a couple of millions people what they can read or not . I guess I was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavoice (talk • contribs) (and reply there).

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for your positive advice after a recent deletion. Keep up the good work - Donal Thompson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donalthompson (talk • contribs)

[edit] same seed...

...in two diferent garden . see the same "poor" article (about lukas zpira) after 4 days in bme, and in wikipedia. I guess one of them as been smart enouth to use the informations. whats wrong to be close from lukas zpira to do this entry ? the policy dont say we have to be perfect unknow to write an entry ... perhaps been close from whos involved can help to give the best informations . btw, like I told you before the text is just supose to be a base. and yes, the text is copiright free . but forget about it . anyway, your not the kind of people who can reconise any mystakes. and finaly thats not so important . I thought wikipedia was an online enciclopedia . I see that its just another way for a few to use their power to control the informations . it wont last very long .

[edit] Adam daniel mezei

Adam daniel mezei your prod template has been removed by someone. Article low quality. User:Yy-bo 17:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. You could have put him up for AfD. -- RHaworth 18:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Library

Dear Roger,

I'm interested in uploading a few images from the British Library (Oriental and India Office Collection) to the Wikepedia article on the town Nainital. These are images that were taken in late in the 19th century and digitized by BL a few years ago. I'd like to know if these images would qualifiy for the HistoricPhoto tag. Here is a link to one of the images:

http://www.collectbritain.co.uk/personalisation/object.cfm?uid=019PHO0000752S8U00005000&largeimage=1#largeimage

I emailed BL asking them the same, but haven't received a reply yet. Look forward to your reply!

Stiwari 17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted Image:Nainital before landslip BLcopyright.JPG because you had given it the {{db-noncom}} tag. See earlier comments on this page to explain. Read wikipedia:image copyright tags and its talk page. I think a photo more than 100 years old would qualify for {{pd-old}}. -- RHaworth 18:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger, for your prompt reply! Stiwari 18:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about the "lukas zpira" entry

you send me this "private" e-mail : "Stop trying to promote yourself - we don't like it. Wait, when you become notable then someone else will write an article about you."

this is my answers :

I didnt write this article ... I have somebody who take care of my promotion . but that doesnt mater . but yes, that was first hand information . your attitude is funny . "someone else" what the fuck thats mean ?! and "we" . who is "we" . you can say "I" . who the fuck are you ?! forget about it . anyway , even if somebody is going to put one entry about me , I will delete it . I dont like your fucking attitude . I dont like that you let think to people that wikipedia is open . same old, same old . reading all the other entry in wikipedia is no doubt that mine belong in ... and that not selfish or self centered attitude . thats not an opinion, thats a fact, like it or not . but I dont NEED to be on wikipedia . thats not going to change anything in my life ! it was just a way to chare something with your reader who can be interested by . YOU juge that they dont have to read it . YOU are the one who think he can decide for the other . people can decide by themself to read or not the entry . by deleted it, YOU , decide for the other . thats wrong . and I dont like this kind of usage of the little power you got . so fuck it . and like I told you I will delete all the entry about me in wikipedia and will explain why.

lukas

You keep saying "forget about it" but you don't! I agree with you on one thing: decribing Wikipedia as the "free encyclopedia" is misleading. Please note I am not the only person who decided: look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lukas Zpira. I have already told you that wikipedia:deletion review is available to you. -- RHaworth 10:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


I says forget bout the entry , not about your disdainful attitude ... and I was answering your message, I didnt come to you. as for the wikipedia:deletion review, I didnt see anything major in it telling that the entry needed to be delete... YOU took the (fast) final decision on personal (and wrong) belief . as for the copiright pretexte, even in the delition review, somebody mention that the entry in wikipedia (like it as been says many time) as been done BEFORE the entry in bme. and looking at it, this entry in bme did grow really fast isnt it ? but did you even look at it ? I guess no . but you should . at list to learn that I did wait for you to "become notable" .

lukas zpira

[edit] Ifti Elahi article

Dear Roger,

Please accept my apology for putting you through the trouble of verifying an article on Ifti Elahi. This article is not fraudulent or false. At the moment, it consists purely of interviews of Ifti and Kader Hashemite. I will post citations etc and clean it up within the next few days, but in the meantime, please give me the benefit of the doubt and rescue the article from deletion. It should be apparant from the article that the comments are full interviews from Ifti and Kader and that it is not a case of just one party simple "slagging off" the other. I have tried to create a balanced view of the two people, though this needs further work. Thank you again for your time already spent with this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.12.176 (talk • contribs)

  • You cannot be serious - look at what has already been said in the AfD. You seem to have no idea what an encyclopedia is. -- RHaworth 11:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the AfD - maybe this will shed some light on the article. If there are comments that you feel should be excluded or are inappropriate, please tell me and I shall edit the article to diminish them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.12.176 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Tomorts (talk)

Hi, I was wondering if you could look at Bukidnon State College and possibly move that to Tomorts' userspace as well, I don't think it should be in the main article space at the moment. J Ditalk 11:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I disagree. Bukidnon State College is desperately in need of cleanup but otherwise seems OK. Several editors (including yourself) have contributed, so userfication is inappropriate. User:Tomorts/Cananga-an on the other hand, has just one author and fails in the first paragraph by declaring itself as original research.
There is nothing to prevent you moving articles yourself (but in this case I suggest not). You can even place a speedy delete tag on the redirect which is generated by a move. (But see User:Calton/User Page Abuse and its talk page.) -- RHaworth 17:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth Image

Dear Roger,

I had uploaded some Google Earth images for the article on Nainital which (you pointed out) had the inappropriate tag (screen shot of software). I am wondering if I can use the "Fair use in Nainital" tag for those images. In other words, they are being used only in that article to illustrate the physical geography etc. and this use will not diminish the commercial value of the software, etc. I just uploaded one of those images with the new tag and it took, but I don't know how permanent this is.

Stiwari 04:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You cannot licence Wikipedia stuff for educational use only - it must be under the GFDL (or compatible) licence. The only place where a Google Earth image might be fair use is in the Google Earth article. By all means ask others, but my view is that you cannot use a Google Earth image in the Nainital article. -- RHaworth 06:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger! I am abandoning the Google Earth idea. Stiwari 12:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nature Camera

This article looks to be patchwork pieced together from different sites; not sure if that qualifies as copyvio, but if you Google different sentences in the article, you can see it for yourself. Danny Lilithborne 18:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I did notice the copyvios. Removing the spam link was good enough for me but add a copyvio tag if you want. -- RHaworth 18:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Design Methods Diagram

I recently uploaded a diagram to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_methods that I made (am the author of) and it has been deleted twice. Is there a reason that it has been deleted? It is not an infringement and again has been created by me. I put in the comment field GDFL (Self Made). If this is not the right choice, please let me know. (Design Methods 01:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

  • Oh why can't people provide links? Image:DM Diagram.gif was deleted because you had left the {{db-noncom}} tag in place. With the present upload, you had not used the {{information}} tag properly. Have you ever thought that it might be an idea to actually look at the image description after you have done an upload? -- RHaworth 09:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you delete my page? I was editing it at the time

You might not realise, but not long ago you deleted a page i had createc called A-League Results Archive. I realise i had only so far put Pre-Season 2005 on it, but i was busy creating a table with all the results for the pre-season onit. I created the page, because i am sur that many people would want to look back on results for the A-League, and i was going to update it everyweek. Is there any way of getting it back? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allied45 (talk • contribs)

  • Did you read my "Wikify!" box above? Where is your sig? Where is your link? Don't be stupid - there was nothing there to get back! If the A-League is notable, re-create the article at user:Allied45/sandbox. Then once the article actually has some content, copy it to A-League results archive (note the capitalisation). -- RHaworth 11:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I am fairly new, and i've never dealt with my page been deleted before. But i will follow you're steps and in future be a bit better. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allied45 (talk • contribs)

  • Did you create a table and lose it because you got a message "someone has deleted the article"? If so, my sympathies - you should have been bold and forced the save! -- RHaworth 11:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parsley sauce

If recipes are accepted in that project, your suggestion is an excellent one. It looks like a very interesting recipe, but I knew it wasn't the sort of thing we add here. I'm not really familiar enough with the other projects to propose moving things to them. Your suggestion has really highlighted that void in my wiki knowledge that I'm going to work to correct. Thank you. Erechtheus 17:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Boswell article

I apologise for any inconvenience caused by the writing of an article about the fictional "Joe Boswell" that was supposedly written under my username. I am a new member of Wikipedia, and a work mate saw this as the prefect oppurtunity to hack into my account and write a nonsensicle article under my username.LSMITH 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shane Oakley (your proposed deletion of)

Dear Mister Haworth,

I'm confused as to why it has been proposed that this article (Shane Oakley) be deleted.

Shane Oakley is an artist who is already mentioned in various other articles on Wikipedia (such as Matt Brooker and Albion (comics), neither of which have been created by or edited by myelf).
I am an author who has worked with Shane and I decided to create the article in order to fill in the gaps for people wishing to know more about him and his work.

People have previously created entries about myself and my writing partner (Leah Moore) and there seems to have been no supposition that they were "non-notable, probable vanity" despite the fact that their content was remarkably similar to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moore reppion (talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you stated explicitly, here, at talk:Shane Oakley and on your user page that you are John Reppion (if that is the case). Writing up a friend or colleague is almost as much vanity as writing about youirself. But I do not indulge in revert wars, remove the prod tag (it is not illegal to do so) and see how I react. -- RHaworth 16:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Image:Shaneoakley.jpg

Yes Mister Haworth, I am John Reppion and, as far as I knew, I had signed the above comment by placing four ~s in brackets. I believed that this was the correct method of signing an article or comment on Wikipedia but, if this is not the case, I apologise for any confusion caused; this is the first such article I have created and the first time I have ever had to leave comments.

"Writing up a friend or colleague is almost as much vanity as writing about youirself." This seems a very strange thing to say. Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia that we share our knowledge of all things? Therefore, doesn't it stand to reason that people who actually know the individuals they are writing about should be the best source of information? Are scientists writing about their own theories or findings being arrogant or vain or are they simply giving us the benefit of their knowledge? Should people who know individuals be excluded from writing or editing articles about them? I think that sounds a bit stupid.

"But I do not indulge in revert wars, remove the prod tag (it is not illegal to do so) and see how I react." No idea what any of that means but some kind and knowledgable individual seems to have sorted the page out, removed the deletion recommendation and added the ISBN for the Albion (comics) trade paperback.

Sorted! John Reppion (86.138.73.201 00:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

The problem with your sig was that you had actually used five ~s which generates just a time stamp. It is always a good idea to read your edits after you have saved them! Same goes for the image you uploaded where you left in place the db-noncom tag. Which reminds me why I came to the article in the first place. I was working through CAT:CSD for images, came across this one, deleted it because of the {{db-noncom}} tag and then thought "this looks likes typical school kid vanity" (you have to admit the image gives that impression!). So the prod on the article was more a result of the image! But if you really want that image you can have it, providing you gave it proper source and licence info. - {{GFDL-self}} will do for the latter. -- RHaworth 05:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Filled Jewelry

Hi RHaworth,

If Gold Filled Jewelry is a copyright violation, you can have it speedily deleted without waiting five days for proposed deletion. Put the template {{db-copyvio}} in the article. You can find more information at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles #8.

I don't have an opinion about keeping or deleting the article; the only reason I removed the deletion proposal was that the reason didn't match the contents.

Best regards,

Fg2 21:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Padron

Hey, I see you deleted the page Eddie Padron. I don't disagree with this, but how in the world did you find this page? It hasn't been on the recent changes for a while or any deletion nomination pages (that I'm aware of), and its pretty much been left alone.

For the record, I am the creator, and it was a personal joke/vanity page, but I thought that after it being up for about a week without anyone messing with it I'd be home free with my own little contribution to wikiality. Never thought anyone ever looked at the transsexual porn star pages. Just curious.

Oh, and you missed the last little piece of my addition when you deleted Eddie. Have fun finding it. :-p EPIATSPS 23:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I found it in the simplest way possible: it was in CAT:CSD because user:83.88.94.242 had put a {{db}} tag on it. But it might also have come to my notice because I take an RSS feed of new pages and it is not unknown for me to look at new pages four days after creation. -- RHaworth 08:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh goody, you got rid of the last little piece. What was it that tipped you off that it was fake. I mean, a lot of the tanny porn star pages are pretty questionable and hard to verify. A lot of them don't have reference and such, so it can be difficult to tell whats really true.

  • As I said above, user:83.88.94.242 identified it as fake. I saw it during CAT:CSD patrol, noted the penis size and agreed with 83.88.94.242. -- RHaworth 22:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon, he's got micropenis!! Don't judge him!