User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2007 October

Todo
For goodness sake, pull your finger out and deal with: Denvilles, oscoor and granite posts. -- RHaworth 08:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Built to Serve
I went to great lengths to make this article as unbiased as possible. I do know the author personally, he is a mentor of mine and I believe what he writes about. I'm curious as to why you think it's an advertisement? It doesn't mention where to buy the book or encourage people to buy the book. It simply talks about the book and that's it. Do you think that one of the Harry Potter books should be removed? Wouldn't that be an advertisement? Andyhartman 18:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC) I am new to Wikipedia. I have been a member since December 2005, but have only cleaned up blatant vandalism until now. To be quite honest, there has not been a subject that I have felt I have enough knowledge to write about until now. I may have not done the copyright thing correctly. I took that picture from his public website. It was my understanding that images on the web were copyright free. Please show me how to properly assign a copyright to that image and I will be happy to do so. I do not earn any money from the sale of his book. I just think it is a book worth reading and wish to provide information about his book so that anyone who has heard about it can do some more research about it. I read the COI page and do not see any COI here. As for the Harry Potter, point taken. Please look at the "Good_to_great" article. This is what I'm trying to do. Show me what I'm doing wrong, please. P.S. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in when I left the message on Articles for deletion/Built to Serve. Andyhartman 13:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, claiming copyright on Image:Dan sanders.jpg confirms that you are only here to advertise. You are welcome to contribute to Articles for deletion/Built to Serve but please have the honesty to log in before doing so. Quite apart from the COI considerations, do you not think there is just a slight difference in notability between an Harry Potter novel and Dan Sander's book? -- RHaworth 06:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Drift n Burn 365
I recently created this page on Drift n burn 365, an internet game, however several users put it up for speedy deletion for not asserting the article's importance. I am a rather new user and this was the first page I had created. I think I covered it pretty extensively. I have a back-up of the edits I used to create the page, and I would like to know how to alter it so it is not deleted immediately. Also, it was you deleted it so I suppose you are the one to speak to. It is protected so it cannot be recreated, and I wouldn't try to make it under another name or any such trickery. Docbloch 19:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I had a link at http://www.addictinggames.com/driftnburn365.html I'm not sure if I exactly understand what reputable, independent references to on the web would be, but I will try to find some. Thank you for responding so quickly. I will try not to bother you. Docbloch 19:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I've found several references, at these sites. I'm wondering if this would be alright. http://www.addictinggames.com/driftnburn365.html Drift n Burn 365 at addictinggames.com http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/70704.html A video demonstration/ trailer of the game made by its creators http://www.kinelco.com/ The official site of Kinelco Duo, the game’s developers http://www.shockwave.com/racing.jsp The page holding the game at shockwave.com Docbloch 19:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How about providing a link for me? As you have already been told more than once on your user_talk page, there was absolutely no assertion or evidence of notability. Find at least three reputable, independent references to the game on the web and raise the matter at deletion review. -- RHaworth 19:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? I said "raise the matter at deletion review". -- RHaworth 20:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OURFEST deleted?
hey i spoke with another administer WJB and he sent me to your site. i had posted a brief article maybe a month or so ago about OUR FEST. the page was no where near complete it had justbeen started and it was basically going to talk about a local festival thats been going on for years. i wanted to talk about the history of the fest, where it got started. etc. the only thing i had posted so far was a summary of "RE-Productions" which is the company that started running the festival. i was wondering if there was any possible way to have my article undeleted so i can build the page up and include the other pieces of the festival?
 * I take a dim view of people who come here to promote their own organisations. I take a dim view of people who post the same article on different titles. The way to have the page undeleted is to make your request at deletion review. (The DRV instructions tell you to notify the deleting admin. Don't! I would vote for "stay deleted".) -- RHaworth 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

CV Madhukar
Dear Wikipedian, I rewrote the article CV Madhukar, that you proposed for deletion, and discussed why I believe it to be relevant. It would be kind of you to answer if you agree or disagree before the deletion period get's over. Buergerbeck 06:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Dear Wikipedian, I understood references and not external links as the place to proove the correctness of the statements and thereby also the notablity of this person. First of all the Mint article shows interest of the press. The article reads: "The briefs are sent to all the MPs, about 700 journalists and 1,000 non-governmental organizations around the country." And: "Madhukar said his six-person team, financed by the Ford Foundation, is the country’s first non-partisan research service focused on pending legislation." If you kindly see this together with some interesting facts about the Salary of Indian MPs, such a source of information is even more relevant in India than it would be in the UK with the broad research facilities available to the House of Commons. From the The Salary, Allowances and Pension of members of parliament act you can read that MPs in India get monthly 16.000 INR (see point 3) plus hence to the The Members of Parliament (Office Expense Allowance) Rules 20.000 INR for office expenses including "a computer literate person (...) engaged by a member for obtaining secretarial assistance in Delhi". Therefore, as a comparatively very bad equipped parliament the MPs rely even more on such external assistance. Additionally, the links I'm adding now about articles influenced by PRS Legislative Research through data sets compiled for the authors further proove the influence of CV Madhukar on not only legislators but also the press debate. As I wrote before, only MP interviews could reveal which influence such a project has in the end of the day. But if Wikipedia is not a project especially also to reveal such influences on legislators in general, than I don't know what else for. I never saw the List of gay porn stars as the heart of the project. With kindest regards from New Delhi, Buergerbeck 10:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of the external links you have created, which ones provide independent evidence of the guy's notability? -- RHaworth 06:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And if it may be a bit more colourful and less theoretic for you, kindly follow the links to CV Madhukar's Fellowships: Class of 2004 on the page of the Edward S. Mason Program of the Harvard University and CV Madhukar: Parliamentary Research Service (PRS) on the page of Echoing Green. These links are References in the last paragraph of the Madhukar article. Buergerbeck 11:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * References or external links - I think they are equally good for proving notability - I have not seen any Wikipedia rules about them.
 * So why do you leave the prod tag in place?
 * At a quick glance the articles seem to be as much about PRS as about CVM himself. The PRS Legislative Research article could do with some improvement. How about merging the CVM article into it and changing CV Madhukar into a redirect? -- RHaworth 13:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedian, thanks for the agreement. I took the tag out. But I disagree about fusing the articles of CVM and PRS. Madhukar was and will work for sure in other projects, had for example always this strong engagement for young children's education, a project not at all related to PRS. I understand very much your approach to concentrate on only important person and on the point, that I'm not the most neutral person to write about him. But I stronly hope that I proved well enough what I have written, others are invited to add a lot more, and I think this is more likely in a full article about Madhukar instead of a redirect only. Of course it is nothing but a joke if I would object a guy sitting in the UK deleting articles about Indian activists, since C V Madhukar is not really Gandhiji... Kindest regards, 61.246.34.240 04:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Davina Kotulski
While I think Davina Kotulski was a brutal article in terms of formatting and COI, I don't think it was an A7. I turned down a CSD request for Molly McKay earlier, which is the same situation. Would you mind if I undeleted the article and sent it to AfD?-Wafulz 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By all means. "Brutal" seems a strange word to use. Pure self-promotion is what I would call the article. -- RHaworth 19:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

National Liberation War of Macedonia
The recent move/redir war over this article has left it without its history, due to cut-and-paste moves by User:Frightner. I've started undoing the damage, but you seem to have a good handle on this, so I'll leave the rest for you. If this kind of disruption from that user continues, I'd suggest an indef block. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was unsure whether I was doing the right thing. Most of the edit history seems to be detached in Occupation of Yugoslav Macedonia during World War II and there are a bewildering set of moves and redirects. I will be happy to let someone else take over! -- RHaworth 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Smash Bros. Dojo
Um, please explain to me why this was deleted? I received the reason why, but that was false. I did state the importance of that website, at least twice. C. Pineda 18:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why was it deleted? Five "speedy" votes within four hours seems a good reason to me. Importance? Please remind me what words you used to indicate its importance. But in any case your views don't count: we want links to independent, reliable sources that think it is important. Feel free to raise the matter at deletion review. -- RHaworth 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Alereon
Our company page was deleted back in March. We fashioned it after the Hewlett-Packard page. Wondering if you could provide specific suggestions on how to modify the original post to comply with the anti-advertising policy? All of the information we provided is factual, but perhaps we're too close to the subject to write about it subjectively? Would news articles and/or press releases be considered a source for verification?Alereon-tx 19:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Specific suggestion: wait until someone else writes about you. -- RHaworth 19:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Adam.J.W.C./Images.
Thanks for fixing the error that I made with my new subpage. About uploading to Wikipedia commons, I will look into this first thing tommorrow, I was actually unaware of this. Do you think many people would be interested in these pics. Ad@m.J.W.C. 13:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes. Yes. -- RHaworth 13:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have transfered and uploaded quite a few images as you request. I say it was a good idea. Would you like to have a look Most of these a mine minus 3 or 4, they were taken yesterday and most were uploaded the day they were taken. Also some of the other ones that you have seen plus a few more. The sand dunes of Sydney might be next.--Ad@m.J.W.C. 03:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Undelete
Can you unprotect deleted article Pretty Crane? The article was created before the character appeared on Passions, but now has been cast. Her article has been created at Pretty Crane (Passions character) because the original link is locked. TAnthony 02:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * She has now been seen for all of a week. Does that make her notable? I don't watch British soaps let alone American ones; I cannot judge. Take her to deletion review or ask Eagle 101 who deleted the first version. -- RHaworth 05:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Icebox
Could you undelete icebox.com i have previously provided well sourced material from time magazine and other sources to justify its notability's but it keeps being deleted here is an additional sources . -- Dwanyewest 11:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A phrase such as "a groundbreaking new Internet company that has assembled an unparalleled lineup of writers" reads as "delete me, I am spam" to most Wikipedia editors and suggests that the author has a COI. You placed a delrev tag on Talk:icebox.com but I cannot actually see any delrev discussion. Instead you tried to sneak the article back in at icebox.comm. If you do the job properly and take the article to deletion review with the refs you have given above, you may actually receive a sympathetic hearing. -- RHaworth 17:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just looked at Dynamo (magician). I was strongly tempted to send it to AfD. But it shows that you simply do not have the faintest idea what constitutes "encyclopedic tone". And don't let me ever catch you changing 'modernise' to 'modernize' again. -- RHaworth 17:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of icebox.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dwanyewest 02:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Fragile X One-act play
Hi, I just noticed that the page Fragile X One-act play is protected. I am not sure why it is still protected after one month, but I wanted to tag it as db-redirnone since its target link does not exist (anymore). Could you unprotect it, or even better just delete it ? If you worry about the page being spammed again, I guess deletedpage will be better than a broken redirect. Many thanks ! Schutz 21:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

image
Fine! I had no idea who you were, and yes, I missed the message. It also seemed to be out of spite since you immediately searched for an image I had uploaded and tagged that instead, with no reason to suspect copyright. It was released under public domain, why would you do that just because I didn't place my tag in the commons? People are terrorizing that page and grabbing convenient images, I had a right to suspect and if you don't have to time to actually check out the chaos going on at that article, I suggest you not accuse me of anything. I'm not used to tagging, please change your tine when sending me messages or don't send them at all, because I don't care if you're bringing an attitude, just do what you do!Taharqa 14:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You could have explained to me out of courtesy whatever mistake I made instead of assuming that I'm vandalizing for not seeing whatever other comments you've made, then messaging me with your snide attitude, I don't need it and it isn't that serious. Just do your job then.. In addition to tagging the only image I've uploaded, makes no sense whatsoever, your actions are unusual to me. But I'm not going to go back and fourth about it.Taharqa 15:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychology and "comments"
Thanks for taking note of the weird "/comments" thing in the Psychology articles. It seems no one has responded to your query on the project page, but my notes pointing out the problems have been deleted. Is it perhaps just a badly coded project template attempting to point people to the correct talk page but failing? I can't tell if this is a confused coder or the beginning of a terrifying spiral down into comment pages for talk pages with their own talk pages and comment pages, but I'm not very wikipedia savvy. How long does one wait for an answer before taking action? Subversified 19:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A week is more than enough time. I would have changed the template myself immediately but it looked rather complicated with all those #if's. -- RHaworth 01:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I started to dive into fixing it, then got completely confused. Lee Carré seems to be the last one to have worked on that section of the template, so I left a question on his user page. Subversified 02:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Disorders of Brain
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Disorders of Brain, and it appears to be a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 09:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

ZEMA article
Dear RHaworth,

I would like to seek for the explanation why the article titled: ZEMA was deleted.

On July 19, 07 the user Android79 deleted the article "Zak El-Ramlly". The artcile was asked to revise because it looks more like a resume than a bio. The article was then modified accordingly, adding along references to support the article.

On July 26, 07 the article "Zak El-Ramly" was again delete after discussion at Articles for Deletetion by the user Kurykh. I posted up a dispute in the discussion but it is no longer found in the talk page for some reason.

The article was deleted on Aug 2, 07 due to repost after AfD but there was no response from the discussion that I posted up. I would like to know what are the reason for deleting the article "Zak El-Ramly" in order to understand and improve on the quality of the article. My revision has proved my effort and willingness to make revisions for the article so that other readers can benefit from learning in wikipedia.

As I respect every user's contributions in the "Zak El-Ramly" article, I would also like to find out what are reasons contributing to the deletion of it and what should be the revisions precisely in order for the article to be valid for posting in wikipedia.

Thank you so much and I appreciated your help.

--Surprisekinder 23:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ZEMA was deleted because a prod tag on it had remained in place for five days. I advise you not to repost it since it is blatant advertising.
 * Regarding Zak El-Ramly, using two different user IDs - Surprisekinder and Datalibrary and four different titles suggests an attempt dodge our vigilance and repost deleted material. Your talk page comments came a bit late - why did you not contribute to Articles for deletion/Zak El-Ramly?
 * What should be the revisions? Wait until someone with no COI decides he is notable enough. But if you cannot wait, you can raise the matter at deletion review (note my advice at above), but you will need to explain what has changed since July 26 and show which of the many links you added to the article show that "he is a notable and highly regarded" (several of the links did not even mention his name). -- RHaworth 00:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise. As I mentioned, I did contribute to the talk for deletion of the Zak El-Ramly article but was unable to track it back now. As I am a new user in wikipedia, there may be areas where I am still green but for sure any expertise starts at this level. I did not intentionally use different titles to repost the deleted material but I wasn't able to figure out HOW I could change the title of the submitted article. Would you please tell me the way around it? i.e. an article was submitted with the title "Apple" but later on I wanted to change it to "Apples" instead.

Greatly appreciated. -- 209.52.125.201 23:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Surprisekinder
 * You did leave a note at Talk:Dr. Zak El-Ramly but that was a week after the deletion discussion had been closed. To change an article title, use the "move" command. (I believe it is not available to new users but you should now be OK.) -- RHaworth 05:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sinagogue of Satan
What is the deal with this nonsense? I think the user who just re-created is probably at least a COI editor, if not a sockpuppet of the organization's founder. Why hasn't this been salted and the users warned after being deleted so many times? VanTucky (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just this minute salted it. -- RHaworth 01:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work. VanTucky (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

AccessPlanIT
Hi, Just wondering why the Accessplanit page was deleted, dont see how this was any different to other company pages e.g.g The Sage Group, Speedy Hire etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davideva (talk • contribs)
 * How about secondary sources  and  conflict of interest ? -- RHaworth 08:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Manic (PC Game)
I've changed your Speedy request to a prod instead, as the reason you gave was not a valid speedy criteria. Marasmusine 09:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whaddya mean? What is the db-spam tag for? OK crystal bollocks by itself is not a speedy reason. -- RHaworth 09:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

nn-autobio
Did write some facts about Lars Olof Känngård and you have given that a "nn-autobio" can you be kind to explain what is wrong and what should be corrected, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ViA-Lars (talk • contribs)
 * What is wrong? The worst part is the "auto" - I assume you are Lars Olof Kanngard. Self-promoting articles are strongly deprecated. As to the "nn", I felt that you fall short of satisfying Notability (people). Certainly you presented no references. How to correct? Allow this version to be deleted and wait until somebody with no COI decides to write about you. -- RHaworth 17:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of MMM Commentaries page
The deletion review page states that I should talk with the admin first and try and reach a conclusion before moving to the next step. Could you please review your decision regarding the deletion of the MMM Commentaries page? Your previous statement seems to indicate that as it now shows up on Alexa it is now closer to being "worthy". I understand and appreciate now the reasons for its deletion last year - it read like an advertisement. I went to the trouble with this new one of doing it from scratch, based on a long standing and undeleted page, the Starship Sofa page. I am hoping you can review your decision on the deletion of this page, which I feel is unwarranted. I would draw your attention to other podcasts existing quite happily on Wikipedia Nobody Likes Onions and Slice of Sci-fi, both of which I feel fall into the same category as my own podcast. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmm commentaries (talk • contribs) I don't expect the people on Wikipedia like yourself to take such a rude and aggressive tone - I have tried to state my case clearly and objectively and all I get is abuse. MMM Commentaries isn't a money making venture, we aren't after glory, fame and riches. We just want our place on Wikipedia, next to similarly themed entries which seemed to have escaped the deletion button. I will indeed take it to deletion review - but please remember I am just following clearly outlined Wikipedia procedures which request me to talk to the person who orignally deleted the article first before moving to deletion review. Thank you for your time. Mmm commentaries 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're havin a larf aintcher? Do you think that I would for a moment consider restoring a blatant piece of self-promotion which has received a clear AfD vote? If you take it to deletion review, see my note at Ourfest above. -- RHaworth 08:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You had already talked to me here and been advised to go to DRV. There was no need to raise the matter again with me. -- RHaworth

Jason Alan Snyder - AfD
Hello. I see a number of people have come forward on the AfD page for this entry producing both reliable sources and other references in defence of it not being an autobio as well as demonstrating notability. It seems it clearly isn't an autobio. And with the additions, this is unquestionably a person of note (per the New York times and other sources anyway). That being the case, I was wondering if you were going to resolve the dispute? Thanks. 24.187.152.136 12:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As with the previous contributor, you cannot be serious. I shall rely on the admin who closes the AfD discussion to see through the vandalism, vandalism, forgery and canvassing that has gone on, and give the article an appropriate treatment. -- RHaworth 13:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am serious. And you know what? You, and many of the other Wikipedia editors are sarcastic and mean. It seems you almost behave like this is an [autocracy]. Perhaps the idiot that first posted the article committed "vandalism," but that does not mean the article isn't valid. More importantly, you and your editor cronies don't need to behave like jerks.24.187.152.136 13:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted. -- RHaworth 14:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ole Henriksen
I was actually in the middle of writing in the discussion tab. The speedy deletion was contested. Why did you delete it even so?

Let me refer to the General criteria for speedy deletion: "...Note that simply having e.g. a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." "...an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well."

The article clearly doesn't violate those rules.

TobiasK 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

University of Karachi Project
Im trying to clean up some of the projects listed in School and University Projects and your name pops up associated with Wikipedia_talk:Mass_communication_in_Pakistan Is it safe to say that this is no longer a "planned project" and perhaps a completed one? Thanks Thelmadatter 15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter
 * They never confirmed themselves as a project. I am sure it is safe to say that the project was &mdash; what? Probably " abandoned" would be the best word! -- RHaworth 16:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Kumaran
Please note that the content posted under Manu kumaran is not copied from any website... it has been prepared by the Medient corp communications team.

Mr Kumaran is one of India's prominent Film Producers and has made films in four different languages - English, Hindi, Tamil and Malayalam.

He is the son of one of India's premier film directors - K P Kumaran and is the CEO of Medient plc.

You could google or yahoo search him to confirm his relevance

thank you, shilpa -- Medient 13:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC) i attach a few links for your reference.. thanks
 * Another comedian! Nobody said it was copied. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Read this note for people who say "you could search". -- RHaworth 16:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akasha_Gopuram

http://www.singhandmehta.com/MRSINGH3.swf

http://movies.123india.com/contemporary/bollywoodnews/archives/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0867235/combined

http://www.bollywoodsargam.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3368

http://www.berwickbandits.co.uk/latestnews.htm

http://www.exchange4media.com/pr/PRNews.asp?section_id=9&news_id=18084&tag=12811

www.medient.in

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/01/11/stories/2002011103140300.htm

http://www.franchiseindia.com/expo/scheduleevent03.php

http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20011224/mscape.shtml

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168529/combined

Sandbox
I'm sorry, but why does this page even exist, let alone get protected? The chances of someone typing in the whole address in the search bar or better yet, typing it, HTML code and all, as a URL, are infentesimal. Can this get deleted? GlassCobra 18:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. My apologies. I thought it had been created by accident. Only after I had set up the soft redirect did I realise that each instance was the work of one person with a strange fixation. The silly edit today to its talk page shows there is still need to protect it and I have done so. -- RHaworth 18:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

2 articles on the same subject
Hi, I would ask your help, there are two articles on the same topic in EN one Bran, Braşov and the other Bran Castle, how should they be merged? Thanks BR vargatamas Thursdas on the week 21st August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)   Clearly Vargatamas, who by complete co-incidence, is the person who should have received the Orphanbot message above.
 * Please provide links in talk page messages, please log in before editing and please sign all talk page contributions with ~ . The two articles have been under separate development for some time so an history merge would cause confusion. No admin action is needed. There is probably justification for two articles even though the Bran, Braşov article will be pretty small once you have removed from it the stuff which is duplicated in Bran Castle. -- RHaworth 12:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:Vandalism
I was not trying to vandalise it - I was trying to revert it, but it says it cannot be reverted. This is what I was asking. Basically, all the text is lost. I was leaving a message for someone to try and get it back. If noone has agreed on what to do, you should not have put a redirect on it, especially to light rail (completely different to trams, especially because it had historical trams on it). I could say that YOU VANDALISED it first.  Bluegoblin 7   11:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Tony Van Den Ende
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Tony Van Den Ende, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Tony Van Den Ende is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Tony Van Den Ende, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mythology and History of astronomy
See talk page of Hindu units of measurement. Thanks for retrieving the history : I had tried the move command but it did not work. -Vinay_Jha 17:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

fall
Why did you unanimously [unilaterally? RH] change the name of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA candidates September 2007 review drive without discussing it on the talk page first? I don't like referring to it as the 'September 2007 review drive', mainly because it's intended to go beyond September, and be 3-months long. I don't see a problem with 'fall review drive'. Either way, I wish you had brought this up on the talk page first, rather than unanimously changing the title yourself. Dr. Cash 17:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Fall" meaning autumn is virtually unknown and certainly rarely used in British English. Its use shows a deplorable North American bias - is it fall in the southern hemisphere? "Without discussing" - I have a strong "shoot first - ask questions later" policy. In fact I have no strong feelings, if you move it back, I will take no action. -- RHaworth 18:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't smack the newcomers
Have you heard the expression "Don't smack the newcomers"? Today a newcomer here on Wikipedia created the article ISO 18014. The article isn't spam, just pretty bad at the moment. But within 5 hours you added 4 maintenance tags on it instead of giving the editor time to improve the article. It would have been way better if you gave him some friendly advice on his talkpage and/or the article talkpage. And perhaps you could have done some clean-up and editing of the article instead of just complaining about it? If I had been smacked as hard as you smacked that user when I created my first article here at Wikipedia several years ago I would probably not have stayed around. --David Göthberg 22:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am amazed! Firstly five hours is more than enough time to wait. After five hours one assumes the original author has gone away and you are applying the tags to invite others to improve the article. Five minutes is more like the average! Check this straw poll of the first few wikify tags I looked at: George Morgan (actor), Ayub K. Ommaya, MTN Sciencentre, Open High School Sydney and Immingham Dock. I will admit that I do have a tendency to bite the newbies but I insist that applying standard improvement tags cannot, except by a very great stretch of the imagination, be considered biting them. I consider it helping them.
 * Incidentally, did you create any incoming links to the article? No. So why did you remove the orphan tag with this edit? -- RHaworth 09:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article review overview
Okay, so I didn't get at first why you moved it. Seemed pointless, but then I realized that I missed named it. It was supposed to be '/Good article review overview' and I apparently forgot the /. So yea, I intended for it to be a subpage of the essay is was attached to. Anyway, sorry about that. Thanks for your help.  LARA ♥LOVE 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Social Evolution talk deletion
I started a talk page for Social Evolution. You have marked it for speedy deletion on the ground that it is not an article. Why? It is not supposed to be an article. It is a talk page about an article. DCDuring 11:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So for goodness sake put it on a talk page!!! (A talk page has "Talk:" at the start of its title!) Here is your text:
 * ==Non-Expert (User) Participation in Technical Discussions==
 * Could it made possible for a non-member of the biology team to observe the discussion of the term and comment? I can certainly understand wanting to keep the article itself protected from vandalism and just plain ignorance, but the articles under team control are drifting away from intelligibility to a lay audience. DCDuring 17:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * -- RHaworth 11:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. I see that what I had intended to be a talk page became an article. It came about, I thought, when I hit the discussion tab for the original Social Evolution article. Can that be? Could it have to do with a problem (now fixed) with my signature? A box was checked on my preferences form. I'm just trying to learn from my (numerous) mistakes. DCDuring 12:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Try again to remember what you did. Social Evolution did not exist until you created it. Social evolution on the other hand does exist. If you hit its discussion tab you will be taken to Talk:Social evolution. I cannot see how your signature preferences could affect anything. -- RHaworth 12:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I had't even noticed that Wikipedia was case sensitive. I can't be more specific. Neither evolution nor my experience have given me the ability to recollect the details of things that seemed unimportant at the time. In any event, as author of the piece in question, I encourage speedy deletion. DCDuring 14:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dealbay
Dear RHaworth, you added db-inc and reposted spam Tags on the article Dealbay. In fact it is no reposted spam, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:DEALBAY Kind regards Karoline Matzke 13:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing the Seasons of the Heart aricle and disambiguation pages for me.KTo288 09:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Contest Lock+Load deletion
Nihiltres,

Before going into my argument, please understand that I am not hostile in the least, I am amenable to complying with constructive criticism, and I am more than willing to make changes as you deem appropriate. Additionally, I have refined my work since last night's deletion in an effort to further improve the article's objectiveness.

Also, after its first deletion, I discussed the matter with "Nucleusboy" who first tagged the article for speedy deletion and made significant changes based to his feedback.

I've reviewed Wikipedia's guidelines defining "spam" and I believe my article not to be spam as Wikipedia defines it. Below, I've copied and pasted Wikipedia's official guidelines making some comments in between.

There are three types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles,

(this article's primary objective is to document the tremendous recent improvement in the world of sports nutrition and I was careful not to make claims without presenting scientific evidence--for the most part, the article talks about internal metabolic science; it never discusses brand marketing)

wide-scale external link spamming,

(there are no external links on this article)

and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting").

(I plan on adding some internal links, but they will all go to other Wiki articles that already exist which discuss legitimate scientific concepts and nutrients; currently, very few links do exist which rules it out for this type of spam)

Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business product or service,

(in no way do I solicit the reader to buy anything, I only inform)

or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual.

(this article is not written in language the general public could understand and as such would make a lousy PR piece; my motivation is to inform)

Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links

(as noted, the language is definitely not sales oriented and there are no external links)

to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities.

In closing, I'd like to point out that, for instance, movies like "Balls of Fury" have Wikipedia articles. A Wikipedia article for Balls of Fury is clearly an advertisement. The Lock+Load article is an informative piece based on scientific studies.

I await your feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiralnotebook (talk • contribs) 11:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not Nihiltres. There are already half a dozen links to deletion review on this page but you can have one for yourself. Hints: a less spammy title to the article would help; lack of external links of the right sort is a weakness of the article, not a virtue. -- RHaworth 16:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I can add links to blogs that talk about this subject as well as other articles. You say that a less spammy title would help; do you have anything in mind? Thanks.--Spiralnotebook 17:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I have anything in mind? Good heavens! If you don't understand the product, then you should not be trying to sell it anywhere. Re-reading your first paragraph, I note that it contains a lot of buzz words but does not actually state how the product it differs from other sports drinks. -- RHaworth 17:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

HEALTH (band)
Hello. I'm rather affronted at an edit you made. You deleted the content of this article and replaced it with a redirect, with the edit summary of "nn-band on duplicate title - redirect". The "duplicate title" part was a completely fair rationale; I have moved the page, as you can see. I am affronted though because you didn't check the article's sources; I have established notability quite clearly.

Please take more time in the future, to review the articles you redirect.

Seraphim Whipp 20:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please take more time in the future, to consider the titles you give to articles. -- RHaworth 02:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I find your attitude outrageous! I changed the redirect (HEALTH} to the article named above, checking what linked there very carefully to make sure nothing would be disrupted. I did this for a good reason because the band's name is spelt in block capitals. Your edit summary was bordering incivil, "rollback to sensible redirect", and your next move and edit summary, "Protected HEALTH: vandalism", was entirely inappropriate.


 * I am a good faith contributor and I do a lot of good work here. I think you should review your attitude if your simply resort to insulting people like me by calling me a vandal.


 * You are an admin; where is your patience and good judgement that the responsibility of admin holds?
 * Seraphim Whipp 15:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Electionworld Talk?  20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 2
Wasn't creating an article. I was moving uncited material - a lot of it - to it's own archive, pending citation. You rather bollixed things up by trying to re-merge it back into the article I removed it from. Had you asked, I would have been delighted to have pointed that out. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear God, what on earth did you do to the Talk page? Archives cannot be created. Please undo whatever it is that you did. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Maybe you could illustrate what I did wrong. I get the bit about creating a specific name for the archive, but what was all that redirect stuff you were doing? I was moving to archive stuff I would have normally just moved to the Discussion page, but there was so much of it, I felt it might be citable, and moved it to its own archive. Did I do that incorrectly? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I still cannot see the point of putting the deleted stuff in a separate place. But as long as you do not put it in the (Main) namespace, I probably will not interfere. Please note this edit. But you may take comfort from the fact that half a dozen people before you have made the same mistake. -- RHaworth 05:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The two circular redirects were my "finger trouble" - my machine had slowed to a crawl and I was hitting the move button too many times out of sheer frustration. Ignore them!
 * But as to your "move to the Discussion page". Are you trying to appear dim? You failed to put a '/' at the start of the link. However, since sub-pages are not defined in some namespaces, it is always better to spell out a link in full thus: User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2007 May rather than /Archive to 2007 May. Do you understand now? -- RHaworth 06:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I do understand, and no, I was not trying to appear dim. It was a mistake on my part. I was not trying to create a subpage beyond the archive, like a temp working space or the like. I understood that I had forgotten to specify an identity for the archive. Got that (as I said in my post above). The crazy redirects made me think that you presumed I was trying to make a new artiucle or whatnot, confusing matters all to hell.

I have since added the material to the archive. I understand that you are somewhat absolutist about uncited edits, and tmost of the time I would agree with you. there being so much material, and it being arranged fairly insightfully, I decided to give folk the opportunity to cite it for a return to the article. Maybe that is a mistake on my part, but if it allowssomeone to re-add something that helps the article, I'm all for it.

Lastly, please, I think that a user of your impressive edits and typically magnificent user history would be a tad more polite in your dealing with others, especially with editors who aren't trying to screw up articles or taking the piss out of you. Maybe you are just having a bad day or whatever. I'm a little disappointed, as I'd heard quite a lot of good things about you. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that you have been contributing for ten months and that when you did this edit you had  / Archive 1 visible, it should not have been necessary to explain anything to you. I feel I have escalated the rudeness appropriately. -- RHaworth 07:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was an oversight, and I missed it at least a few times. Guess that's why they put erasers on every pencil made. Thanks for the apology, R. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  07:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Protestantism

 * Thank you for your help! But....according to Help:Archiving a talk page your position is not WP's position. I quote:

There are two main methods for archiving a talk page, detailed below. and The most common, beneficial method is the cut and paste procedure. and There are two alternative procedures which can be used to create a subpage: Cut and paste or move. Whichever way you prefer..
 * You are correct though about user_talk:. Sorry! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Eleventyseven
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eleventyseven. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chubbles 04:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ishrat-ul-Ebad Khan
Your page move-and delete had the exact opposite effect of what you wanted to do... just letting you know so you can fix it. Thanks! Gscshoyru 01:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you are obviously a mind reader, perhaps you would tell me exactly what I wanted to do. -- RHaworth 05:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Battlefield SigInt
Re:Deletion of Electronic Order of Battle and COMINT metadata

Hello. Recently you have deleted several times the above mentioned articles on the base of speedy deletion because it has once been deleted. Now, although i've contested the speedy deletion of these articles and invited editors to discuss it, i have heard nothing from you, or any other editor.

If you would have read the comments that i had refered to, you could notice that these articles where firstly deleted by mistake. Several administrators found them notable and agreed that they should not delete them. The one who did delete them in the first time did so because of misunderstanding, and after he read the log of these articles deletion discussions, he had understood that these articles are meant to be.

Now - since you have deleted my articles on the base of "articles that been deleted" only, and not for any other reason, and since i have just explained to you nicely why it is wrong, '''i would appreciate it if you will either let these articles be, or discuss why they shouldnt be. But please, don't BRUTALLY delete them without conciouse!'''   Comint 07:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for you convenience, here are the former discussions (!) about these articles' deletion, and their approval: Comint 07:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Genesis EW
 * User:Jaranda/Archive25
 * Instead of leaving messages, you could try reading the messages people have left for you. On your talk page there are two links to deletion review. What is your difficulty in following that link? Although I did not state it in the deletion summary, "articles that been deleted" was by no means my sole reason. I strongly suspect that you are essentially trying to advertise your company. -- RHaworth 07:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that these two messages left on my talk page do not refere to the above mentioned articles. Since you wrote one of them, i believe you do know that these messages dealt with the article 'GenCOM Suite', which may be argued. The other two articles that i'm talking about have been proven and agreed to be legit and notable, months ago. I have seen the comments about the GenCOM Suite. I am still waiting for an explainations about Electronic Order of Battle and COMINT metadata. Please do not decry me, be decent enough to discuss with me before canceling my work - Regards, Comint 07:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Electronic Order of Battle. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Comint 12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of COMINT metadata. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Comint 12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Multi-Line Extension telephone
This should probably be left capitalized, as Multi-Line Extension aka MLX is a telephone that follows a specific "MLX" protocol. It is a proper noun, like "Integrated Services Digital Network", not a generic term. Reswobslc 20:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pretty Crane. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Charity 04:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary schools in Croydon
I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what's happened to list of primary schools in the London Borough of Croydon. You don't seem to have put it back in London Borough of Croydon (or I can't see it there). Isn't it better to have a separate list that one on this page. SuzanneKn 19:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but...
I realize this is a long shot, as it happened in April, but could you possibly e-mail the pre-deleted page for "Awesomecore"? Fallaway6554 15:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

COMINT
Correction of Electronic Order of Battle and COMINT metadata. Hello - following those articles deletion review and your comment in this discussion, i'd like your help.

Obviously i don't agree with those articles deletions, and obviously you do. I think that it is an interesting and based information that many can find usefull, and perhaps adding more info. I worked hard in order to make them appropriate and notable in order to feet WP policy, but i guess that wasn't enough. I do belive that these terms deserve to be mentioned, and they do based on several objective sources (ofcourse i'm refering to the above mentioned articles only, and not to other articles i've created wich may be non-appropriate).

As to your comment, i think of embracing it, though i'm not sure exactly how. One option you mentioned is to put them under the title 'battlefield SIGINT'. I'm not sure it would be correct, since COMINT metadata is not necessarily related to battlefield. Other option as i see it is to add 'comint metadata' as sub-topic under traffic analysis, which is more related, and is actually one method of doing it. If so - would you recomend to add the 'EOB' as sub-topic of SIGINT? And, if you may - what changes in the content you think that must be done?

Please understand my former frustration and be kind enough to refere my questions.

thank you, Comint 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Danny becker
A template has been added to the article Danny becker, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. Hammer1980 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't vandalize my page
I don't know why you deleted my page, but don't do it again. As I was informed by an admin this morning, deleting pages is considered vandalism and that is what you did. DON'T do it againCelticGreen 16:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC) You deleted my whole dang archive page that I created per the instructions of an admin and that's just rude. Good thing I had it in a word document so I could put it back. Why would you delete someone's page like that? CelticGreen 22:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Look who's talking about being civil. You vandalize a page I was told to create by an ADMIN and I'm the one being uncivil? Think again. You go into MY talk page, move things aroung without explanation or saying a word, and I'm the one who is uncivil? I don't think so. You're the rude one and the vandal (deleting a page). I went to a bookmarked page that you deleted (that's what it said ~ "this page was deleted, think again before recreating"). That's vandalism. It wasn't redirected ~ it was DELETED. Don't ask what I understand, I don't care what you know that I do or don't understand. You aren't an admin, just a rude person running around deleting people's pages without reason. There's a policy WP:BITE it instructs people to be nice to new users or people that haven't learned everything, you didn't do that, you didn't try and do that, you just messed with someone's page and moved on. That's rude and uncivil. You had no business creating a page for me, you had no business even being on my talk page if it wasn't to try and help with explanation. You were discourteous and vandalized my archive page that I created with the instruction of an ADMIN. Have I made my position on your "contributes" clear? And, lastly, as I understand it, your opinion on my contributes as long as they aren't vandalization, don't count. CelticGreen 01:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC) If you're an admin why aren't you listed in the admin catagory? And I don't pray, the correct phrase is pray tell. These were the instructions I received: '' As to archiving, there are two common methods. One just create a redlink to the new archive page on the current talk or on your user page, and then cut N paste the material into it, whilst annotating a link on your talk. If you access such a new redlink page from a preview window of the current talk page, and then cut the material out into it, you know it's saved before you back up to the excerpted talk page and save that. Can't loose anything anyways--it's always in history.''CelticGreen 01:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrators ~ and since you aren't in that catagory, I need prove nothing to you. CelticGreen 01:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC) See this again is where you fail as an editor of any kind. You randomly throw things out that make no sense. Many people claim to be many things on Wikipedia and many people know how to make many kinds of pages. Thank the Goddess there are so many wonderful people here that are good people that help. You aren't on the admin list, enough said. CelticGreen 02:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so which of your edits did I delete? The convention is that the archive of a user_talk page should be placed in the user_talk namespace but if you wish to be unconventional for some strange reason, I will not force the matter. -- RHaworth 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are going to continue contributing, please make some attempt to understand how Wikipedia works (you could also try to be a bit more civil). I did not delete any of your edits - the only thing I deleted were redirects created by page moves. I created a link to the page in its new position and a glance at the history would have told you that none of your edits have been deleted. Do you understand now? -- RHaworth 23:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Which admin, pray, instructed you to create a user_talk archive in the (Main) namespace? If I am not an admin, how did I manage to delete any pages? -- RHaworth 01:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide proper wikilinks to a) the claimed instructions to create a talk archive and b) this alleged admin category. -- RHaworth 01:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This report is something I have faked, presumably? -- RHaworth 02:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as a matter of interest, Baccyak4H did a similar move to mine. How come they get thanked and I get the above? -- RHaworth 04:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because like a good editor, they explained what they did and offered an option. You just deleted my page and I couldn't find it.  Baccyak4H was courteous and polite and didn't just mess with a page without explanation, unlike you.  You can't just mess with people's pages without explanation and expect them to thank you.  CelticGreen 22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Speed of Gravity
1. Changing 'Jimbo Wales' to 'Jimbo wales' does create new article. This is big flaw in wiki software. Evil people like me use this flaw to create multiple articles which go unnoticed from few days to eternity. If 'Jimbo Wales' 'Jimbo wales' are treated two articles it unnecessarily increase number of articles.

2. I created 3 articles containing unsourced, my original research. I myself brought 2 articles to users notice. Third article appears in google search and catche. See this...

http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:qjiUqDXWQvAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_Gravity Velocity of gravity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9

3. You can see how I hacked source from other article, inserted my own experiment in Newton's mouth, and it went unnoticed. We should think over this. According to me, '''when new article is created it must be categorised in broad category like physics, biology, economics, politics etc. Both users and admins should be given option to track category wise changes. This way users and admins who are specialist in some subject will notice unsourced, original research, vandalism, hacked, spoofed material'''.

I hope you understand reason behind my constructive vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sairilian (talk • contribs) 06:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Explosion in a Cathedral
Please be careful with your pagemoves. When you moved Explosion in a cathedral to the current title, you wiped out the page I'd already created in that location. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that it was still in process. There are still some deleted edits under Explosion in a cathedral, not sure whether you can do anything for those or not. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have restored the two deleted edits so that you can see that they were not worth restoring! All the edits worth seeing are now here. On reflection, merging the histories was a mistake, I should just have made Explosion in a cathedral into a redirect. -- RHaworth 16:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Even if it was a mistake, things are certainly better now than they were when you started. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Escape Technology
An article that you have been involved in editing, Escape Technology, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Carlossuarez46 03:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

StreetCred Deletion
Hey there! I recently posted an entry and found that you deleted it. I actually had re-written it and thought that it met all the wiki criteria. Can you let me know why it was deleted and/or what I can do to prevent this in the future. Lastly, if you could send me a copy of the entry that you deleted so that I can revise it, that would be awesome! Thanks so much...I'm a bit new at wiki and still learning the ropes.

Appreciate your help on this. ~DaniDanigibbs 14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Apart from some name-dropping in the section beginning the site has been embraced, there seemed to be little change from the previous version. Certainly there were no independent references to establish the subject's notability. -- RHaworth 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

CSD on Peenie Tingle
Hi, I added a CSD tag on Peenie Tingle using Twinkle. It seems that as I was doing this, you deleted the article, so it recreated the article with just the CSD tag. My apologies. -- Tckma 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow up on StreetCred deletion
I got your message and the email with the contents -- thanks! It sounds like what I've added to make the entry more notable is being misunderstood.

I added the names of the celebrities that are supporting the site to add credibility. It's a very diverse list of artists. In fact, these artists don't usually collaborate together for anything that they are not getting paid for, especially not to support random causes. But maybe I need to state that in the entry since it possible that people not versed in the hip-hop culture wouldn't know that.

Hip-hop is very fragmented right now, which is why a site like this is so notable. It provides a single platform and gives people, anywhere in the world, an opportunity to participate directly in the culture.

I also added references to two different articles that were recently published, one from BusinessWeek and MSNBC and one from the Atlanta Business Chronicle; I believe these are very credible, independent sources.

What am I missing? Is it just the way I am presenting the information? Please advise.

Dani Danigibbs 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly linking to the site every time you mention its name does not help. But the basic problem is notability. You give one link to an article that merely mentions it and the other link is for paid print subscribers only! But, if you insist, re-instate it and we can run it through AfD. -- RHaworth 20:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point...I wasn't trying to be difficult, just trying to get some direction so that I can re-write and make it an awesome article/entry and not something that is questionable.

Thanks for providing the information on the Biz Journal article, I didn't realize that it was viewable only by print subscribers. I have a PDF of the article, is there a way to link to that through wikipedia? It actually is a very good article and very unbiased. It speaks to the state of the hip-hop industry and how a site like this fits in.

I can also use other articles that have been published, there have been quite a few. I chose those because the Biz Journal was a very significant, well-rounded article and BusinessWeek because it is a national, well respected publication.

I see your point on the mentions of the celebs leading directly back to the site -- I can redirect those links to other wiki articles on them or their official sites.

Thanks for the comments and suggestions...I'll get back to work on this. If you have other comments that you think would be helpful, I welcome the suggestions. And again, any info on how to link to a pdf would be great.

~Dani Danigibbs 21:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You link to a PDF same like any other web resource: thus. One is always suspicious of SPAs: what is your connection with StreetCred? -- RHaworth 21:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

unreferenced at John W. Anderson
Unreferenced should be used only on articles that have no sources (references or external links). The Refimprove template is appropriate for articles with some sources but not enough. Unreferencedsect, Primarysources, or Citations may also work well for your purposes. Thanks-- Birgitte SB  19:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversial literature
Thanks for your recent message. It's very much appreciated. As you may have noticed, I've been around for a while (almost 2 years I believe?) - writing articles from scratch, and creating stubs. One of my interests involves the Protocols of Zion. But when the expert "Category" people come along they often classify my stuff as history-book-stub. But no scholar in his right mind would call that garbage (about which I write for Wikipedia) History. And as it turns out, there is no Wiki classification for it. So I'm trying to do that - solve the problem of how to classify both the Stubs and the Articles once the stubs turn into articles. I think you've got the idea now.
 * Now comes my request: Help. Can you help me in thev technical aspects of this stuff? Are you familiar with the Library of Congress classification of some of their holding by calling it "Controversial literature"? All the different imprints and editions, often under different titles (of which there are supposed to ... well many) would be so classified. Here's a template I created recently (in collaboration with another Wikipedian) which picks out some of these: The Protocols.

So can you help me out? Thanks. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC) PS: And how do I access my Sandbox? I think I could figure it out. But I'd rather not spend the time on that either. So can you briefly tell me that too? --Ludvikus 02:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't really help you on classification. Creating the template with " marks around its name was horrible - I have moved it. How to access your sandbox? You managed this edit OK only a few days ago. Have you really forgotten already? Follow this link to user:Ludvikus/sandbox! -- RHaworth 02:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. You were very helpful to me. Very much appreciated. Have a related question. But I'll ask a bit later. As you Brits say, you're a good "chap." --Ludvikus 05:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm back for a moment. I'd like you to consider the following problem I have. Category:Controversial literature is a broad category. I'd like to make Category:Antisemitic literature a subcategory of the former *1*. And after that I want a subsubcategory, so to speak; in particular, I want Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be a Subcategory of the Antisemitic literature category *2*. Can you help me with that, mate (as the "Aussies" say)? --Ludvikus 05:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * *1* suggest not needed: we already have Category:Antisemitic publications and category:Antisemitism is complicated enough as it is. *2* I have made it a direct subcategory of Category:Controversial literature. It already is a sub-sub-category of Antisemitism. (But why cannot you do these edits yourself: they do not need admion rights?) -- RHaworth 14:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Notable or notorious antisemites
Can you turn this Stub into a true Category? Thanks. --Ludvikus 13:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are fast!!! Thanks again. Much appreciated. --Ludvikus 13:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Subcategory is an error (it's the same, but with Caps) And I don't know how to fix that! --Ludvikus 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You travel faster than a bullet! Superman? --Ludvikus 13:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:John Hope Simpson 1934.jpg
 Thanks for uploading Image:John Hope Simpson 1934.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shell babelfish 05:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Helios Eclipse
I have no idea if its a notable webcomic, but I don't see how the article is spam any more than any other description of a webcomic. I really dont think G11 stretches that far, but if there is something I'm missing, please tell me. DGG (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:"The Protocols" vs. Template:The Protocols
Greatings, Cyberspace Master!!! Thanks for your work - much appreciated.
 * Hope you noticed the improvement of some of my Wikipedian computerese skills, yes? No need to reply.
 * Now to my issue. I'd like the template to have the quotes as in the above. I'm adopting the (short) 1934 imprint title which has the quotes in it (I own the original - it cost me $181 in 2006 - and so I posted the color cover here myself - not that that's relevant). Best to you, fello Wikipedian, and thanks very much. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I forgot to ask. Could you fix the "e" function on the bottom of the Template ("v d e")? It's broken - does not go to the "edit" page. Thanks a lot. --Ludvikus 13:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Protocols"
I've made a mess of the above due to my REDIRECTING, etc., of the above. I hope you'll cleanup after me - since I do not know how to do it. Thanks. --Ludvikus 13:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, reluctantly I accept the quotes, see Template talk:"The Protocols". Cannot actually see anything wrong - the "e" function seems to work and the "The Protocols" looks fine. -- RHaworth 19:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You deserve an award of recognition for your helpfulness, understanding, and acceptance of the work of another, as well as your fine technical skills over Wikipedia. --Ludvikus 23:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)



Category:Notable or notorious antisemites
Hello, are you aware that there's a CFD under way for Category:Notable or notorious antisemites, which you created? I haven't seen your name turn up among the comments. Cgingold 12:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any Software distinction to so-called Subcategories in Wikipedia? I'd like to make/(have proposed) the above to simply be/become a Subcategory of the Antisemitism Category. But I have no idea what it means within Wikipedia for one category to be a subcategory of another. Could you explain? Or direct me to the place where it's explained? Thanks. --Ludvikus 00:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Naruto
A template has been added to the article Naruto Gekitou Ninja Taisen Nintendo Gamecube and Nintendo Wii, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author.  Sephiroth BCR ( Converse ) 16:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Adzke
This page is not nonsense, and so i have removed the speedy deletion tag from the page, the article does not appear to violate any policys that would require a speedy deletion template. It may be a hoax though. The proper way to nominate an article that you believe is a hoax for deletion is through the Articles for Deletion process. Tiptoety 00:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we really have to waste AfD time with this? Get real man. -- RHaworth 00:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * no matter how much i agree with you, it does not meet speedy criteria. Sorry, i will vote "Delete" if you nom it. Tiptoety 00:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User Warnings Namespace
Is there such a rule prohibiting it? I am trying to make it more organized and thought that might work out better than having Archives? Now my page looks bad, *1* I might just add the User Warnings Namespace to it. =P Nescio sed Scio 01:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course there is a rule. Namespaces are defined in the implementation of the Media Wiki software. You cannot create them at random. Which page looks bad? And why? They look all right to me. -- RHaworth 01:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, why did you put a *1* in my post? Nescio sed Scio 05:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wong Archive
I created it as I was intending to do more work on it and wanted to be able to pull bits of text out and not duplicate them. I know there is a automatic version kept but wanted to be able to remove sections that were never going to be used in a revised version. P.s apologies for the pun... --Nate1481(t/c) 12:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)