User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2008 October

Setting an Example
One would expect a Wikipedia Administrator to know how to spell the words "about" and "labeled". If you have problems understanding how to spell simple words or how to re-read your posts, I suggest that you step down as an administrator. Please note that this is not a flame, just common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillio (talk • contribs) I suppose "ids" is how you spell "is" too. Trillio (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I mis-spelled "about", it was a simple typo. "Labelled" ids the correct spelling on my side of the Atlantic. Stop carping. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure iz. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll e-mail this guy to stop him from turning to the darkside (if you get my meaning) Scarian Call me Pat!  23:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Trillio...again
I did only put my username there. *rolls eyes*

I didn't create it there. On the RfA page, there's a box to enter your username. I did so, and it automatically created the page. Please check on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillio (talk • contribs) 22:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Which RfA page? Give me an explicit link. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Oz Principle
Please unblock the page, The Oz Principle, so it can be re-written by a third party, besides the user:mnpil. Swedewiki (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At least you have learnt how to post to talk pages without destroying other people's messages. But you are still posting at the top of the page. You can try DRV but don't expect much joy. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

SafetyBook
Why was this deleted? If you feel that this was advertising then please delete all articles referencing brands and trademarks (Kleenex, Q-Tip, Nike, Wal-Mart etc). This article was well written, factual, and informative with references to other products and trademark information. For Wiki to work... there have to be controls in place INCLUDING limiting the overuse and abuse of "Speedy Delete" by overzealous ogres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlogan32 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are already controls in place. The applicable one in this case is deletion review (DRV). When you raise the DRV request make sure to link back to here to show that you have discussed it with the deleting admin. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Chris Killen (writer)
Why was this deleted? References were given for significance. Killen is a known writer whose forthcoming novel will be released in several countries at once, he has blurbs from already established writers. A link to his publisher was given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palayla (talk • contribs) 10:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a minimum, you should wait until his novel is actually published and has received truly independent review. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oldest pitchers
List: Oldest Pitchers to Start a Postseason Game. Removed deletion, would like to discuss first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superman7515 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Erfan
Sir, you deleted an article that I had spend a significant amount of time on to make sure it is with in the guidelines, you hasty deletion of the article does not help me have a discussion about its merits or about making corrections based on your view of the word. 1) can you please send me the code for the article prior to deletion, I need to have the content in order to make modifications 2) can you detail what in your mind you think constituted the deletion of the article from you point of view Thanks much (Poeterfan (talk)) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Text has been e-mailed. Deletion reasons:
 * Five previous deletions and an AfD discussion were ample grounds for deletion.
 * the previous articles were not up to par and did not provide ample references, this one provided details information and was written to wiki standards so its not self promoting with many references and without promotional language as well as written professionally vs some of the one liners that were put in the article in the past. There is really one version of the article that exited, the original, the rest one random edits/comments. if you read the old deletion conversation, the original article was actually deleted because of the language of the article and limited references (the artist was new at the time so there were not that many informational links available online, the entire Persian rap movement is new http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_rap ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.21.9 (talk • contribs)  Same for other comments at this indent level below.
 * Your user name suggests self-promotion and we do not like self-promoters - see WP:AUTO.
 * this is coincidental!! I think if someone was to do that, they would be smart enough not to be so obvious *1*, so no, I am not the artist. Erfan and Poetry are words that go hand in hand in Persian and the Farsi language. I simply picked that as a name for my wiki account.
 * Less importantly, the article started with a pp-semi-protected tag. This is often an indication that the text was simply a vandalised copy of another article - a phenomenon we see quite often.
 * I used other Wikipedia artist/musicians as a template, so as to create a structure that had already been accepted by the community (things like 1- Life and Career 2- Work to Date 3- Musical Style and Influence, etc), which is probably why that stuck. I wasn’t sure what it is for!!  You can read the article, there is not really anything there to be vandalisted from another article, it’s a unique artist and character that is part of the Iranian hiphop scene. You can see the Iranian rap page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_rap
 * It contained an interwiki link to fa:عرفان . When I follow that link to the Persian Wikipedia I see no photo (even though the photo is on the Commons and could easily have been used). Even more suspicious, the English interwiki link points back to gnosis here! The Tajik link points to Ирфон which contains an interwiki link back to mysticism! *2*
 * correct, the word "Erfan" in Farsi (and the Persian language) means "mysticism", there is a known fact. Just like 50 cent is the name of an American artist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_cent) but also a money denomination. The word is used I all Persian based languages such as Afghani, Pakistani, Indian, tajik, Azerbaijani, Turkish, etc. It actually comes from Arabic so used though out the middle east.
 * But feel free to raise the matter at deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you still want me to start a deletion review or do you think the explanation makes sense?? if you read the old deletion conversation, the original article was actually deleted because of the language of the article and limited references (the artist was new at the time so there were not that many informational links available online).

Thanks by the way for your review, appreciate the fact that you didn't simply mark it for deletion and spent time on it, look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.21.9 (talk • contribs)
 * Re *1* above: we probably delete a dozen articles a day where people have been so dumb as to pick a user name closely resembling the title of the article they are creating! Please learn to use wikilink format for wikilinks! Re *2*: so what was the point of the interwiki link? You are very persuasive but you will need to go to DRV because I am no good at judging the notability of musicians. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Soliloquy

 * ''Continued from this is the archive.

To show you that i will do the same and presume Good Faith on your part, and since i recently read that User pages are for Wiki-related data only, i will blank my User page except for that Profile (whose template i grabbed from another User) and what does relate to Wiki projects. Let me know if this goes some distance to exemplifying both my greenness and my sincerety. :)-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC) No problem. I assume people are just busy. No idea how long it will take for what i do. Is there a deadline? 'Been here a month' -- that's funny, it doesn't seem like it. My available time has varied considerably. Thanks for the review of my previous User desc. I gather it is better to reflect Wiki-involvements and so adjusted accordingly.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not been ignoring you - I have simply not been near a computer for 22 hours. How long do you need to come to your "thorough understanding"? You have now been here a month. The previous version of user:Self-ref was OK. Changing it was, at best neutral. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

btw, thank you very much for your assistance with the shifting of the Satanism_sources page from my Talk to my User location. I see that you are helping me out and could have merely told me to do it and fix the references to that page and i appreciate your assistance. :)-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion tagging
For the first article I would have used A3 but since there has been a recent backlash against "quick fire" speedy tagging and the article was created with an in-construction tag I thought it might be worth giving the creator a chance to add to the article (with the prod as a kind of insurance policy in case I forgot about it, nobody else noticed it and no content was added). As for the second article it was perhaps the most text-book case of WP:NOT I've ever seen and was clearly heading for deletion but since reasons derived from WP:NOT are specifically listed as a non-criteria for speedy deletion I felt I had little choice but to send it to AfD. I realise that at least in the latter case there should be an element of common sense (or IAR) involved but given some of my past experience with users who feel there should be no lee-way whatsoever with the speedy criteria I felt it better not to rock the boat. Sorry for the inconvenience, regards Guest9999 (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Parasitologists
I have nominated European Federation Parasitologists, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/European Federation Parasitologists. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Smitty (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Smitty (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice on proposed merge
Hi Roger when you have a moment please will you look at Talk:ABC Motorcycle and let me have you views on whether it should be merged as I propose Thanks Thruxton (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing the page title
Hi Roger, according to my understanding, i may not be able to write and follow proper guideline of wiki. Perhaps I need to change my page title from SAFA Calculator v1.1 to SAFA (Standardized Acceptance Factor Average) which is just a method. So, it would not sound like an advertisement. I have tried to change it but can't. Would you please help me in this regard?Dearsafa 00:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearsafa (talk • contribs)
 * There is uttely no point in changing the title - it will merely confuse the AfD and will not affect people's opinions in the slightest. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting Stahlak
I was considering tagging as nonsense, but it seems the category excludes hoaxes.  Enigma  message 22:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Template
I have moved Anderson University (Indiana)/template to Template:Anderson University (Indiana). &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I was holding it there until it was ready for "prime time." I wanted to fill in a few more of the red linked articles before moving but I guess this will push me to improve a few of the articles now. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A better place for a draft would have been user:Absolon/template but drafts in the template: namespace are equally OK. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Navjot Singh
Dear Sir or Madam

Firstly you should not have any doubts on Navjot Singh's notability. We are talking about a first rate author who has contributed to society- he may not be JK Rowling and he is not the kind of toff you think he may be...he is in fact a really nice guy who is quite shy one would say. He deserves more mention than he gets...the most likely reason that he doesnt get many mention is maybe that his name is not "British", and institutional racism can be a problem- so people may not prefer a guy with a name like Navjot Singh to be mentioned as a "British Author"...if this is the case then its sad that this still happens in the 21st century (I hope I am not being paranoid or thinking wrongfully)

Secondly this has got nothing to do with Dulwich Coll. or Navjot Singh himself...I am in fact a friend of his who has known him a long time (not from Dulwich school). He has worked hard to where he has got to. This is not to show off about his achievements or to promote his book or services, but to give a simple message that here is a guy of non-white origins who has written and done something about China, and it is very rare for a Indian man to write good things about China because normally its only white western people who write things about China, and believe it or not the Chinese and Indian cultures do not get along, so in actual fact Navjot Singh has done something which is rare, for an Indian to have a deep passion and interest in China....don't you think thats something special that he is actually making a contribution to bring a true sense of multiculturalism into this world? We would highly appreciate if you can please reinstate his profile. Its not a bad thing, its a good thing....we dont have a website where we can promote his services...thats a pity on our behalf...

I am sorry I mentioned that I started the profile of Navjot Singh...it was his cousin &#91;Pablo7772&#93; who started it...but there are 2 of us on this. So clear the confusion...

Thanks for your understanding and effort. I am sure you are a nice person who understands...and the rest is up to you...so please tell me if you can maybe consider changing your mind. Thank you

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurpalo (talk • contribs) 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Madam indeed! Do I look like a madam? Cousin eh? Presumably Navxlnc, Neenrug767, Postpone888 and Poodle89 are more of his cousins? You have not actually provided any extra evidence for his notability but feel free to raise the matter at deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, I am sorry if I offended you Sir, I did not mean to at all...you are a cleaver man with a lot of talent. I saw your website...my name is Ranjit, I am the cousin of Navjot Singh. Your son also went to Loughborough. Maybe they both know each?! What a small world. Indeed I will raise the issue with delete review..in the meantime I was wondering if you would please return the copy of the article for Navjot Singh's page, and also for his book Newcomers to China &hellip; Many thanks in return. My preference says that I accept e-mails from other users. Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurpalo (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Dear Roger
 * E-mailed. I actually asked my son but he had never encountered Navjot. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to write to you again. I would like to renegotiate with you...it will save a lot of hassle by going to delete review page. I would rather get this resolved with you, the respective administrator. Coming back to the point that Navjot Singh is a author, an up and coming rising author on China. He is the UK's first British man of Indian origin who has written on China. Further proof of his notability is that here he recently contributed to a FT publication, there has been mention of him on websites. He may not be a millionaire or a rising star of journalism (yet)...but things are progressing I am sure, and I am sure he will be a person to reckon in the near future. He has already achieved a lot...how many British Indians do you know who have written books on China? Most of them are not global thinkers, and time wasters (sorry to say but its the truth)..and here is someone who has fought to become a respected author. He has already contributed to the BBC World Service and smaller magazines, as well as this in the FT. People are recognising his achievements...

I would like to ask you if you would please kindly reconsider to reinstate his page. The page about his book is not about advertising..its about showing and making other budding Authors feel good and give them a moral boost..especially "yobs" who are no good but to let the Asian community down in society...its for those people to look up to and realize that they can also achieve something if they work hard. I know Navjot has worked hard day and night for the past 6 years and took and sacrificed his career and time in the UK to go and live there in order to do research for his books...this is not easy.

Much appreciated Gurpalo 12:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurpalo (talk • contribs) Hi Roger
 * I take a severe view of contributors with a conflict of interest. You and Navjot's five other cousins may find more sympathetic people at deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to fill this out and I need help please. I have copied and pasted the following but but do I replace the undelete reason with? And do I need to write a explanation of why I want it to be undeleted or is this one line enough for the delete review guys to understand? Please let me know.

Thanks Gurpalo 20:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course you have to give an explanation! Note that empty phrases such as "up and coming rising author on China" cut no ice with deletion reviewers nor will a link to the guy's own article. They want to see third party reliable sources. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Novena Darmawan
Get my Novena Darmawan page back please! this person IS realy. thank you for taking you time to read this.

Also it says that you have deleted it, so BE responsible and get it back, or email/send me a copy of what i've wrote as it took me AGES! to write it.

Kind Regards, 3-chocolate (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC).
 * E-mailed. Do not try to repost. Go to deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

oh kkz thank you sooo much! RHaworth. i've just checked my e-mail! omg omg omg thank you!:D:D:D

do you know why my page got deleted? cause i seriously have NO idea?!

anyways.. have a good day :) once again, THANK YOU SOOOO... MUCH ;) kind regards, 3-chocolate (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Have you tried looking at the deletion log? Do you seriously think that an article about a nearly 14 year old kid with no claims to fame and containing one link to a website that requires log in, stands more than a snowball in hell's chance of being accepted here? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Dang!
Yeah, I need to learn to spell... tried to fix, and screwed it up again. I'll check tomorrow when I'm more awake and get any others that I either screwed up and you missed, or that I screwed up, you fixed, and I screwed up again. I apologize and thank you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Learning Management System
Hi, just wanted to get some feedback as to why you keep removing a link I have added to this page? I'm new to editing. Thanks Cleach. Cleach (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Keep removing" from learning management system - exactly how many times have I removed it? But you work for coloni.net. You are therefore a spammer. Nuff said. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Bosco Constantine deletion
Hi, Ok so originally I created it for a Second Life Live muscian named Bosco Constantine. He is very popular in Second Life (stupid Second Life and it's trademark rules) Now it was deleted for being sorta like an advertisment (really a warning for longer than a week would of been nice as I was on vacation but still ok and acceptable) Now then I was busy and just put in a little something to sorta get the page started as I left my computer to go work on something. When I returned it was gone. Ok once again no big deal. But now that I have put in importance into it you went and deleted my work for the reason of the person not having any importance WHILE I was working on it. And if you don't think he is of any importance or fame...google his name once. He's got the top 3 google hits on that name at the moment. So can you please just give me back the page I've been working on. Thank You. -- EgonZimminy (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Our Second Life article does not find it necessary to splatter ® symbols everywhere - so why should you. Sorry, perhaps I am dim but what is this "importance" you have put into the article? I have given it back to you via e-mail. If you want it on Wikipedia, try deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and Recently Linden Labs released new guidelines for using their trademarks...technically and legally you are suppose to put in the Registered Trademark symbols and Trademark symbols. Deletion Review it is. Thanks for the code Email. Also full Significance may not have been put directly into the article yet. But really. How is this any different from any other musician out there? I really do not see the difference. EgonZimminy (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh he is a musician is he? The first difference was that you described him as a "virtual world" which is pretty meaningless. Another difference was a total absence of external links to help us distinguish between fact and virtual reality. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it is a little hard to do that when it is deleted while I'm working on the page. EgonZimminy (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey RHaworth. I was wondering if you could also send me the code from the August version, I have some info in there that I'd like to grab, if possible. Thanks! EgonZimminy (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added it as the latest state of User:EgonZimminy/Bosco Constantine and let me tell you that the article will never get anywhere without links to RSs. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Urban Ninja
The page Urban Ninja got deleted and I would like to know if you would email me a copy at. Thanks! Pcrsweetness (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Longitudinal prediction
Sir, you replaced my article stub with a redirect. I am of the opinion that the article should be left as a stub, available for expansion. Dandv (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that the topic is best covered within the longitudinal study article. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cadmium telluride photovoltaics
RHaworth, your comments/edits at the beginning of this article's life have been helpful. The issues you flagged seem to have been dealt with in an effective manner. Would you consider removing the COI and Advertisement flags? SolarUSA (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is probably scope for a bit more improvement. Certainly you should clothe those naked URLs - like this. See what Mion thinks about the article issues. (Don't tell anybody but you could take them out yourself!) &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

GHO
Thanks for editing the disambiguation I started. I didn't realize there was a special section for them. How do I move it on my own next time? Regards. -Knowl &lt;(Go to my user page to play WIKI RP! Its FUN and educational!) (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Creation protection of weedpunk
Hey, I saw you creation protected the weedpunk article shortly after it was deleted earlier. I just believe it was a little bit hasty and kind of unneeded since I wasn't going to recreate it without going through the proper processes, and it wasn't "reposted after an AfD" as you stated. You can see all of my reasoning here: talk:weedpunk. Thanks! --Banime (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC) It was reposted one year after an AfD, after I felt that it had met all of the concerns raised in the AfD. Which I think is much different from the Protection policy: Non-existent pages may be protected, for limited periods of time, if they are repeatedly re-created after deletion in line with the deletion policy. That didn't happen, and I had no intention of repeatedly recreating it. As the only creator of said article, it made me feel like a common vandal when the page was salted, as if I would not use the proper channels if I wanted to get it back up. I brought it up on the deleting admin's talk page. Why was protection needed in any way? The truth is it wasn't (unless you assume bad faith, perhaps). This is not about the deletion but about the protection only. It's almost completely not a big deal since I'd only try to get it back up through a deletion review anyway, it just left a sour taste in my mouth since I was the only one who ever created it. --Banime (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Oops, sorry you're right. I rounded up when I shouldn't have. Anyway like I said I guess it's not a big deal since I won't recreate it either way but I was just surprised to see it is all. Thanks for your time. --Banime (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it was reposted after an AfD what do you think Articles for deletion/Weedpunk is? And the blatant sock puppetry in the AfD discussion loses you all my sympathy. Post your text on your own website and raise the matter at deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I makes it eight months after. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bosco Constantine
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bosco Constantine. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

re:AfD
Oh, sorry about that. I started nominating that article and then halfway through the second step I changed my mind and speedied it instead. I completely forgot to remove that part that I had posted already. Thanks for catching it for me, &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 14:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Gong Show
Roger why do you insist on deleting my name (TRASH) from this page? We were on the show (as were the Popsicle Twins) and I haqve no idea who originally made the initial entry. It does not advertise or link a thing, merely states what we did and who we are. I'd appreciate you just leaving the sentence as is. I notice that you do not remove the Popsicle Twins name from the paragraph, just ours. Sorry if I feel like you have something against us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trashrocks (talk • contribs) 14:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you are talking to the right person? Could you give me an explicit link to the edit you are talking about? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not I am not an expert on this site but the page is: The Gong Show.

Someone keeps deleting our name from this page (under controversial acts) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trashrocks (talk • contribs) 15:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If the reason given is because it belongs on the Gong Show page for the New Show, then why is only the name of our act being removed? Seems like a vicious deletion to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trashrocks (talk • contribs) 17:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry Roger but the only edit I made was to include the name of our act, the correct spelling of our song title and to correct degrading remarks made to both my band and my bandmates. A blatant self-promoter?? No, in fact I removed the entire entry. As far as your opinion that my act was "less than notable", why then didn't those who made edits remove the entire line? Well, no matter, I REMOVED IT. Wiki shouldn't include entries they fail to properly identify. I've checked the IP addresses of those who made these remarks, and I believe I know who these people are.Trashrocks (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, why ask me? What edits have I done to The Gong Show before 14:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)? But the answer probably is a) because your act is less notable than the others and b) you are a blatant self-promoter. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I Set My Friends on Fire
Could you please unprotect this and I Set My Friends On Fire? I found a bunch of sources and plan to recreate the article, since one of their albums was just listed at afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Two titles unprotected. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

damn
Oops. Ok I see, sorry bout that. Damn, thought I could make my own project. Well, thanks anyway. Toonami Reactor (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Boxes!!
Thanks for the box! I'll put it in my collection. Toonami Reactor (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Help
I need help with the page Brown & Sharpe. It is a freaking mess and I can't seem to find the "page needs attention" template (If it exists).Toonami Reactor (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC) I see, well, thanks for the template. Toonami Reactor (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the article looks quite good to me. Template:articleissues documents the vast repertoire of maintenance tags - I prefer to use the stand-alone tags rather than articleissues itself. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never seen the program. Is it broadcast on my side of the Atlantic? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it depends. Are you in the United States? Toonami Reactor (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't expect people to read all my user page but you could try the first few words. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's funny. I usually don't take the time to read the user page. Only what I need on the talk page. Toonami Reactor (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted my Neutrosophic Logic page!
RH - you sure ain't no logician - this stuff is quite good - however dodgy the guy is. I have nothing to do ith him either. You should beware appearing to be 'ethnocentric' - maybe if he was an Oxford man maybe you'd have rolled over to admire the page!

Has there been a discussion on WP of the merits of this? If not, I suggest we refer the matter to a neutral logician - I can recommend some names. &mdash; Gemtpm (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion? How about Votes for deletion/Paradoxism-Neutrosophy? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

These guys must be joking! If self-promotion is the measure, there are hundreds of more obvious pages to delete! Do you want me to give you a list of them!

This stinks to me of plain old-fashioned racism now..

I say again, if you think the logic is no good, provide an expert to say so. IMO it is no worse than the rest of the stuff on logic here. If self-promotion is out, why not trackle some of the BLP pages, RH!

Gemtpm (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Question...
What does that mean... deleted edits? ⊥m93 (Taylore) likes to talk. 22:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Ok. So a deleted edit is an edit where I nominated a page for deletion; right? ⊥m93 (Taylore) likes to talk. 23:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of your contributions page, they have recently added some useful links. Among these are two different edit counters. Now, do you remember seeing an article consisting of "Jessica Adeline Tuelp is by far the most beautiful girl to have lived on the face of this Earth". What did you do with it? Where is it now? It is one of your deleted edits of course. And I count it as a main namespace edit! &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Or wait... its where some edit I made was deleted; right? ⊥m93 (Taylore) likes to talk. 23:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got it! &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for the help. ⊥m93 (Taylore) likes to talk. 23:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I just started working on an article
And I left a note, saying that. So, why the deletionist box sitting on top like a turd. Sheesh. I even put a note there saying that I'm getting started. Heck, and now I'm creating a page for the author. And he's notable. Written several books and an iconic figure in NY media criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Article now has a decent stub started(ISBN, spelling corrected, more content, and 3 RS reviews). I would like to delete our earlier kerfuffle from the talk page--we are the only two who have commented there. OK? TCO (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please get into the habit of creating links to what you are talking about and clothing naked URLs. I don't see the point of deleting but do it if you must. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio
To allay your concerns about copyright infringment. The history reports that you tagged Satire by Vic Morrow as a potential copyright violation. If you follow the link below, you can read a discussion of this with another administrator. The gist is that U. S. government works are never copyrighted. One can only speculate on the lawmakers' reasons for this singular act of generosity, but whatever the cause, there it is. Who would have suspected that such a thing is even possible? It may please you to hear of it.

"Works by the U. S. government are not eligible for U. S. copyright protection" &mdash; mjk (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply at talk:Satire by Vic Morrow. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Poop scoop
Flush!: The Scoop on Poop throughout the Ages. The article passes WP:BK and WP:NOTABILITY because it has three reviews. Schuy m 1 (talk ) 04:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you prod it because of the book's content? Schuy m 1 (talk ) 04:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC) But it has three reviews. Schuy m 1 (talk ) 05:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only because it is non-notable not because it is bad taste. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm done watching this page because I don't care what you say. You didn't even explain how the book is non-notable in your nomination and there is no way that the article is going to get deleted with the reviews I found and the sources Schmidt found. Schuy m 1 (talk ) 05:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What were you expecting me to say? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Niko (Playgirl)
Good catch. This guy is a terrible liar as NewsweireToday says the Playgirl 2007 Man of the Year is Julian Fantechi. Any way to speedy this hoax?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not willing to speedy it - checks out on IMDb and Google - but you can try db-spam! &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Kushagra Nayan Bajaj
About my article Kushagra Nayan Bajaj, Nothing id fake their. You can collect more information from http://www.bajajhindusthan.com/bdirectors.htm. Pls don't delete my article. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranakapil (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about fakes? The critical consideration is notability. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dozen
We had a little misunderstanding, but it turned out fine. Just "Dirty dozen" is indeed not the best name, it's better with disambiguation in the title... GregorB (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

HK QC
Dear Sir, Would you please let me know why did you deleted my article "defects classification"? It's now linked to "Acceptable quality level". Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HongKongQC (talk • contribs) 09:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely they do not still have Queen's Counsels in Hong Kong? You need to learn how wikis work: I have deleted none of your edits (yet!). Acceptable quality level contained: "(Also known as defects classification)". I will admit that I may have been hasty in assuming that this aka referred to the whole article but on reflection:
 * with very short articles like this it is better to combine the content into one story instead of scattering it across several little articles, indeed
 * since these are little more that definitions of terms, it would probably be better to combine their content into a bigger article, eg. quality control, leaving redirects on your titles.
 * &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Skip off
Articles for deletion/National share a skip week. Mate, I speedied this. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wierd
Perhaps you are right. I was not sure what font is better, therefore I used both. But for links better is 𝔓, f.e. $\mathfrak{P}$33, 𝔓33 (it looks better). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You see my browser displays 𝔓 as two squares - although other chars which display that way do not crash my RSS feed. Are you sure that 𝔓 is recognised within the utf-8 charset that Wikipedia uses? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see you are right. 𝔓 I took from this article: Biblical manuscript, $$\mathfrak{P}$$ I took from: German-wiki. Unfortunately $$\mathfrak{P}$$ is too big graphically, and in every links it is not signed by red or blue lolour. We need a something better, and a little smaller. I will not use 𝔓 in future created articles, and I will reduce in existed articles. I will use it only on my user page, because of blue links. I suggest to use it also in articles: Categories_of_New_Testament_manuscripts and in List_of_New_Testament_papyri (nice looking). By the way, there is a difference between number of my edits which I can see in "My preferences", and Edit counter. Currently difference is 23 edits, but sometimes it is bigger then 40 edits. It is too much. I guess, deleted edits is one of the reasons of this difference. Do you know who can help? With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On a couple of occasions, I have found that big (more than 1 megabyte) articles have been crashing my RSS feed. Since they were just nonsense text dumps, I deleted them. But I found it an amusing thought that I was having to change Wikipedia for the convenience of my computer! But your case is different! Unless you get complaints from others, please feel free to use whatever characters you want. If they crash my browser, I will live with it. The main thing is that I have identified the source of the crash and can work round it if necessary.


 * Edit counts. Bigger than 40! In my case the difference is bigger than 5000! It does not correspond even remotely to the count of my deleted edits. It may be due to "database lag". Just don't worry about it. Stick to this one (as above) or this one which can be quickly accessed via the "Interiot" link at the bottom of your contributions page. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What now?
What happens in a case like Tundra pillow which you prodded. A single-time user removed the template without edit summary, or reason on talk page? The tag says that If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. What happens now? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Why didn't you do that? Your prod was a waste of time. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Oh my gawd. You gave me a chance to learn how to do AfDs. Sheesh. It would be more beneficial for you to learn when to do AfDs. The prod you put on this rubbish was a clear waste of time (and predictably it got removed, so couldn't be replaced). Had I not noticed that the prod template had been removed, this thing would probaby still be there 12 months hence making Wikipedia look juvenile in the extreme. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do the three steps listed here! &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean why did I not send the article to AfD in the first place, you are always encouraged to prod first. Many articles do get deleted as uncontested prods. If you mean why did I not raise the AfD at the time of my message above, I was giving you the chance to learn how to do AfDs! But if you don't then I will raise it soon. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Navjot Singh
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Navjot Singh. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gurpalo 15:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Chicoprovince socks
If you find more, please indefinitely block them, as the user behind them has been abusing OTRS for legal threats. If you have questions, please contact me on my talk page. (I'm on vacation this weekend, can't guarantee I'll be quick about responding). &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Jonathon Bolster
Nice catch, I looked over it, everything seemed to be in order, no obvious vandalism, had refs, I was surprised to see a complete article out of a brand new user. Guess I should have looked closer. I'll try to be more careful in the future when on NPP. --Terrillja (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Simple Question
Is there any reason why you are such a tool? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.120.244 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete?
I would like you to provide me with specific examples as to why you deleted my post for "Arkiva" twice. I re-wrote it the second time, but it was quickly deleted again.

I have re-written most of it a third time, now, and would like to post it. However, it is protected and I cannot do this. Please let me know what I can do to ensure that this will not be deleted. - Cori —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cori1214 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As an aside, when you leave talk page messages, please do not delete other people's messages as you did with this edit. We deleted the article because it seemed like blatant advertising. I assume that by "examples" you mean "reasons" and "ensuring that it will not be deleted" is a bit premature - first you must get it reposted! OK, you did provide some reviews but there was no real evidence that the product is notable. And it was patently obvious that you are from the Arkiva company. But by all means place your third version on your own website and raise the matter at deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nose Hill
You put up a request of deletion on two Nose Hill pages, namely Nosehill Forest and Nose Hill Pond. My colleagues and I are working to clean them up and turn them into wiki format, so my question is would we be able to upload them again if they aren't made into wiki format before the deadline. Blueboxinthesky (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you allow them to be deleted and do not attempt to re-upload them. If you had bothered to read the AfD discussion, you would see that the main objection is original research - simply reformatting will make no difference. I strongly recommend you to publish them on one of the wikis on this list - where they are unlikely to be molested. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I did "bother" to read the AfD discussion, all your problem was that you think we are using Wikipedia as a free host, which we are not; in fact all we are doing is we contributing to it. Plus what is the problem of original research? Oh and mind you I have read the article *1*. Blueboxinthesky (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You may have read the AfD but you obviously did not follow my original research link above. Follow it and read! Re *1*: which article? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)