User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2009 January

User:Vexedd page
User:Vexedd's user page was deleted rather abruptly, with little explanation. Following the advice from Your_first_article, "You can start your new article there, on a subpage; you can get it in shape, take your time, ask other editors to help work on it, and only move it into the "live" Wikipedia once it is ready to go," this page was being used to develop an article on the quantum helium atom (to play the same role w/r.t. Helium as Hydrogen atom and Hydrogen-like atom do w/r.t. Hydrogen). Would you mind explaining what was wrong, so that the user can fix it -- instead of deleting with no notice? If the redirect from "The Helium Atom" was the problem, removing the redirect seems like a more productive solution than removing the entire user page. Robin (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your courtesy! I may have misled myself -- the last time I looked at User:Vexedd, the user page hosted the entire article. Looking at the history log for Helium atom, I see that the article was moved to its own page. Your comment in the deletion log makes sense now -- if I'm reading correctly, the redirect was the *only* thing in the user page. Robin (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the deletion log for goodness sake! I have deleted nothing substantive. But you are right - a separate article on the quantum mechanics is probably allowed. I have rectified the situation. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Online planning
Re: redirect of online land planning to online urban planning. Your edit and redirect of OLP to OUP makes sense, but you also deleted many important statistics that were researched on public and private ownership and sizes of land throughout the United States that are important to readers. Also, from a planning perspective, there is a strong distinction between urban land and other types of land outside cities. The primary emphasis of the original OLP article was the history of community involvement using the internet for those living outside urban areas and how to tie people together using technology. I am continuing to research the topic and was planning to add more - but the OLP page has been deleted with the redirect. To help my research and maintain interest in making future updates to OLP, I would appreciate having it stand alone, like before in its original form so I can continue to add to it. If you feel there is too much overlap between the topics I would be satisfied if you would do the following:

1. Delete OUP altogether; and 2. Recreate OLP as it was originally posted.

Success for me would be to google " Online Land Planning + wiki" and be able to get right to the OLP page - like before. With the redirects that you have created now, it is difficult to find the information since the topic, "Urban Planning" is so large and finding OUP in it is difficult.

Please confirm and thank you for your time and effort on this matter. lispp (Talk)
 * Did you not notice that you had deleted an |} line and thereby messed up the format of this page? I have restored this edit of yours. You have no deleted edits at this moment. I am perfectly happy with one article about online planning which is separate from the urban planning article. But I can see no justification for two articles about online planning. Also I can see absolutly no justification for capitals in the titles. I do not mind whether the article is called online land planning or online urban planning but do not attempt to change the title yourself - ask me or any other admin to do it. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth -Thanks for your quick response. I am sorry to have messed up the format of your page. It won't happen again. Based on your comments, here is what I would like to do and I am asking your help as an admin to do this - especially with the title, as you suggest. Basically, it's the same request as my previous message to you: 1. Please delete the Online urban planning article altogether. 2. Please restore the original Online land planning article in its entirety (no caps); including all citations and references in their exact locations, so I can continue to add and edit. 3. I agree that only one article about online planning will exist, not both. It will be called Online land planning. 4. The article, Online land planning, should be easily located by googling: online land planning + wiki (with no redirects) at this time. I will do more research and create more text shortly. When this is complete, I will contact you in advance about what to do. 5. As soon as you can restore the orginal OLP post, I would appreciate it. lispp (Talk | contribs) 12:44 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a firm rule on my own websites that once Google has seen a page, you do not delete it but convert it into some sort of redirect. Google has seen the online urban planning article so we convert it into a redirect. Why on earth would you want to delete it? Just be patient. Google will pick up the new title in due course. You will find all your edits under online land planning. You do not need my assistance to revert to old versions! &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:59, 1 November 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)

Supervisor's response
I have been guiding my students in the construction of a Wikipaedia entry describing the ecology of Nose Hill. They have informed me that one of your tasks is to vet entries to the site, and in fulfilling your role, you have informed them that their work is not appropriate for Wikipaedia. While this is a student project, the hope was that successive classes would continue to correct and improve the information of the page over the successive years until the work represents an accurate and detailed picture of the ecology of a grassland ecosystem. This would not only model the process used to keep Wikipaedia accurate and updated, but it also models the work that scientists do on a regular basis in learning about the natural world. I am writing to ask that you reverse your decision on these bases. (via e-mail)
 * You are self-contradictory: you essentially admit that this work is original research but ask for it to be on Wikipedia! Please read the policy on original research. In any case the articles are far too detailed for a general encyclopedia. And why are you and your students talking to me instead of commenting in the AfD discussions: AfD F & AfD P?


 * "Correct and improve the information of the page over the successive years." Great idea but why must you do do it on Wikipedia? I have already pointed your student to comparison of wiki farms. My personal wiki is on [edit this]. Anyone who tries to delete any of its content is firmly put down and they have no redress! Editthis and many other wikis will permit you to create wikilinks back to Wikipedia - though in fact I wonder why you are so keen for your articles to be here since your students show a remarkable contempt for the creation of wikilinks. A link from the Nose Hill Park article here to your students' wiki will be allowed - let me know if it ever gets deleted. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yugma
RHaworth: I would like to contest the deletion of the "Yugma" entry that was deleted on 10/9. You sited the article as a G11- blatant advertising. Yugma is a company that offers a web conferencing product and I respect the fact that entries about companies should be closely scrutinized on Wikipedia.Yugma deserves to be included in Wikipedia for the following reasons: our competitors have entries in Wikipedia (Dimdim, Glance, GoToMeeting) and these companies are no more or less qualified to be included than Yugma is. Also, Yugma is the sixth website listed when Googling "web conferencing" while Glance and Dimdim do not make it on the first page. Our site receives about 3,000 visitors a day (avg. for the last month) and we have over 253,000 registered users. Please advise if rewording the Yugma entry would allow it to be posted. If you feel it still does not qualify, I would argue that a number of our competitors with Wikipedia entries (many of which are smaller than Yugma) should also have entries marked for deletion. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonSafari38 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Our site" - say no more. You are a spammer. Wait until someone with no COI thinks you are notable and writes you up. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Divo Pacs
05:48, 30 October 2008 RHaworth (Talk | contribs) deleted "DIVO PACS - MOTION MEDICAL IMAGE ARCHIVING AND COMMUNICATION" (G11: Blatant advertising: reposted)

I do not understand where the blatant advertising applys. If you could please advise me, I would like to correct and resubmit the page. DIVO is an acronym for "Diagnostic Images from Video Outputs", a medical image protocal similar to DICOM. It is a protocal which has been adopted by more than one company who sell medical equipment in the United States, as has DICOM. It refers to a protocal used with full motion medical videos such as with echocardiography and fluoroscopy. It was recognized by the Food and Drug Administration in Nov 2007. A2D Imaging, Pyramid Medical and others refer to this term in their advertising.

Your feedback is greatly appreciated. -- Donrds (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you are a spammer even though I would have expected a spammer to be able to spell the word "protocol". The spamminess is that the first link is to your company and there is a lack of independent references - how about a link to the FDA? Feel free to raise the matter at deletion review (and propose a simple title of DIVO instead of the horrible SHOUTING that you had). &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Golden Eaglez
I'd like to know as to why this page was deleted for I worked very hard on it and I do not see any reason for its deletion. I'd appreciate it if it was put back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paarty30 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no precedent for articles here about wiffleball teams. It might be appropriate to start a centralised discussion. I will happily send you your text if you read this and act accordingly. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hendon Park, Bob Dylan's Chronicles
Hi RHaworth, I tried to communicate with you but another editor (Donrds, topic:Divo Pacs) confused my message with theirs. So this is Take Two:

Hi RHaworth, After our conversation at last London wiki Meetup, I've edited Hendon Park a bit. I'd appreciate your advice on changing name of article. Bob Dylan's autobiography has an article, but unfortunately it has wrong name. It's called Chronicles, Vol. 1, whereas correct title of book is Chronicles: Volume One. Would it be possible to correct this title? regards Mick gold (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your edits to Hendon Park - many thanks. Moving Chronicles, Vol. 1 to Chronicles: Volume One was something you could have done - it did not require admin rights (because Chronicles: Volume One was a simple redirect with no previous history). &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Assume you're talking to someone with v little software expertise, can you say simply what you did? :) Mick gold (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On page deletion
Thanks for deleting the page that was created automatically by mistake from the editor review. I was tagging it with CSD but your work was fast. Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, ok I'm a newbie, kind of, and probably could use some growling, but please help me out... this page you deleted, Arrowbio Solid Waste Treatment through Water Facilities, describes a process of municipal solid waste processing that's a specific method - i put the name of the company since they're building the facilities, and it's a process that they have patented or whatever, but it's not cause Im advertising them... I went on a tour there, was very cool, and since the Lübeck Waste Treatment Facility seemed like a valid page, I thought there was room for this too. It may have been posted a bit too soon in terms of the writing style, was working on it when saw it was deleted. Help? Thanks... YaelG (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So, the page I added for Melissa Bellin (Spice of the Nitro Girls), you deleted with the notation "blatant copyright infringement", even though the very first line referenced and linked the page the info was from. Where does any body else get any information for pages they add, if not from some other source, be it web pages or hard copy text? And as I specifically put a note in the edit description asking "please edit to Wiki specifications", was it necessary to just delete the entire page in stead of correcting it? Qzk1718

Cash crate
Please do not delete my page &#91;cash crate&#93;. It was not blatant adverting it did not even promote the site, it had more negative reviews then positive ones. So how I could I promote it, I just write to show a report of a website. IT WAS NOT ADVERTISING, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Businessmouse (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you still deleting my page, I did not do anything and you are still deleting my page, please stop deleting it it is not advertising. STOP DELETING MY PAGE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Businessmouse (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Word77 Page
I posted at block template after Acroterion blocked the user, you have deleted this page. This is necessary to let editors know this user is blocked. I would ask you restore this page. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • November 6, 2008 @ 02:55 I do, but I didn't notice I was recreating it. A major goof on my part, not intentional. Am a little embarrassed now. Sorry about that. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • November 6, 2008 @ 03:00
 * The whole point is that you did not create User:Word77 - you created Word77. You have been around here long enough - you orter know the difference by now. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nick Savoy
It seems like the page of "Nick Savoy" got deleted. I've modified the page so it met the guidelines of wikipedia, and after approval of several wikipedia contributors (Mathmo and SecondSight), the page went live. The page was not an exact replica of the old "Nick Savoy" page, but modified so it met the standards and cleaned up. Could you please revive the page? Camera123456 (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He still sounds like a thoroughly nauseating guy. Take him to deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Nick Savoy
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nick Savoy. 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. Camera123456 (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony Calder
Hi I am new to wikipedia, I dont exactly understand all the guidelines, but I would like to make sure this page I created is not a conflict of interest. I am not Tony Calder, I do know him and have read a lot of stuff about him. I was trying to correct some of the mis-informed information on wikipedia but I gather you taken it as a promotion to put a COI on it no??? If you could give me basic input on my talk page step by step, I will go about rectifying....my main issue at the moment what do I do about referencing books???(Acalder (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

A7 wording
Hi RHaworth, Saw your adjustment to the delete notice. Others have said something similar before (see talk page of that Mediawiki page), but I just don't understand what you all mean. What exactly is it widening? --barneca (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See MediaWiki talk:Deletereason-dropdown. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply, Egyptian hieroglyphs
Just a quick reply, I am still learning E. hieroglyphs, obviously, and it is a work of love, especially when one finds a Meteor hieroglyph for the second time, and then decides to make a new subcategory: (at commons: ), but her coffin hieroglyphs, a quick look sees the changes on it.(the hoaxing)....As for the IP address, it appears where I was at one time or similar, but all those edits are of nothing I know about, and the other analysis of the IP says Fort Huachuca (by Sierra Vista, Arizona). I am at Yuma, and the Yuma Proving Grounds. As a side note, I intend to try to do more of the set of L. hieroglyphs, the Anatolian hieroglyphs, but I am immersed in the egyptian Nile mud, for the moment. so.....Shalom(peace, be safe, happy), and as the cuneiform, and akkadian for "Shalamu"(with long-a's), (to-be-safe) says enjoy that ride down the creek with rapids. It certainly is always an interesting ride!....MichaelM in HotDesert SonoranDesert YumaAriz....Mmcannis (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Eversley Storage Services
Hi - I see you deleted my article on Eversley Storage Services. Please can you tell me what I can do that you will not consider this to be advertising? (I do not consider it to be so) I have 4 independent sources coroborating my entry and the tone of my article is not one of 'marketing speak', particularly in comparison with other company pages on the site. Your help is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storage Geek (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What you should do is absolutely nothing . You clearly have a COI. When the company becomes notable someone else will write an article here about it. Until then, simply wait. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sharpen16
I wonder if you could block as a sock of. The former says he has provided images, but they were uploaded by the latter. Edits of Sharpen16 to Saatchi Gallery are of the same nature as those previously done by Infoart; see discussion on AN/I. I have been involved with Infoart previously, and I think it would be best if someone else had a look at this.  Ty  03:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I hesitated. Infoart has not been blocked so, at one level, Sharpen16 is not being a sock puppet. But it is better for them to use just one account so I have done the block. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input.  Ty  04:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

CSD tagging
Hi, I know you are an admin and probably hate to be lectured but I hope you don't mind me pointing out a thing I noticed. I do quite a lot of CSD deletions, so I deal with mistaggings often. I noticed that you tagged articles as WP:CSD which do not meet this criterion (like here). G11 applies only in cases of blatant advertising and should not be used in cases where it is not blatant. Since I had to decline half a dozen of your speedy requests within the last hour, I just wanted to drop a note that you might want to be more careful with those criteria that are really strict. Regards  So Why  10:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Stats about number of pages restored
I was curious about any earlier statistics about admin actions before User:E/AdminStats, by checking what linked to that page. It turns out that you were #1 in the number of restorations in the old statistics from July 2007 to June 2008. This makes me wonder if Gurch was ever #1 in a list of restorations, since he stopped being able to undelete articles when he resigned from adminship in January 2007. Of course this curiosity has nothing at all to do with my recent rise in rank of restorations. About a dozen of my undeletions are due to misfired history merges, so we're probably about even anyway. Graham 87 01:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on pushing me to number three in this particular ranking! Almost all my undeletions are following history merges. For what little it is worth, I suspect I was always ahead of Gurch in this ranking: I got admin rights ten months before Gurch and search these two listings from 2006 August for "restored": Gurch & RHaworth. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Filter Recent Changes
Dear RHaworth, Unlike most users, I am not going to argue with somebody who knows better than me. Thank You for notifying me though regarding Filter recent changes, otherwise I might have thought it was vandalism and reverted it. From,

Limideen 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC) 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Birthday wishes in other languages
I have removed the tag from Birthday wishes in other languages, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested. I will list at AfD Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Make page
I see you created this page as a soft redirect to Help:Starting a new page, I think it should be transformed into a hard redirect. I have listed it to rfd for discussion. Regards, Cenarium  Talk  23:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should be deleted altogether and salted. Search this list of protections for "mistake". &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wingmakers
wingmakers: I would like to know the content of this page before it was deleted. It deals with very important matters and has A LOT of interesting stuff that should at least make our lives a more interesting experience, which makes me wonder why it has been deleted (probably because it was badly written). You are free to believe in what you want, but at least let other people know the existance of this large collection of material. Thank you. Cleroth (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC).
 * E-mailed. Please do not try to post this crap back to Wikipedia. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Prod of Tiffany Claus
1000 Quatloos says she'll remove your prod as she did with my "autobiography" tag. You should start drafting an AFD and have it ready. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Freethinking Atheist and Agnostic Kinship
Just a friendly note on Freethinking Atheist and Agnostic Kinship. I declined the speedy because the claims of controversy, combined with the multiple reliable sources, seemed a clear claim of importance. Feel free to take it to AfD if you think it needs to go. -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  16:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Alan Davidson Body Mind Spirit Author
I extended the dated prod on Alan Davidson Body Mind Spirit Author by 5 days, as the article was marked as under revamp when you prodded it. The alternative was to deprod and afd it. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Theory of Mind
Hi RH, thanks for fixing the broken edit to the article. May I ask that when reverting a good-faith change by a logged-in editor, you make it a habit to always use a meaningful edit summary? I believe that doing so promotes civility and in lots of cases helps to prevent misunderstandings. Regards, looie496 (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispersed rational sphere
Dear RHaworth, I strongly object the deletion of this article because "dispersed rational sphere" has nothing to do with "neologism" (that was given as a reason for deletion) - it is the accepted scientific terminology. The term was introduced and accepted in Russia more than 10 years ago. The article "dispersed rational sphere" in Wikipedia has the necessary notes and references for published encyclopedias. This article is a brief summary in English for it's high time that the science becomes truly international. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutty Fruitty (talk • contribs) 19:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

STMIK AMIKOM YOGYAKARTA
They're notable for lack of academic rigor I think: "STMIK AMIKOM Yogyakarta has four study programs. They are: 1. Study Program Information Management (Diploma 3 - Accreditation A) 2. Study Program Information Technology (Diploma 3 – Accreditation B) 3. Study Program Information System (Under graduated – Accreditation B) 4. Study Program Information Technology (Under graduated – Accreditation B) 5. Study Program Magister Information Technology" (emphasis added). DMacks (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Meetup/London 16
Hey, just thought I'd remind you (per your post on the Meet15 talkpage) that the December one is coming up on Sunday 14th. If you plan on coming I'd be grateful if you'd sign up on the page as well as turn up; I'm getting a lot of "not worth it, too few people" responses. Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Template renaming
Just wanted to say thanks for renaming the template. I'm not sure how it ended up being prefaced with Edit in the fist place, so thanks. Hardnfast (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
Note the entire books on the subject, already cited in Adult education in Africa, and Harvard-style linked to the content. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gear4music.com
Could you please give me some more information as per the deletion of the page I created for Gear4music.com?

I understand that the page may have required some edits, which from the log I can see you have done, but I do not understand the eventual deleting of the page as per G8? Does the fact that the page has been deleted before mean it can never be recreated?

I was very careful to mind the points raised by the first deletion in 2006 (Articles for deletion/Gear4music.com).

Could you please advise? &mdash; Jmeager (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Thankyou for getting back to me. I do take your points on board. As this is the first page I have written I do think it is a little difficult to claim I am a single user account. I will rewrite the article to a more exacting, encyclopaedic spec. I did originally try and write the article in line with other articles from the Gear4music.com sector (Dolphin Music, Harley Benton Guitars) as well as other retailers (Amazon.com,Play.com).--- Jmeager (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It still reads like an advert. Also your contributions history suggests that you are a single-purpose account. (Even your title to this note is a give-away - see WP:OWN!) But you can of course raise the matter at deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gear4music.com. 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. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Canditv
The author of the Canditv article removed your prod without comment. I have been trying to help this author work out the problems on this page to make it salvageable, but I fear it may be a lost cause. Each link he adds turns out to be a red herring -- only one link can be found to establish any notability for the subject. As an editor who has been involved in the process, I don't feel comfortable taking the article to AfD, but you might want to consider that avenue. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet
I have been watching (as have you) some Namespace violations created by two users: and. Based on similarity of interests and similar mistakes, could this be a case of sockpuppetry? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am looking at it at this moment. In wikispeak, sockpuppetry is malicious. This looks innocent. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I'll leave it in your capable hands.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

PvkCFwork
As you recognized, PvkCFwork was my sandbox page for a major revision to the copied article. Please recreate the page under an appropriate sandbox page name (e.g. User:Pvkeller/CFsandbox). I had not gone far with the edits, but I would like to recover the work I did. If there is an option for making the page not visible to the public, I would appreciate hearing about it.

Thanks.Paul V. Keller (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Restored to User:Pvkeller/sandbox. No everything in Wikipedia is public. But no-one looks at user pages. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

How do i add an article?
You have mentioned that I am the only contributor to this redirect. You should have checked the log before making such an edit summary. It is totally incorrect and gives a wrong picture about the work I do.

The article on SGOSS was created with article name "How do I add an article?", by User:Sgoverner. I was not able to get more info on SGOSS during patrol work and only made a "move" to SGOSS. Hence the Redirect was formed. It would be nice if the edit summary can be fixed, though it is not very important. Thanks. VasuVR ( talk,  contribs ) 18:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are being overly fussy. I assume you are referring to the deletion log entry rather than any edit summary. This log entry was generated automatically and is absolutely correct : I deleted one edit, a redirect, created by you. The log entry contains links which tell the whole story and if you had bothered to follow one of them you would have seen that I have prodded the article and could be presumed to be fully aware that you did not create the article. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability
Hi RHaworth,

You had marked the page "Nome, Spiritual Teacher" as non-notable. So, I edited it so that the notability is clear. In case you have any feedback, do let me know. Thank you very much for this help.

Sincerely, Raman Rmuthukrishnan (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)RMuthukrishnan

Advice request: Dylan's Basement Tapes
Hi RHaworth, I'd be grateful for advice. There are currently 2 articles on Bob Dylan's famous Basement Tapes: The Basement Tapes and The Basement Tapes (Sessions). I have agreed with another editor's suggestion that the latter article be deleted and info should be contained in the primary article. [] This was suggested a year ago! How to proceed? Thanks & season's greetings Mick gold (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This edit seems to fit the bill. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mick gold (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

History of Champagne
FYI, the wine Champagne is a proper noun and per WP:MOS the title of the article should be capitalized. AgneCheese/Wine 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:DNJH
Thanks for the reply, and the correction. Still learning how to do stuff. Please delete the page User:DNJH/Marisat F2, I created a more generic page for the Marisat satellites (F1-F2-F3) which will contain details of the F2 satellite. dnjh (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why delete it? By all means blank it to avoid confusing yourself. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Bite
I noticed the message you recently left to. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. --rakkar (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

arrogance?
just 2 let you know i think the word arrogance strikes me as a little harsh 2 be completley honest it was a mistake to call it a school chapel anyway now its not called that. anyway to my knowlege The Leys is very rare in that they have their own school chapel, not shared with the public! not 2 sound rude or anything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 06whitec (talk • contribs) 09:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I apologise. I could have worded it more diplomatically. But &hellip; rakkar, is someone who first contributed in 2007 March still a newbie? 06whitec, school chapels rare? You cannot be serious - Tonbridge, Exter and Great Walstead threw themselves at me in a Google search and the green dome of the magnificent chapel at Giggleswick is something I remember seeing often in my youth. But it would be stretching it a bit to call the building on the right of this pic the chapel of Worth School. (If you mean "to" please write "to" - using the digit "2" is an irritating affectation.) &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Aim bots
Hi. I removed the db-context tag on Aim bots as no context doesn't apply to articles that are more than a couple of sentences long. If you want you can prod the article if you think it should be deleted for another reason. Regards,  Matt  (  Talk  )   08:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case I won't tell you about some much larger articles which I have tagged with db-context and which have been deleted! &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the canned response, I didn't check to see who's talk page I was leaving the message on. I wouldn't have removed the tag if I realized that you were actually an admin :P. My apologizes,  Matt  (  Talk  )   21:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Publicity stunt the art of noise
I posted my DRV on this page: Here I wanted to make sure I did it correctly because I have not received a response -- this is all new to me, please forgive me for any ignorance. jklein212 (Talk | 18:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dooble
Your was contested, so now it's gone to AfD DMacks (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiBreak
⊥m93 talk. 19:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Who.A.U
To AK in response to e-mail. You have not looked very hard. This Google search throws up plenty of info. including this and this about their staff-relations policy!

I have posted copies of two deleted articles here. I deleted the first, Who A U because someone had applied a db-inc tag to it; the author had removed the db tag (which is a wikicrime) and had not even bothered to provide any external links to show that the company exists. I deleted the second one, Who.A.U. because most of the text was a copy of the Abercrombie & Fitch article and the bit that was not a copy contained the word "our" several times and so could be speedily deleted as advertising.

In fact the brand is probably notable enough for an article. The best way (if you are interested in contributing!) would be a few sentences within the E-Land article. If it qualifies for its own article, to judge by this crappy photo, the title should be Who.A.U (no terminal dot) or even WHO.A.U. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Riachi
Jean Riachi, Jean E. Riachi, and Jean-Marie Riachi

Hi RH. A listing at WP:RfD has prompted this message as I am trying to untie a Gordian knot that apparently involves a redirect that has been protected by you. The nomination seems easy enough to resolve: the nominator is recommending a deletion of Jean Riachi (disambiguation) (which is targeted to Jean E. Riachi) as the redirect is not a dab page. While I was looking at the target page, I noticed that nowhere does the name "Jean E. Riachi" appear in the article save the title; furthermore, he is repeatedly referred to as "Jean Riachi". Seems easily resolved - just rename "Jean E. Riachi" to "Jean Riachi" as the latter is the name of a redirect that is targeted to Jean-Marie Riachi, a person of the same nationality as Jean Riachi but definitely a different person.

So, the original idea was to rename "Jean E. Riachi" to "Jean Riachi" and retarget "Jean Riachi (disambiguation)" to "Jean Riachi" pending the resolution of the RfD. A hatnote on the newly-renamed article would point to "Jean-Marie Riachi". From your viewpoint, is this workable; if so, would you help accomplish this (as it does not change the issue at hand at RfD)? Thank you for considering it. B.Wind (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No strong feelings. I have unprotected Jean Riachi. Best treatment is probably: move Jean E. Riachi to Jean Riachi (banker) - but note that this guy was deemed non-notable in Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi; make Jean Riachi into a dab page. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Atheophobia listed at RfD
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Atheophobia. Since you had some involvement with the Atheophobia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Cunard (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

JDegreef
Hello RHaworth. Thank you for your suggestions. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and still figure this out. I'll follow up with talk:translational medicine as you suggest, as I don't think the current page reflects the latest thinking on translational research. Cordially, James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdegreef (talk • contribs) 19:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:GBthumb
Template:GBthumb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Stoic Joy
A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy

Lets discuss why you think this is just an advertisement. Yes, this is a recently released book, but as a public librarian, I found it to stand head and shoulders over other treatments on the subject. As such, I felt compelled to create this article, which is something I never do. I am in no way affiliated with Mr. Irvine, the author. I stand in no way to gain financially, emotionally, philosophically or in any other conceivable way, except perhaps as a person concerned with the poor quality of reading for the general public. This is actually a GOOD book...

Mr. Irvine has won the 2006 CHOICE Outstanding Academic Title award for his book: On Desire: why We Want What We Want. The book, A Guide... is in many ways a continuation of the subject, expanded and in the light of Stoic philosophy. As a Wikipedia article, A Guide... could be cross-referenced with other modern treatments of the subject that are listed in the encyclopedia. Besides that, it was well-reviewed by Library Journal and stands alone in its intellectual contributions. To delete it would be a shame and a loss to the community. A good book should get the chance to be heard.

So, please don't delete this article. Please discuss this with me.

Kerry Douglas 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerrydouglas (talk • contribs)

National Grid to WGS84 lat/long
You're welcome to the conversion code from my bot; however, before I post it, I noticed that you wanted it in PHP, so I thought I'd point you to this GPL'd code: http://www.megalithia.com/search/llfuncshighlight.php, which works just fine. The only changes I would make would be instead of the current timeouts used in the various while loops, I'd just make them throw an exception if the loop runs for more than, say, 100 iterations, for the sake of defensive programming against perverse inputs. In practice, the loop does not need to iterate many times to converge to high accuracy for any of the inputs I've ever given it. -- The Anome (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very many thanks. I will absorb that before I ask for your version. From the formulae I have seen elsewhere, my reaction is 'why do you need iteration?' OK, I have just put up this version in PHP which does use iteration but I recognise that it is a cheap and cheerful temporary version. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I recall, the inverse transformation is easy to state analytically, and it uses iterative approximation to get the forward transformation, which isn't. My Python code is essentially a translation of the same code into that language, so it isn't any better.


 * If I wanted to do the same thing quickly, I'd consider first pre-computing the high-precision OSGB-to-WGS84 function over a fairly coarse grid (eg the corners of all the myriads?), storing that in the source, and use polynomial interpolation (bicubic interpolation?) to generate the fine values from the values stored in the resulting grid. (You've got to be careful about numerical issues: I recommend using de Casteljau's algorithm which is more stable than direct methods) This would completely eliminate trig functions and looping from the problem, while still generating sufficiently high-precision results for all practical purposes.


 * Doing this properly, including making sure everything is sufficiently precise, smooth, and monotonic, is about a day's work, so I wouldn't embark on it lightly. You would, of course, then be trading off the time taken to initialize the grid from source code to the compute cost of the original function; and all of this ignores the overhead of the rest of the process. If the NGR-to-WGS84 computation is not already a major part of your per-page cost, it wouldn't be worth doing it at all. How compute-bound are you? -- The Anome (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang on a moment: if you just want this for your redirector, ignore all of the above. Just translate the existing PHP to C, which should more or less be identical since the syntax is so similar, and the resulting tiny cgi-bin C program will run much faster than any conceivable PHP program. If you want it faster still, just change it to use the fastcgi interface. -- The Anome (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Charticle
Removed the Prod template and left a comment. Talk:Charticle, Thanks. Chris M. (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A Brief History of the Future
Listen, you're very cute and everything, but when an article has equivalents in three other languages, you put a deletion proposal on it, not a speedy deletion. Rama (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen, you have been contributing here long enough to know that if you are writing about something that prima-facie counts as CRYSTAL, you put some references / external links in the article. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Winds in the Age of Sail
I undid, rather crudely, your rename. The purpose of this article is to explain how prevailing winds influenced European discovery and inperialism in the days when ships were wind powered. The discussion of wind belts at the top was only a necessary introduction to the sailing route section at the bottom. This version is only a start and I hope other editors can clean up some of the problems mentioned at the bottom. I am not competent to write a proper article on wind patterns, which seem to be adequately covered in the linked articles Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should have asked permission before trying to undo the rename. I will try to be more deferential in the future. Is there a list of WP articles or a master article that points to sub-articles? I find it difficult to navigate through the maze of instructions. I am OK with your proposed rename if you want to. Removal of the outline of wind patterns makes the rest of the article difficult to understand since the bottom half depends on the top half. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

BMJ Masterclasses
I am just checking with you about my deleted page. I have re-written this page to make it as factual as possible however, it was still deleted for blatant advertising. Please help me understand why and show me how to make it acceptable for listing. -- Vickin70
 * Did you see my message on your user talk page? Wait until someone else thinks they are notable and writes about them. You can of course raise the matter at deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I get it - it's got to be someone else writing about this otherwise it is seen as a conflict of interest. Could this someone else be from our same company, i.e. from another department or has it got to be a member of the public, possibly a delegate who attended the event or a speaker? I would be most grateful if you could send me to the right direction. -- Vicki70
 * Obviously not someone else from your company. To be credible in my eyes, it should be an established Wikipedia editor with a clear history of edits on topics related to your company. Do some research woman! Find articles here about events similar to yours. See who has written about those events. Contact one or two of the editors and ask them if they are willing to write about your company. (Please log on before doing any edits, sign talk page messages with ~ and is it you who lives in Pratt's Bottom?) &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

N-able
I have updated N-able page so that is does not fall within the "advertising" category. I hope that this latest revision is satisfactory. I have remove anything that may fall within the promotion category. 14:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC) <;span class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny calhoun (talk • contribs)

Care for a slice of funistrada...?
Hi, R. I was in the process of expanding that weird little entry at Funistrada when you deleted it. I hope you don't mind that I expanded it into a short stub. Buon appetito! :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Real deal. It's a psychological trick the army uses to establish a baseline for its menus. I have another reference. PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Livecare Support
as I mentioned to DS and MZMcBride I ask to publish the page user:Alfax/Livecare Support into the Comparison of remote desktop software article. MZMcBride told me to ask to you the unlock of the article (discussion). the article was previously locked because it was badly written. Now I completely modify it; and it's similar to the others articles in the same list. I wait your reply regarding this issue and I really hope my work is ok. Thanks. Alfax (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The evidence of notability in your new draft seems extremely thin. Raise the matter at deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)