User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2009 March

Thank you for fixing my duplicated article
I realised the my article was in sentence case and was researching how to move it across and you beat me too it - so thank you for that, it is really appreciated.

Sheilafarrell (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2009 (GMT)

Thanks for fixing my duped article
I just wanted to thank you for fixing my Test_validity/Test_Validity duplicate articles. I'm trying to be responsible in my contributions, but there's a lot to learn around here.

Again, thanks.

Jmbrowne (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Vector soliton
I am the person who creates the vector soliton.

Because vector solitons are rather are ubiquitous and generic in the entire field of nonlinear systems, it should be very interesting to edit this concept in this famous website: wiki. However, as I am only a foreign student with poor English, this website is not well prepared. However, I promise that I would improve this website as best as I can. I am not intending to advise something in this website but just want to introduce the basic concept of wiki. So due to my limited knowledge on vector solitons, I could only dare to introduce our works on vector solitons. But I hope other researchers on vector solitons would try to improve this and make more people know about what vector solitons are. Please give me more time on improving this and I would try to clarify something inappropriate. Wish you could reconsider after a second thought as i have deleted and added something alread.

Best regards, vectorsolitonVectorsoliton (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectorsoliton (talk • contribs) 12:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See the AfD discussion. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Budget debate
I dont know proper procedure to post my this point. but this is regarding addition of new article on "budget debating". This is form of debate done only in Indian Colleges .. mainly IITs and Management colleges owning to its difficulty. The rules itself of this debate is 3 pages long, and I have tried my best to put this in short. Plz consider accepting the post, bcoz the event is legitimate and debating is done on it in many good colleges of India (those who do parliamentry debate also), but owning to a poorer technological condition, there is not much info about this given on internet I hope u understand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.8.60 (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would serve you right if I ignored this message - I expect people to log in before leaving messages. No mate, you don't fool me - the lack of references is not "poorer technological condition" but because it is something you have recently thought up. Even posting those three pages of rules on your own website would have been something. But let us see up with what the AfD discussion comes. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

hey what u said is true here is the link for budget debate itself http://iitg.litsoc.googlepages.com/alfaaz thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.8.60 (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Until the AfD is concluded, please stop adding your stuff to the debate article. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

SORCE Intranet
I am often baffled by your approach to speedy deletion (as is evident by how many of your taggings are declined), but that's just plain weird. So I'd like to understand why you deleted a page when speedy deletion was declined by two different admins just hours before. Could you explain this to me? Regards  So Why  13:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC) It's not about whether you disagree with them or not. In this case G11 does not apply because it's not blatant advertising, a mistake people often make (you do so as well as far as I have seen). But the main problem is that you encourage admin hopping if you delete things other admins have declined to delete. The signal you are sending is basically: "If an admin declined to delete a page, just re-tag it until one comes along who will". And that is much more harmful than keeping such a stubby article for five days. Because if users become able to play admins against one another, we will have to waste time on disputes that would otherwise not exist. I don't mind if you have a stricter approach to notability and inclusion and opt to delete more things, noone agrees with anyone about everything here. Just try to follow policy when doing it. Invoking WP:IAR or WP:SNOW too often will probably have worse results than waiting five days. Regards  So Why  13:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagreed with the other admins - simple as that! I had Peasantwarrior on my side (I had misread the history - when I said "two others"). OK. Re-instate it and we can drag it through AfD but please keep SNOW in mind. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth is G11 - cannot you use words? I take your point that admins should not be seen warring among themselves. You mention five days - sure, if the article had had a prod or AfD tag, I would never have touched. But when I saw it, it had nothing but 'unreferenced' so I had to do something. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Source material
You seem to have an issue with Executive Orders being published. Please, explain yourself on why this is? Besides PERSONAL bias opinions. -- Gurboura (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Jason
 * Wikipedia does not publish source material - that goes in WikiSource. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Established editor
Well, how about "a non-SPA account"? :) Anyways, I reacted strongly to your wording "established editor" because I "feel" that I'm not "established". I'm just somebody who reverts vandalism and makes small copyedits mostly, not somebody who adds a lot of new material. I think I've only really added, as opposed to modified or removed, one single sentence to an article (but that one sentence WAS sourced, and I added the source myself ;)). But I still think I am "worth" as much as an editor who has millions of edits and hundreds of featured articles to her credit, when it comes to things like determining whether it's OK for me to re-create an article. I'm sorry I took established editor to mean something else than what you intended it to mean. And I am sorry for being longwinded, but I have a habit on just keeping on typing and typing. (Also, I haven't quite worked out what the custom is. Do you write the reply on your own talk page, or on the talk page of the one you are corresponding with? If you would enlighten somebody who still feels largely like a newbie I'd be grateful). Dendlai (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On the subject of the ExperVision DRV, several changes have been made in the last few days, including the addition of references, so I am asking everyone to re-examine based on the new version of the draft. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry
sorry i am new plz bare with me :s Noisy Crew (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot edits of my sandbox
Hi Roger. Looking for advice about a bot that keeps editing an article in my userspace sandbox. Thanks. ~ Geaugagrrl talk 16:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You used a sensible date format on the immediately preceding ref. Why was it so important that you should give the date in the utterly irrational order of mdy on this ref? And in any case what does it matter if the bot is fixing it - the generated HTML is still the same? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops
Sorry about Details here. Good call. Art LaPella (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Case studies of Brown-Sequard syndrome
There might be reasons to delete this article but original research is not one of them. Therefore I have removed your tag. Leave a not on the talk page if you wish to discuss things further. Will do some work on it over the next few days.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Green Stuff Absorbent
Hi there. You commented on an article I wrote (my very first one) on this material called Green Stuff Absorbent and I just wanted to let you know that I "wrote my case" as to why I thought it shouldn't be deleted or vastly modified. I'm still trying to learn the ropes of Wiki so, please excuse my ignorance in some areas. It is my desire to become a quality poster for Wiki. Please take a look at it and post any queries you have for me on it. I will be pleased to answer them and make my article the best it can be for Wiki. Best regards! Syosset1966 (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See the AfD discussion. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Post
Hey, I reverted your adding a speedy deletion tag on the Elizabeth Post article. It makes a clear claim of notability for the person, so it doesn't fit A7. If you think that she isn't notable, take the article to AfD. Sorry for the hassle! SMSpivey (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry
Sorry I didn't mean to shout. I was just using the book Title. I realise I should have put them in lower case. My fault and thank you very much for helping.--FliptheCoin (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In Criticism of arabism
FYI - See my edit Jeepday (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Email
I sent an email to you using the address on your web page, did you get it? dougweller (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Blanking
OK, but I only RV'd because it was already tagged with a PROD. -- Gp 75 motorsports REV LIMITER 19:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. I didn't check the history before I RV'd- I picked it up on Recentchanges. -- Gp 75 motorsports REV LIMITER 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles of creation
Deletion_review/Log/2009 February 13. Since you're the deleting admin, could you comment on this DRV? I'm particularly interested in the reason you said this was a mistake and chose for deletion rather than renaming it or going for userfication and providing the user with guidance on sources. The summary in the deletion log is too short to understand the underlying story of this DRV request or your deletion actions. - Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not given to suffering fools gladly but I admit I could have dealt with this more gently. I hope the present state is acceptable. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the history for Deletion review/Log/2009 February 13. You forgot to subst: the closing template. I almost edited the template when I tried to fix it. Something to keep in mind for the next close. Personally, I would've preferred it if you speedied the current article and commented on the DRV rather than closing it to give the author a longer time to fix it, but that's nitpicking. I've commented on the sourcing problem. So now it's to them to fix it. Be kind of they ask for userfication or a copy. :) Mgm|(talk) 13:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"guerilla spam"
I see that you have ProD'd composite propeller as being "guerilla spam". You may wish to consider tagging the articles fraternal twin modular propeller, in the same manner. I've been watching them ever since I saw the 1st draft pop up on their authors userpage (since blanked by author). Wuhwuzdat (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The spam link in modular propeller was invisible because of a cack-handed ref. If it gets put back what would prevent you from prodding it? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bihartimes.com
How on earth can you say that this article didn't have an indication of importance/significance? Don't you read articles before you put speedy deletion tags on them? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Very sorry, I am simple-minded: when I saw that the article was written by user:Bihartimes, I jumped to the conclusion that it must be spam. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Blue Canoe Productions
Did you even READ my references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TAgS87 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but the phrase "world famous in Kingston" springs to mind. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Does that make it any less factual? People in Kingston need to get information too, and isn't this what this website is designed to do, give people information? TAgS87 (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether Blue canoe productions is factual is not the issue. People in Kingston, Ontario can get the information from the company's own website. The test for inclusion is whether the company is notable to people in Kingston upon Thames, Kingston upon Hull, Kingston, Jamaica, etc. I would even question whether people in Kingston, Nova Scotia or Kingston, New Brunswick would find it notable. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you for having me waste 6 hours of my time then. Cheers TAgS87 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "You have to be famous to post" &helip; No it is sufficient to be notable. Don't waste your text. Post it to one of your own websites. Even if it gets deleted, I can still e-mail you a copy. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Josh Sanders
An article that you have been involved in editing, Josh Sanders, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Josh Sanders. Thank you. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello
You're a long-standing, respected editor, so I hope you won't mind if I point out to you that you may have forgotten to notify the creator of The Gammons that you've prodded the article... Of course, it would be good if a bot did this for us. I'm all for automating. Anyway, thanks for tagging and I hope you don't mind this gentle nudge. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Why pick this one? I have hundreds of prods and db tags to my credit where I have not notified the author!) I have a very firm policy of not notifying people in a case such as this. If a bot cares to do it for me, fine, but I am not going to waste my time and Wikipedia's disk space (cheap, though it is) on notifying an obvious self promoter. I do not think Ryanjandrews' watchlist is very big. If he cannot be bothered to watch his contributions, he deserves all that happens to them. The prod tag is pretty self-explanatory: I see no need to repeat the info. elsewhere.
 * The only compensation I offer is that I like think that I do respond promptly to "why did you delete" and similar queries on this page. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I just think it's polite and unbitey. You certainly do respond well when people challenge the tags. A lot of newbies do struggle to get to grips with watchlists etc. When I was new, I thought I'd be notified by email if articles I'd watchlisted were edited! And COI is of course notoriously hard for newbies to come to grips with. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I added welcome & PRODwarning tags to Ryanjandrews talk page, and also tagged the article with prod2. I remember when my first article was speedied (appropriately) but I had no idea of why until some time later. — Becksguy (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Far less embarrassing than some of the horrors in my early edit history! Anyway, thanks for doing it. --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlocking a page
Hello,

I would like to edit Restiform Bodies, the page being protected may I ask you to "un-protect" it ? I want to add informations on the music band Restiform Bodies from anticon. records.

Thank you. --Restiblog (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) ask yourself whether you should be writing on this topic given your obvious COI, 2) learn Wiki markup - especially wikilinks, 3) create your draft article at User:Restiblog/sandbox, 4) make your request at deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Restiblog
See user talk:Restiblog. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:db-empty
Apologies - shall I remove the warnings? - Fastily (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't bother - the prod will expire soon. Puzzling thing is why the guy did not simply remove the prod tag. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

lose-lose-lose
The win-win-win model (PAPAKONSTANTINIDIS MODEL) has been developed and presented for the first time, by the Professor of Regional and Local Development in the Technological Educational Institute Dr Leonidas A. Papakonsrtantinidis at the 14.08.2002 of the EURACADEMY (a European Network) evening session  in VISBY UNIVERSITY- GOTLAND SWEDEN

From that point, the win-win-win model (Papakonstantinidis Model, according to the world literature) on SOCIAL TRUST Scientific Field has been improved step by stel. It has been completed during the 2008/2009 academic year It has been tranlated in the Hungurian language ("A nyer-nyer-nyer modell"LEONIDAS A. PAPAKONSTANTINIDIS	Új irányok a regionális politikában a terület-tér meghatározása háromszintű alkufolyamatként – A „nyer-nyer-nyer modell” esettanulmány: A Leader EU kezdeményezés alkalmazása Görögországban /95 - TER ES TTARSADALOM 2005/3-4 Sinetific Journal) as well as in a numerous Sientific Journals (see at the Asian International Journal of Tourism and Travel- AIJTT,Philippines, the International Journal of Tourism and Travel Management (ITTM)- INDIA, the Journal of Hospitality and Tourism (JOHAT) - INDIA, and  in a number of Journals and Reviews, all over the wiorld. It han been presented in over 30 World Congresses and Conferences (Durban South Africa, Barcelona, Molyvos- Lebos Island/ Gr, in the frame of the I.S.A (International Sociological Association- Research Committee/ RC26)

During the last couple years Prof. Papakonstantinidis presents the win-win-win model (Papakonstantinidis Model) to post graduated students of the Sociology Department - The Aegean University as well as to post- Graduated Studends of the Medical School (Post - Graduated Dept "First Level Medical Care" University of Thessalia Greece) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.166.238 (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio on New Life Baptist Church
All that happened was that I was very tired and trying to work quickly. As you may be aware there is an absolutely enormous and fast-growing backlog on articles needing wikification. At least half of these articles are not worth the effort of wikifying as they are copyvios or on non-notable subjects. I am making it my practice to check for copyvio every time. The bulk of that article was cut-and-paste from a website. I found the website and tagged the article, then when I went to list the copyvio, I copied the ready-made line from the template, but I only copied half of it. Please be assured that I would never ever try to delete a page for spurious reasons. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of my sub-page
I would be highly thankful if you could let me know the reasons behind deletion of the Cellebrum Technologies page. I am not a spammer as you say. I have been a business journalist with India's top English daily (The Time of India. You can google Raj Machhan Time of India for the kind of stories that I have done) and I know the importance of objectivty while giving out information. Cellebrum is a company of repute and it belongs to the same domain as OnMobile and Hungama. If these two companies have pages on Wikipedia, then why not Cellebrum when it is a leader in this domain. I had modelled the Cellebrum page on OnMobile, giving out the same kind of information, even using similar style while writing. But you chose to delete my page, without so much as a word about why you are doing it. As suggested I had remodelled the page on a company of similar size and in the same domain (OnMobile). Am I missing out something out here? If not, then does this not amount to double standards? Wikipedia is an open platform and I guess it would be in fairness of things to address my concern. -- Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite a lot of the deletion reason because of the silly title. As you appear to have now worked out, if you want a user sub-page, then the title must begin with user: ! I have restored your stuff to User:Raj Kumar Machhan/sandbox. Please note carefully my edits including better formats for refs and internal links. When you are satisfied with it, you may release it at Cellebrum or Cellebrum Technologies Limited by copy&paste. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank your very much for fixing the page. I have noted the edits and will keep these in mind while adding information to Wikipedia in future.

Your PROD of Pursue mobility model
Hi RHaworth, I removed your "prod|concern = original research unless refs are provided" because a Gscholar search for "Pursue mobility model" gives 56 hits, books and peer reviewed journals etc. I believe that you as a PROD nominee have a responsibility for carrying out a somewhat comprehensive check before nominating an article for deletion. Deletion is not the first resort. It would appear that you have carried out no search whatsoever. This is the second time within one month that I write to you in this respect (the other article was Dreyfus model of skill acquisition‎ - definitely a bona fide page also). Admittedly, you have also nominated a lot of crap for deletion, but that does not justify not checking before nominating, and relying on others to pick up the pieces. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why all the fuss? They are prods for goodness sake - even the author is allowed to remove a prod. Where is written that I have a "responsibility for carrying out a somewhat comprehensive check"? On the other hand it is very clearly written on the create article page: "an article without references will likely be deleted quickly". When I see a new article with absolutely no refs, I am being kind to the author if all I do is prod it. "Relying on others to pick up the pieces" - if we re-phrase that as "seeking consensus before deleting an article" - then it becomes absolutely correct Wikipedia policy. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. The Dreyfus model of skill acquisition‎ was created by User:AACOM - it was that editor's first contribution (13 Jan 09), the next contribution was only five weeks later (20 Feb 09) - please note, five WEEKS later, not five days, so this user would not have removed your PROD. And, the first article even had a reference hidden in it, but the editor had not added the notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MuZemike 18:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)