User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2008 May
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives
HoudahSpot & HoudahGeo deletion
Hi Roger! May I ask why you decided to delete the pages for HoudahSpot & HoudahGeo. While describing commercial products, these pages where written in a completely neutral tone that could not be mistaken for advertisement. Actually, these pages were just stubs containing barely anything beyond the obligatory info box. I intentionally left it up to the members of the community to contribute whichever content they find appropriate. How can such pages be off topic when List of Macintosh software list literally hundreds of such pages. Most of these pages are loaded with extensive descriptions, screenshots and similar marketing material. Could you please reconsider your decision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloubibou (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Because:
- your contributions history suggests a COI.
- HoudahSpot had been deleted before as advertising
- there was no independent evidence that the products are notable. These edits to List of Macintosh software do nothing to confirm notability!
- Feel free to raise the matter at deletion review. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration. You however seem to have misunderstood the points I was trying to make
- Although written with the best intentions, I understand how the original HoudahSpot entry could have triggered dislike in some
- The new article was thus deliberately sparse in content and had nothing but the most brief and objective product description
- Rest assured, the products are notable. Both are market leaders in their segment. This is backed up by both press and user reviews. E.g. 4 out of 5 Macworld 'mice'
- I was referring to List of Macintosh software as a list of links to similar pages. Many actually reading like the editor's web site
-- Gloubibou (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 19:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Partial knee replacement
Hello Roger, Thank you for reviewing the partial knee replacement page. I have reformatted the headings to your specifications. We are working on adding more references, having other pages link to this article and reformatting the page to Wikipedia's guidelines. We have linked our page to other articles (e.g., Cartilage, posterior cruciate ligament). Could you please review our changes?
Thank you, HSCL 69.74.233.66 (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please always log in when editing and especially when talking. Ok so far, keep up the good work. Note that the structure of the knee is described in the knee article. But you could go into a bit more detail about which parts actually get replaced in a PKR operation. You may be amused to see what sort of photos of my wife I post on the web! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
OS grid key Ireland.gif
Thanks for uploading File:OS grid key Ireland.gif. -- Rettetast (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
How Television Works
You meant content fork, I assume. I think strangling the entire article at birth is a little harsh; it's impossible for others to edit or discuss the content if they can't find it. I've reinstated it, with a merge-multiple tag and a discussion starter on Talk:Technology of television. Can you let others read it and have a say before deleting it again, please? IanHarvey (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Seduction
- For previous on this topic, see here in the archive
I think looking at the history of our conversation on the deleted pages would give you some perspective on who enjoys being confrontational. You know as well as I do that there is a big difference between 1) an admin noting someone for violating the rules and the accused person deleting the allegation (when it will always be there in the history) and 2) the same admin withdrawing the accusation.
I am also still not sure why I am guilty until proven innocent. And yes, I will continue to talk to other editors about you for as long as you persist in this. You've obviously made a big contribution to wikipedia, but that shouldn't give you the right to abuse your power. And while you endlessly quote different policies at me, how about "assume good intent" for you?
Checkuser...checkuser...checkuser... go for it. I have nothing to hide.Camera123456 (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not realise: you are not satisfied with removal of the {{sockpuppet}} tags, you want the user pages in question to be actually deleted. But you still do not need to bother with talking to me: apply {{db|appropriate message}} to each page and they will probably be gone within an hour. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiJob deletion
Hi Rob – I can't understand why you just deleted the WikiJob profile. This was deleted and I spent over an hour checking wikipedia style guidelines and checking my references and facts – I put it up and you deleted it and barred anyone from putting anything back up! Could you please recheck the work I did – I honestly don't think anything is inacurate and I double checked everything regarding COI – it was all fact. Referenced fact too! Perhaps a visit to the actual site at wikijob . co . uk would put your mind at rest?Redsuperted (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, you have tried hard and provided lots of references but given your COI, I think deletion review is more appropriate than re-instate and AfD. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate you reviewing it. Could you just explain the process for "deletion review"? Furthermore, one of your colleagues seems to have blacklisted links to w i k i j o b. Is there anyway this could be reversed – is this page does make it back then I would of thought one external link to the actual site would be sensible!! - thanks again, appreciated, please let me know the process from here, Redsuperted (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I am Roger. Did you notice that when I wrote "deletion review" (DRV) above it was a link? Did you follow it? Here is a more explicit one: steps to list a new deletion review. I am sure that if the DRV closes with "re-instate" then the blacklisting can be removed. But you should mention it in the DRV request. (You could not even do your linkspamming properly! More than once you put an 's' on the end of 'jobs'.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies Rodger! Someone called you Rob previously! ..thanks for pointing out the process to me. I wasn't very clear before – what I meant to ask is where I can access the debate on W i k i J o b as it doesn't appear within the "active debate" section on the deletion review page – where can I track the progress of this and request the blacklisting be removed? Thanks again for yoru help – sorry for all the questions, I am new and want to learn, as annoying as that can be... yours, Redsuperted (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at your contributions, you do not appear to have created the request yet – did you forget to save it? Once you have created it by following the steps to list a new deletion review, it will appear in the "active discussions" section and you can easily monitor it. You should mention the blacklisting in the DRV request. Iff the DRV closes with "re-instate" and the re-instater does not un-blacklist the site, then just contact the re-instater or JzG who blacklisted it. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry – I didn't realise it was up to me to do this! - I have now done this, perhaps you could check to make sure I have done this ok? ..also...do I need to re-upload the original article? Where can I look at the actual article/where can voters look at the actual article? I really appreciate your help Rodger. Redsuperted (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nomination tidied. You don't need to re-upload – DRV is read mainly by admins who have magick vision enabling them to see deleted pages but if you have made significant improvements, by all means put it up at User:Redsuperted/sandbox and link to there from the DRV request. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Guernsey Live
How is it blatant advertising, it is a description of an event, the same as Jersey Live. What is the difference? Dead6re (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The AfD questioned the sources where the information came from, I found relevant publishers that contained the information about the event and linked them. Therefore this point was covered. As new events happen the article can be updated and will go ahead. I live in Guernsey and have the local knowledge and the license for the event is granted and tickets are on sale.
To cover advertising, this is the first year the event is actually running. Last year the event was announced and bands were asked but Positiv had problems getting a headliner to come over and had to cancel the event. I've looked at Glastonbury Festival and it already has the headliners for 2008 and contains a seperate page for the lineup which for Guernsey Live I had on one single page. See Glastonbury Festival 2008. Perhaps the future event tag may be used until the event occurs.
Also I would like to recieve a copy of the page e-mailed to me that was the latest version I posted on the 13th april. Dead6re (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have e-mailed you a copy. Having taken a lot of stick lately for sock puppetry suspicions, I just ask very quietly: what is the connection between you and Markhi90? The difference, as you know perfectly well between Guernsey Live on the one hand and Jersey Live and Glastonbury on the other is the number of previous festivals. {{Future}} would make absolutely no difference.
- The organisers must be thinking the event is jinxed – having your headline performer banged up is distinctly bad luck. But from Wikipedia's point of view it simply makes the notability even more dubious. But why ask me to restore it? There are a thousand other admins and you contact them via deletion review – see above. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The connection between markhi90 and myself is that we are close friends who are in the same year and have some of the same lessons at school. I learnt about his article the second time as the first got deleted and this started my interest. I hope this solves that suspicion.
Guernsey Live would have had another festival had last year gone according to plan but the organisers started the planning too late to be able to get a decent headliner. They managed to get other bands to fill the slots. The profile of Jersey Live has raised Guernsey's too which is how we managed to get a brand new headliner for Sunday, a band called the enemy. The organisers have great interest in rasing the profiles for both Channel Islands and hopefully in the near future we shall get better bands. I've heard Pendulum might be headliner Jersey Live this year but haven't checked that out. However by our headliner dropping out, this has affected other festivals, we are in the same boat as another huge festival (Can't remember the name but it was on the size of glastonbury).
For the factor of notability, this event will affect the entire population of Guernsey which is 60,000. Maybe for your area this isn't so big, but if you look in the terms of stakeholders, this is massive for us.
The reason I asked you was because the AfD was for a lack of sources rather than advertising so therefore the article I wrote had these references and I presumed it would be kept. Also the review policy says to talk to you first to be courtious. However if you still remain on the side that it should remain locked until the event happens I will start a review and see what the outcome is as the debate and deletion reason where different in each case. The debate mentioned one problem in the final outcome although the other was raised. Dead6re (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- An important aspect of the AfD decision was notability and in my view it cannot possobly become notable until it has happened. But go for the DRV (and you don't need to tell me you have done so)! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletion Review for Guernsey Live
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Guernsey Live. 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. Dead6re (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Bob Hurt/Lawsuit and Vandalism
I deleted Bob Hurt’s hate rant on the Florida Supreme Court. His and his JAIL4Judges friends like Nancy Jo Grant are suing the FL Supreme Court and are trying to use the Florida Supreme Court page as a dumping ground, something he admits to in his own emails. http://groups.google.com/group/Lawmen/browse_thread/thread/2fba73af47606638 Bob’s been blocked and banned before. I am requesting that happen again. 91.193.130.16 (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps surprisingly, I don't care whether you add messages to the top or the bottom of this page. I agree that Bobhurt probably needs blocking but I would like to leave it to someone who has been following his edits in the past. Try NawlinWiki or work through Bob Hurt's two user talk pages to find an admin who has talked to him in the past. (And log in next time – I will not block anybody on the strength of an anon's request!) Actually neither Bobhurt nor BobHurt have ever been blocked but I can well believe that he has had other identities. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Bob Hurt's Response
I have posted a general response to my detractors, including the unidentified deleter of my alleged "hate rant," RHaworth, and Famspear. But I want to respond additionally here.
I want to point out that the anonymous person who deleted my comments operates like a vandal and Wikipedia should restore my article. I saw this at the user's talk page
User talk:91.193.130.16 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This host ns1.frankfurt.beertender.org has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If your ISP has misconfigured their proxy, you can try bypassing it by logging into Wikimedia's secure gateway at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/. For more information about open proxies and what you can do, please see the WikiProject on open proxies.
(Multi-RBL lookup • Sandbox test edit)
Looks like a vandal address to me.
First of all, I make no secret that I have no friendship with crime in government, and I invite you sit in any courtroom as an observer for an hour or so if you want to see public officers commit such crimes. They commit them daily in nearly every courtroom in America through abuse of the constitutional rights of litigants.
I have no interest in suing the Florida Supreme Court, but I do have an extreme interest in seeing government officials, agencies, and branches abide by the constitutions, particularly since every single person in government has allegedly sworn or affirmed an oath of loyalty to those constitutions. Do any of you think it extreme for me to have such an interest?
I admit to armchair activism, but not to extremeism or hate. I do not write hate rants. I write fact-based commentaries on the law and its application or lack thereof, and I do a passable job at research, even though I don't try to make a career of legal research.
I admit that I have not mastered Wikipedia's somewhat arcane editorial policy. But in time, if I can tolerate the ardor, I shall improve acceptably.
I take extreme umbrage at the accusation of writing hate rants. I have seen no evidence to indicate that anything I wrote demonstrates hatred. I consider such accusations as unfounded and impolite, almost as impolite as using a number instead of a word-handle for an ID. I encourage anyone who wants to cheap-shot me to take it up personally with me by writing to my normal email address through the form at my web site.
As far as I know, I have only the identity bobhurt in some form of capitalization. I did not realize until today that I have two accounts. I had not noticed in the beginning that account ID have sensitivity to capitalization. Now I have to figure out how to use just one account (BobHurt) from now on to avoid confusion. Unlike Famspear and Mr. Number above, I don't use a pseudonym to hide my true identity, and I look with disdain upon efforts to hide identity as a form of cowardice, regardless of motive.
Now, I don't for sure know what "admin" means, nor what credentials one must have to become an admin, but I have little respect for anonymous admins or other editors have to say about me. They become more credible when I know their credentials.
I do not believe I deserve blocking in any respect, and I think my detractors should find someone else to pick on for prospective blocking. I try to know my subject before I write about it, but I shall forever remain a student. I certainly disagree with Famspear's analysis of income tax laws from the Constitution through USC Title 26, for he seems to me to function as a highly prejudiced advocate of unconstitutional imposition of income taxes upon the people. I fail to understand why anyone would allow such a biased individual as a tax attorney edit the income tax pages exclusively. Sure, he know about income tax – one interpretation, that is, but many thousands of reasonably well-educated litigators of the law (including, for example, Larry Becraft, Tommy Cryer, Bob Schulz, and Joe Bannister, Otto Skinner) wholeheartedly disagree with him. So, what do we have as a consequence? We have an income tax article that misleads the readers and that denounces people who disagree with it as "tax protestors." In reality they do not protest taxes. They protest violations of the Constitution and laws by the IRS and wrongful interpretation of income tax laws by the courts. Anybody who persists, as the DOJ does, in referring to such people as tax protesters, clearly has an axe to grind, and uses Wikipedia as a "soap box." Wikipedia should block such people from posting or editing.
As for MY editing, I NEVER try to put untrue or biased information in Wikipedia's articles. If anything, I try to remove the bias from articles by adding perspective to them.
Right now I want to beef up the article on loyalty oaths and I don't know another living person with better knowledge of the subject than I have with respect to Florida laws. The Liberty Sentinel has given front page coverage in its April issue to the story I developed on the subject (see "Are Florida Judges for real?" – no I did not come up with the title). And it gave front page coverage in its October 2007 issue to my story on Nancy Grant's conviction for 19 counts of unlicensed practice of law, a real coup for the legal services monopoly enjoyed by bar members in Florida.
Incidenally, Nancy had supplied jail inmates with a pro se motion for emergency release (which the court should have interpreted as a petition for writ of habeas corpus). Why? Because the Sheriff, State Attorney, and courts had conspired for years to deny poor prisoners the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The state paid public defenders $200 or $300 a month for years while their client-inmates languished in jail (some for upwards of 5 years) without a single hearing or trial, a gross abuse of rights. In trying to help them, Nancy lived up to her loyalty oat. Her detractors did not live up to theirs.
I did not bother Wikipedia with the story, but I consider it worthy history, and the public should know it, the UNBIASED story, not the biased bar-friendly government version.
Does my interest in the Nancy Grant story make me a hater of the Supreme Court, the Chief Judge who sentenced her to 15 years probationadnd a $31,000 fine, or the Florida Bar? NO. I hate none of them. But I do want to see people like Nancy Grant obtain justice, and I want the government to respect the rights of prisoners to a speedy trial. Don't you? I guess Mr. Number above does not. He'd rather accuse me of writing a hate rant. And I have no reason to believe that he knows anything at all about the Nancy Grant case, since the mainstream media mostly ignored it, unless he works for the State Attorney or Sheriff in Arcadia, Florida.
In any case, I have spent a good part of the past two years researching and writing about the loyalty oath issue in Florida. I consider the existing wikipedia article on loyalty oaths extremely weak and uninformative. I want to fix it without running into a bunch of trouble by admin/editor folks who seem determined to block me from posting anything.
How shall I accomplish that? How do I contact the "admin" for that area?. Do any of you want to help me with it, such as by reading my article FIRST, and helping me to make it palatable to other editors?
--BobHurt (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
BobHurt and Bobhurt blocked
The BobHurt and sockpuppet account Bobhurt have been blocked for disruptive editing. User talk:BobHurt#Blocked for disruptive editing
Deletion of List of Psychology studies
Greetings. I am new to wikipedia and for some reason that perhaps I do not understand you or others chose to delete my entry about participation in psychology studies and a list of different web studies people can participate. This was done without any prior explanation. I perhaps understand why would delete such a section from the main psychology article (ie. to avoid having an never ending list of studies listed there) but I do not see why you would delete even a link to a new page to it). Of course I made this entry initiate a topic on participation in psychological research and at the same time promote our non-commercial web study. What is the problem with this? I am sure there are many other studies out there that would benefit from the traffic of wikipedia and in many ways wikipedia can be used as a valuable research tool to attract different kinds of research participants. I felt this was an open source minded community. Perhaps I am mistaken. Thanks. Yanni Malliaris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannimalliaris (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
OK I just read the page about Conflicts of Interest and now I can see why perhaps you chose to delete my page. I have no need to include my name or research lab there. I do not do any private work. I am working as a research assistant and pursue my PhD degree. But getting data for our web study is important for our research (which is again non-commercial). Would such a listing, still go against the COI rules of wikipedia? Is not of some benefit to psychology student or other interested readers to actually have the opportunity to participate in a real research project other than to read about it? As I said I am new to this community and I would appreciate your feedback and learning the rules of this place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannimalliaris (talk • contribs)
- I did actually have second thoughts after I had redirected the article. Feel free to re-instate it (on a title of List of psychology studies- lower case 'p') but bear in mind:
- the introductory bit about the basis of studies and the ethics will be already covered in another article – link to it – do not repeat it
- collections of external links do not go down at all well here – you should restrict the list to studies which already have Wikipedia articles
- Just for once COI was not a consideration when I redirected it! Please learn to sign talk page comments with ~~~~. - RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yannimalliaris (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Many thanks. I will try to follow the above steps. I would be keen to have further discussions if possible with people about the research utility of wikipedia. It takes time learning to become a useful and productive member of any community but I will try. Thanks. Yanni
Yannimalliaris (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC) I did the updates as instructed I think. Please let me know if it is all ok now. I got a notice about the no content status of my page. Shall I re-instate my little introduction or make a note that you reviewed and approved the page?
- I am very sorry, I may have misled you when I said "COI was not a consideration". I have now actually gone to the trouble to read it! Of course it is blatant promotion of your projects and therefore stands very little chance of surviving. And you completely ignored "you should restrict the list to studies which already have Wikipedia articles"!
- The best thing to do is ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology about whether it can be allowed as an article. You should include a link to your text or, if you want to improve it first, do so at User:Yannimalliaris/sandbox. You could also try deletion review – see above and these discussions – but the WikiProject is probably better. (I note there is a Wikipedia:Peer review process but it is inappropriate because it is intended for "articles that have already undergone extensive work".)
- You can ask Discospinster who deleted List of psychology studies but don't expect much joy. Incidentally what is the difference between Survey 85I794MK6792I and Survey 6013m42M863MG. Don't you find it confusing having two of them? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Again, my very sincere apologies for misleading you in my previous message. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yannimalliaris (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)what can I say really? I felt I explained myself and purposes. I did not understand what you meant by studies that have wikipedia articles? The idea of the page was to list ongoing studies so people who may be interested could participate. There is a research reason we have two different survey links. Each version is used to target people with different characteristics based where we would expect them to read different things. This is a vital point for this kind of research. I could tell you more about it but for research purposes I would prefer to do it on private email. If using wikipedia in order to promote different research studies (I repeat again – non-commercial research) to get appropriate participants goes against wikipedia's COI policy fair enough, what else can I say than to accept this. But I feel that we are missing an opportunity here. Anyway, if you care discussing this further please do drop me an email. I will stop trying to update this since it has caused so much upset. Thanks. Yanni
- I regret giving you any hope before. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your project – wait until it becomes notable, then someone else will write it up for you. "I would be keen to have further discussions" – sure – I gave you three suggestions above: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology (best bet), deletion review and Discospinster. Try them, but don't waste too much time. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yannimalliaris (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC) no worries my friend. I re-read the COI policy and I can see that as things are stated there it is impossible for any researcher to "advertise" their research without violating this policy. I will have to resort to other means recruiting participants. But many thanks for taking the time anyway. Yanni
- Do ask your first question again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology and include the links to your project. It will give you a bit of promotion. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Great Chishill
- Discussion taken to Talk:Great Chishill. -- Stavros1 (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of AmazingSuperPowers
An article that you have been involved in editing, AmazingSuperPowers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AmazingSuperPowers. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Can I see the Sconeism page
I couldn't find anywhere else to contact you and i hope this is right. i would also like to know why it was removed. my friend is taking this thing very seriously and he wants his joke religion to be a success. just think what would have happened if somebody had crushed the works of Douglas Adams because they were unorthodox, we wouldn't know the answer is 42. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detcirtser (talk • contribs)
CUC
Would you please bring WP:CUC to the attention of user:Stavros1. a) He had started to upload to the Commons but seems to have reverted. b) He gets a lot of stick from me, if someone else could confirm the importance, it would help. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I was developing that page, it isn't complete yet. I actually need help in getting it completed. Do you think you can help out? I can then bring it to that persons and general communities attention. -- Cat chi? 11:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think your new page is an unwanted WP:CFORK – we already have Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. How did you intend to bring the page Wikipedia:Commons Upload Campaign to people's attention? That is the important thing.
I suggest that you prepare two templates encouraging people to upload to the Commons. Use one to put on the talk pages of WikiProjects that use photographs, eg. all those listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Geographical/Europe for a start! Use the other to put on the user talk pages of people who have been uploading images here. But I am not sure how one identifies such people! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The emphasis of the CUC should be on getting people to do their new uploads to the Commons. Moving existing stuff there is less important. Look at Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr see how they have stressed the Commons! Go ahead, be bold, propose changes to Wikipedia:Upload to stress the Commons. For example, you could change "my own work" into a link to an intermediate page which has a big link to the Commons upload and a small link to the Wikipedia upload. They seem to have done that already!
Regarding transferring existing images, as you can see from the comments below there is plenty of scope for improving Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. If you do so and when you copy over your paragraph about freedom of panorama, please explain how it is possible that an image might be OK in a Wikipedia but would not be allowed on the Commons because of freedom of panorama laws. I don't see the difference. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons is more of a "How to" guide. It is also outdated: "If you have used a different name, go to all articles that use the image and change them". That is no longer necesary since we have Commonsdelinker for that.
- The idea behind CUC is to get multiple people working collaboratively to mass move images to commons by paying attention to issues like "freedom of panorama" and "derivative works". CUC is intended to be launched on many wikis so the text on CUC should be brief allowing it to be more easily translated to many languages.
- Things I have left out include the importance of "file history", possible use of bots to assist with this task, complications of some laws such as the Eiffel tower being copyrighted at night and being copyright free during the day.
- -- Cat chi? 08:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. But please avoid duplication between the CUC "motivational" piece and the other, "how-to" piece. And I look forward to see the explanation re freedom of panorama. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Palmiped
There is scarcely any difference between uploading to the Commons and uploading here. What difficulties have you encountered? Points to note:
- when writing the caption, links to here need :en: at the start and | at the end – see this note
- they do like you to put the image into one or more categories and add it to at least one Commons gallery article, but it is not mandatory.
-- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that is quite different! I count myself an experienced editor but even I find Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons daunting. I will try and find time to add a section to for people transferring their own images. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I have now created this note on transferring your own images to the Commons. Please change it if it is not sufficiently idiot proof. But please do not feel under any obligation to move existing images to the Commons. But please do upload any new stuff to the Commons. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Will do. --palmiped | Talk 12:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Is it possible for me to list all images I have uploaded to Wikipedia. Thanks --palmiped | Talk 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Did you not see that your user page on the Commons has a "gallery" link to Daniel's tool for your stuff. The same tool works on any other Wikimedia project: these are your uploads to en.Wikipedia. Note that Daniel's tool only considers the most recent uploader. Thus Daniel's tool for Korrigan will not show File:QE2colour.jpg because you uploaded a new version. The tool does not credit you with File:Arcadia Eijford.jpg because somone else transferred it. So it is useful to keep you own record of the exceptions, as I have done here.
You also have your upload logs: en.Wikipedia and Commons. These include images which have later been deleted. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Png !!
Why on earth have you been converting jpeg's to PNGs? As a JPG, File:Kurdishfuneral.jpg was 22k bytes long. Converted to File:Kurdish coffin rally (30 March 2006).png it takes up 103k bytes. Personally, I don't see the point of changing image names anyway. But if you must do it, why not just copy the image? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Militair
Was uncapitalizing the title all that you did? Saseigel (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I am relatively new at this. Please review what I've done thus far (which I would class under imitative as opposed to truly creative coding). I would appreciate any improvements you can offer. The template has thus far been applied to a single page. Thanks, Scott Saseigel (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- You don't need to ask me what I did: you look at my contributions for the definitive answer! It was these edits and deletion of two redirects (shown as red links in the contributions list). Also, I have just done this edit. Note that changing utility Helicopter corrected one red link, but there are still three to be fixed. Otherwise it looks OK. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Bill of Mortality
It would be my pleasure. Bizarrely when you contacted me I was just finalising some details for a presentation I am doing tomorrow on life aboard the Mary RoseBashereyre (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Villages in India
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
War and Commons
Hello RHaworth
Thank you for your information, I had already taken in your thoughts about War memorials and agree, they are best included as a section on an settlement articles as was exercised with both Sheringham and West Runton.
I have changed the way that I had attributed Geographic pictures recently. I had been using the template example below. {{cc-by-sa-3.0|© Copyright John Salmon and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence. From the Webpage: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/320341 }}
Has this one been superseded by the one you have informed me of?
Could you also point me in the direction of a page that has used your template so I can view how best to load the author and copyright info in to the template.
Regards Stavros1 (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Amazing! I was just looking at your contributions when your message arrived. {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} is still valid for other images. But for Geograph images, you have been asked for a long time to use:
{{Geograph|image number|owner's name}}
- as in File:General Lying-in Hospital ES.jpg.
- Not sure what template you mean, but for my own images, I use: this template which looks rather empty until you use it in something like this digital photograph of St Luke's Church.
- And what are you views on uploading to the Commons rather than Wikipedia? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have not thought too much about uploading photographs to commons but I agree with you that it would be a good thing if more editors, myself included to make this practice the norm!. I was uploading to commons in March because I had made an attempt to put my home village on the French Wikipedia, fr:Beeston Regis. A French editor seemed to be annoyed about that and has taken the images of the page. Stavros1 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I will leave you to fight your own battle over fr:Beeston Regis. I would have thought they could allow you a couple of photos. Perhaps calling yourself Markthefrog was not a good idea! I have put together a gallery for you at commons:Beeston Regis. Please note the following omissions from the gallery:
- File:Norfolk outline map Beeston Regis.png (and File:Great Yarmouth.png). A couple of years ago, user Lupin started to create hundreds of dotty maps such as File:Stonehenge dot.png. We stopped this and replaced it with the way gb4dot.svg overlayed by dot4gb.svg as you see in fr:West Runton and fr:Beeston Regis. Now on Wikipedia things have similarly advanced and the dotty map in Great Yarmouth is produced by Norfolk outline map with UK.png overlayed by Red pog2.svg. I think it would be a very bad precedent to start creating place-specific dotty maps, so until Template:Location map is migrated to other wikipedias, I suggest they will just have to do without these dotty maps.
- File:Priory Beeston Regis.jpg. I think the oft-cited Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. judgement applies here. You may have taken the photograph but, assuming it was drawn recently, copyright rests firmly with English Heritage or the artist. I will not bother to mark it copyvio but I am certainly not going to use it.
- Since you have done them, I will will work through your Commons uploads and make them the definitive versions, marking the versions here with {{ncd}}. But why did you only offer the frogs 800px wide images when we get 2560px wide ones?
Contributions by Stavros1
Hi. You added a photo for Beeston Regis recently with the comment "if you don't want Stavros1's pictures, please at least allow us to link to them on the Commons". The point is that the guy you identified as 'Stavros1' was translating into french using some software, and the result was kinda bad... So, we basically had to go over everything he did. I deleted everything and tried to translate at least a little something so that it doesn't look too empty. In the process, we also got rid of the pictures and other stuff. However, you are more than welcome to contribute by adding links or pictures (but then you probably should avoid writing text). We would do the whole translations of Beeston Regis and all those cute villages if we had time and enough people but, really, that's not quite the case right now. I just wanted to make that clear and to encourage you to contribute on the french side. 22 April 2008 (UTC). Utilisateur:Philippe_Giabbanelli
LDS (dab)
- Greetings, R. Haworth,
- Hope you are well.
- "For other uses, see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (disambiguation)."
- I remember you as an expert regarding Wikipedia syntax.
- Accordingly, here's a puzzle I think you're on of the few who can solve.
- There are both a grammar error in the above, and a violation of Wikipedia pracrice. In think the "The" above should not be there. But it's too complex for me to fix. (Check out the "REDIRECT(S)") --Ludvikus (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you go to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – you'll see "... see THE ..." which I think is wrong. If you agree, can you correct it? Cheers, --Ludvikus (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Not quite clear what you are requesting me to do. It looks strange that the main article has 'The' at the front and the associated dab does not have 'The'. But this has been the situation for some while and I could not see any double redirects so all looks OK.
This edit has just been done – was it really too difficult for you? And it would have been even easier if it had been done properly! (Apologies for sarcasm!) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't too difficult. But I was away from WP for quite a while. So I wanted to spend time on stuff that interested me more. One of these is Standard work. That got me to Standard Works, which is connected with scriptures belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which also has (a) Disambiguation page(s) associated with it. So I noticed that "The" preceeding "see" which bothered me. And that reminded me of you – Grand Master of Wikipedia Syntax. So I though of just dumping that in your lamp, believing that you'd solve that tiny puzzle in a flash – which you did. Best to you, and I hope next time we'll meet in Cyberspace, there'll be something far more interesting for you to tackle. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The Burke Group
The Burke Group and The Burke Group (TBG). Hi Roger, I came across this new page which the TBG employees (I think it's safe to say it's them!) put up. This is part of a neutrality dispute (but they want the page deleted) for this The Burke Group page. Can I invite you to comment (if you haven't already) on the deletion debate for the original page? I'd also note that the page you've tagged is not just advertising, it really has very little to do with the company at all. After the first paragraph, it's simply a polemic about why unions are bad, that's really unrelated to the company itself. Cheers,Wikidea 12:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Signature
Gah! Can't believe I did that. Thanks for the 'heads up'. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Recreation of page
Tapchi pc is a recreation of Tapchipc.com, a page protected from recreation. Andreas (T) 15:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
<ref>title</ref>
Greetings. Would you be so kind as to drop by and drop me some instructions as to how to use this Citation Format when a title is repeated as a reference later down the page – I'm thinking of ibid.: I imagine one does not need to rewrite the whole citation each time? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for all the help
I just wanted to say thanks again for the suggestions and the guidance you have given me over the last couple of days. You were very instrumental in getting my article up at wikiHow. Thank you again dekes12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekes12 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Suspected sock
Sorry to bother you yet again. WP:SSP is a bit backlogged, and since you're familiar with the Fraberj situation, I was thinking you could take action on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj. This edit is damning evidence, and it would appear that Mr. Collins is violating WP:SOCK. I'm wondering what sort of action is appropriate to take. Thanks in advance.-FrankTobia (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
PayPay
Hi RHaworth, article PayPay is protected from creation because of CSD G11 "blatant advertising" deletion log. I took the page's text from Google's cache and intro from Moneybookers and attempted to rewrite it. (Actually almost no original material remained.) My version is User:Alvin-cs/PayPay and I believe it is ok now. Can you please move it to PayPay? --Alvin-cs ✉ 20:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly not in that state. When was it started? How many users does it have? Where are the independent references to show that it is notable? There was more in the original than in your version! Fix those points then raise the matter at deletion review. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- See this exchange – why bother talking to me at all? Don't tell me when you take it to DRV! More seriously, it may be worth mentioning and explaining why the site concentrates on Germany and Easter Europe. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Added sources about notability: many auction sites recommend this operator (in fact all auctions in my country), it was targeted by IRS and by phishing attack that were worth mentioning, its competition advertises on Google on this keyword, it is regularly mentioned (along with PayPal and Moneybookers) in shopping-related articles at lupa.cz news site (my country's the most recognized internet/web technology e-zine). Meanwhile notability criteria is not on the list of criteria for speedy deletion – others may find better sources (if the block is ever lifted) because I am not particularly familiar with the area. I was surprised the article is missing, then surprised that cleaned up version "is not in the state". I failed to find out how many users it has.
- There was more in the original than in your version!
So what? Less material does not make it less encyclopedic and certainly does not warrant speeding it. Almost all articles start as stubs. Yes, I removed content which I was not sure about. Now I have done the research and AndreYoung was right, so I added some things back.
- why bother talking to me at all?
Because Wikipedia:Protection policy says "Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more appropriate content should contact an administrator." and were one of the involved so it would be polite to contact you.
- "Don't tell me when you take it to DRV!"
This is a language issue, I am sorry but I want to avoid misunderstanding. Does it mean "Don't tell me because you already took it to DRV" or "Don't notify me if/when you take it to DRV"? - I have not risen deletion review, ever, if you suspect me being AndreYoung's sockpuppet, say so. *1*
- "it may be worth mentioning and explaining why the site concentrates on Germany and Easter Europe."
Business decision, I suppose. Marketing reasons and business decision are not usually publicized and this company is no exception. I guess it is because PayPal does have smaller market penetration on Eastern Europe – mainly because PayPal places some restriction on accounts or something. The answer is bit interesting but does not matter. *2* -- Alvin-cs ✉ 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- *1* - sorry, loose wording. I meant: "whilst the instructions for undeletion recommended you to talk to the admin who deleted, in my case I do not mind. You have my full permission to take it to DRV without telling me." I would never dream of accusing you of being AndreYoung's sockpuppet.
- *2* it matters to the extent that it is an argument for re-instating the article – you can claim that it is notable despite a lack of English language references.
- I checked for de:PayPay, pl:PayPay, cs:PayPay, hu:PayPay and sk:PayPay. If I had found one of them I might have re-instated the article. I accept that the subject probably is notable but I am not quite willing to re-instate it. You could ask Master of Puppets who first deleted it but the simplest is to take it to deletion review – it is not a difficult process. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
High again. This time I really need your expertise, not only technical, but maybe also with your knowledge of Brits. --I'll be back in a moment – got a message! ... --Ludvikus (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Probably best to keep Revisionism as a disambiguation page. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I've already Moved (before contacting you) that one-word Page into Revisionism (disambiguation) – which I suspect you have not noticed. Think about that carefully, please. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You are aware, I hope, that there appears to be Wikipedia:Forking there – that there are Two pages for Historical Revisionism – the other is Historical revisionism (negationism). --Ludvikus (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I had thunk. "Best to keep" above actually meant "best to move Revisionism (disambiguation) back to Revisionism". Will probably prevent pointless edit wars. I was also aware of the fork, but the merge proposed is Historical revisionism (negationism) into Historical revisionism. It need not affect any disambig article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually it was I who proposed the Merge – because both covered the "good" revisionisms. So I'm perfectly willing to drop the Merge Tag if the 2 Articles become truly distinct. I the there is some Good Faith forking there too. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The so-called "good" Historical Revisionism (if your not against Marxism) is also Forked into Marxist revisionism. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- You confuse me. Did I suggest dropping any merge tags? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- No. I just thought you might have overlooked that it was me that put them up. You inspired me to tell you that because you express a desire to avoid an edit war. I think so far that's not likely. I think there's much innocent Forking going on. So the real confusion is in all these unsourced page on just two notions Revisionism (the antiviolence Marxist sort), and the other includes only the so-called Holocaust denial' sort. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The Theory of Natural Systems
Tuscany Dog Project
OK, thanks for deleting the page, I wasn't sure what to do next -- I was trying to set up a request for a translation from German Wikipedia, but wound up with a mess. You may bark loudly at me now. --Hafwyn (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Quadathalon
Hello, I created this page, which was categorized as a Non-Notable Regional Drinking Game. While a drinking game is included in Quadathalon festivities, the game is Beiruit, which is neither non-notable nor regional. I would eventually like to get the page back up (if you could help me with this I would appreciate it), but for now I just wanted to see if you could provide me with the deleted text? Thanks! Antoine Walker88 (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thanks!
Just to say thanks for deleting WikiProject:EduTech. Sorry that my error in placement caused you the work. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Jewish Question
I cannot figure out why Talk:On the Jewish Question (disambiguation) is dangling somewhere in outer space – so to speak – if you know what I mean. Ludvikus (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Appreciate your advise, and I've taken it. Cheers. Ludvikus (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is really so difficult for me to provide an introductory sentence. --?. The big noob, who can't write an article 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Bagoong again
Roger, I need to consult you. There is a Note in Bagoong article that is is recommended for Deletion! Who are doing these things. You work on a very informative arcticle they just delete it. Please explain if you can. Lordarchitect —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordarchitect (talk • contribs) 21:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Requesting a small favor.
Appreciated the Archiving of my Talk page previously. Could you now please archive the whole page – commencing from the moving Barnstar? I want to re-do my talk page from scratch. Thanx. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of CTHULHU FHTAGN
I must have made a mistake when I copied and pasted the title into Google, because I believe I was incorrect in CSD tagging the page as patent nonsense. (The fact that the title looks like one may have mashed the keyboard with the palm of one's hand didn't exactly help matters.) Just thought it was courteous to inform you of this, should the article's creator approach you incivilly. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You deleted File:WillimanticFootbridge 1.jpg as a duplicate; what was it a duplicate of? Thank you. --NE2 19:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
