User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2009 March

Archives

Archives Edit list Up to: 2005 March 2005 June 2005 August 2005 Oct 2005 Nov 2006 Jan 2006 March 2006 May 2006 July 2006 Sept 2006 Nov 2007 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 April 2007 May 2007 July 2007 Oct 2007 Dec 2008 Jan 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 Sept 2008 Oct 2009 Jan 2009 Feb 2009 March 2009 April 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2010 March 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 Sept 2010 Oct 2010 Dec 2011 Jan 06 2011 Jan 14 2011 Jan 27 2011 Feb 09 2011 Feb 23 2011 Mar 06 2011 Mar 18 2011 Mar 30 2011 Apr 07 2011 May 02 2011 May 22 2011 Jun 08 2011 Jun 26 2011 Jul 26 2011 Aug 18 2011 Sep 06 2011 Sep 28 2011 Oct 17 2011 Nov 04 2011 Nov 19 2012 Jan 29 2012 Feb 26 2012 Mar 10 2012 Mar 31 2012 Apr 14 2012 May 07 2012 Jun 01 2012 Jun 23 2012 Jul 06 2012 Aug 31 2012 Oct 06 2012 Oct 30 JWJ 2012 Dec 05 2012 Dec 27 2013 Jan 22 2013 Feb 05 2013 Mar 06 2013 Mar 26 2013 Apr 15 2013 May 09 2013 Jun 07 2013 Jun 27 2013 Jul 22 2013 Aug 06 2013 Aug 20 2013 Sep 03 2013 Sep 19 2013 Oct 11 2013 Oct 23 2013 Nov 09 2013 Nov 22 2013 Dec 18 2014 Jan 11 2014 Jan 25 2014 Feb 18 2014 Mar 08 2014 Mar 29 2014 Apr 11 2014 Apr 23 2014 May 08 2014 May 22 2014 May 30 2014 Jun 07 2014 Jun 18 2014 Jul 17 2014 Aug 09 2014 Aug 27 2014 Sep 04 2014 Sep 16 2014 Sep 28 2014 Oct 11 2014 Oct 28 2014 Nov 18 2014 Dec 18 2015 Jan 10 2015 Jan 26 2015 Feb 11 2015 Feb 24 2015 Mar 11 2015 Mar 30 2015 Apr 20 2015 May 12 2015 Jun 12 2015 Jul 07 2015 Jul 25 2015 Aug 11 2015 Sep 03 2015 Sep 23 2015 Oct 25 2015 Nov 28 2015 Dec 21 2016 Jan 13 2016 Feb 10 2016 Mar 03 2016 Mar 30 2016 Apr 18 2016 May 16 2016 Jun 02 2016 Jul 09 2016 Aug 11 framework 2016 Sep 02 2016 Oct 05 2016 Nov 02 2016 Nov 27 2016 Dec 18 2017 Jan 10 2017 Jan 31 2017 Feb 23 2017 Mar 15 2017 Apr 20 2017 May 18 2017 Jun 21 2017 Jul 05 2017 Jul 25 2017 Aug 15 2017 Sep 07 2017 Sep 30 2017 Nov 14 2017 Dec 21 2018 Jan 12 2018 Jan 30 2018 Feb 25 2018 Mar 11 2018 Mar 28 2018 Apr 16 2018 May 03 2018 May 22 2018 Jun 14 2018 Jun 28 2018 Jul 19 2018 Aug 03 2018 Aug 20 2018 Sep 07 2018 Oct 01 2018 Oct 24 2018 Nov 16 2018 Dec 02 2018 Dec 26 2019 Jan 27 2019 Feb 18 2019 Mar 06 2019 Mar 17 2019 Mar 30 2019 Apr 14 2019 Apr 27 2019 May 16 2019 Jun 10 2019 Jul 07 2019 Jul 26 2019 Aug 16 2019 Sep 07 2019 Sep 17 2019 Oct 07 2019 Nov 04 2019 Nov 23 2019 Dec 09 2019 Dec 21 2021 Jan 21 2023 Apr 08

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. — 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. — 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. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RHaworth. You have new messages at Backslash Forwardslash's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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 SoWhy 13:22, 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. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:29, 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 SoWhy 13:42, 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. — 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. — 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? — 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. — 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. --Gp75motorsports ^{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. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles of creation

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009 February 13#Articles of creation. 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. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• Take a look at the history for Wikipedia: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? — 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. — 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. — 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. — 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. — 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 Wikipedia: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. — 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. — 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. — 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)

• 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. — 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.

Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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. — 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 <references/> command, probably out of plain unfamiliarity with WikiMedia. The Pursue mobility model was created by User:Ktdharan - same story, this is also that user's first contribution, and sole one so far. It's pure chance that I see the PROD after four days, i.e one day before the routine deletion of this otherwise bona fide article. Simply, that's the fuss: you delete good articles. Let me quote at length from WP:Editing policy "... one of the great advantages of the wiki model is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can, over time, evolve into masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. Thus, even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcomed." This is why this checklist exits: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion - and yes, you should do some checking, see "bullet number 9", I quote: "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.]]" So I think it reflects a deeper misunderstanding, if you think you are "being kind to the author if all I do is prod it" - I assume that your alternative not-so-kind action would be an outright Speedy delete. PRODs are reserved for non-controversial deletions. You can add the {{noreferences}} template to a newly created unreferenced article, but it is certainly controversial to PROD it outright on that basis, in particular if you don't even care to check if sources exist. When controversial, you should take it to AfD - you have just done so with the Pursue mobility model, I look forward to see the outcome of that AfD. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rate My Poo

This page dose not need to be on Wikipedia it is nothing but gross and vile and makes Wikipedia look like a dumping ground for what ever people want to put on it. Please i suggest it to be deleted because of this reason.Kyle1278 (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Saas integration (AfD discussion)

The creator has, after some discussion, started citing sources. You might want to revisit the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Explanation-based learning

Ha! That didn't take long. I had to go to lunch, so I hit "Save" without adding a source. I just added a source and removed the {{prod}} tag from Explanation-based learning. The article is still pretty stubby, but it's a start, and the topic actually has a lot of literature about it. I do very much appreciate your fast response to anything that even sounds like it might be WP:OR. --Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

RHaworth, I bookmarked your page, should you answer my question above concerning your PROD of Pursue mobility model. This seems to be an identical case. A Google scholar search for "Explanation-based learning" produces 4.4k hits - many in association with Artificial Intelligence research. Your practice of PRODding articles seems not to be in line with Wikipedia policy. I refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for details, in particular the section Before nominating an article for deletion. Specifically, I quote: "Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered ..." (you PRODded that article only some two hours after its creation). The next section reads, if there is a problem "apply a tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}". Perhaps you would care to answer? Thanks Power.corrupts (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, no harm was done. It might indeed be wise to do a quick Google search before a {{prod}}, though, so as not to unnecessarily offend newcomers. Another trick is to add one easy-to-find source so the newcomer sees how it's done. These days, it's much harder than it used to be to even have an idea for a new serious article, so let's welcome newcomers who want to do it. --Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• It is always a good idea to develop articles in User:BenKovitz/sandbox until important things like refs have been added. Please do not try and put caps back into the title: a) look at Category:Learning for numerous precedents, b) we don't care what the literature does - it is what Wikipedia does that matters! and c) the fact that we abbreviate it to EBL is no justification. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We might have to disagree about developing articles in a sandbox. I'd prefer an OK, unsourced stub that people can collaborate on to keeping it private before getting everything "right"—public collaboration is the wiki way. I don't understand why you think the article is poorly sourced even now, nor why established usage is irrelevant. Please explain your edits, especially if you are reverting or complaining. --Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Did you see my comment "more external links please"? My comment on established usage was tongue-in-cheek - did you see the ! after "matters". But are you telling me that the usage for EBL is different from state-dependent learning, curriculum mapping, communication skills training, etc. Any more explanations required? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see one difference, Explanation-based learning concerns 'machines, artificial intelligence, etc - state-dependent learning concerns the learning process in living creatures. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mine mine mine song

I don't think this can be an A1-speedy, because the context seems clear, it's a song from Pocahontas. But an AfD would be fine. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than notifying me, it would have been more useful to: remove the copyvio lyrics, fix the spelling of Pocahontas and fix the title. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Information Systems Coordinator

I'd appreciate if you least asked me before ignoring my decision to decline speedy deletion on this article. I am not really fond of having other admins wheel-war my actions. SoWhy 14:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Apologies. It was such so hopelessly unencyclopedic, I did not think for a moment that any admin would remove a speedy tag from it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not about whether something is worth keeping or not, it is about whether something fits WP:CSD. And this didn't, hence I PRODded it. You should always check the history first before deleting, even if you think it's clear-cut. Regards SoWhy 14:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I thought that {{db-test}} could be invoked. Did you see the talk page comment: "I currently don't have the proper permissions to view more information at my home computer" - strongly suggesting that the guy was working on the wrong wiki. A secondary consideration was security: although its context was pretty difficult to determine, it did seem to originate from the US military and might it contain information that should not escape from the military's own internal systems. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Need your help

As advised, I had posted my article as "Cellebrum Technologies Limited" on Saturday, February 21. The article could be viewed on Wikipedia on Monday, 23 February. However, it was missing when I browsed Wikipedia today (Tuesday, February 24). I have now posted the article as "Cellebrum Tech Limited". On googling for "Cellebrum Wikipedia" I came upon this in the search results: 21 Feb 2009 ... From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. < User:AlexNewArtBot ... Article Cellebrum Technologies Limited matched rule prov 5 points: Article ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/LogicLog - 384k

On clicking this link, I failed to find any mention of my article.Would be highly thankful for your help in resolving this. — Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• You were probably being impatient. Google is phenomenally quick at picking up new articles but it seems to have missed this one initially. It has now seen it. User:AlexNewArtBot/LogicLog changes daily. If you had clicked on Google's cached version you would have found it or here in the history. Incidentally, you could improve the visibility of the article by creating incoming links to it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sanctity

Re this edit: "The whole world knows that Wikipedia is unreliable and subject to endless vandalism"? What the hell are you saying there? If it's unreliable why on earth would you contribute to it so much and spend endless hours on it if you don't like it so much like, as you said, the rest of the world? 94.196.9.90 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Your humour detection circuits are clearly a bit rusty. Did I say anything about not liking Wikipedia? I was talking about how the rest of the world (except you apparently) perceives Wikipedia - see this in the Daily Wail for example. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but you said it as if you knew it as well. As if you're trying to convince Raj that Wikipedia is bad. It's just unacceptable and not humourous (what's funny with all the retards in the world who have nothing better to do than put down Wikipedia feeling like they're in the right like some pompous self-indulging midget?). 94.196.9.90 (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

mobility

Mobility Models in mobile adhoc has just popped up. Since: someone had tagged it as confusing, you had got in first and it was a poor title, I have redirected it. But please check if it contains anything worth copying over. But be aware that it is mostly a copyvio - see this Google search. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that Deeptisen, Ngharish and Ktdharan are part of a student project. Deeptisen did try to create a mobility model article before they wrote about individual models but it got deleted. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty rough greeting you offer this newcomer. Only 15 minutes after sHe created this page, you delete the text outright - touché. After two attempts of recreation, perhaps attempts to improve it, you move in for the kill with your sysop-privileges, and protect the page - le coup de grâce. No attempts to explain what you are unhappy about, no help, no communication whatsoever. What happened to WP:AGF? - and to WP:DONTBITE the newcomers? Maybe you are right that it's a student project (what is wrong with that by the way?) You are right though, that the itemized list was copied from:

• Camp, Tracy (2002). "A survey of mobility models for ad hoc network research". Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing. 2 (5): 483–502. doi:10.1002/wcm.72. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), and so was another list of items.

I could find some other sentences, which may have been sampled from other peer-reviewed works, but a large part seems to be the creators' own work. Some encouragement, rephrasing and rearranging may have saved the article, and you could have managed to recruit one/two/(three?) new editors, within the weirdo (but very notable) specialized field of "mobility node modelling" for mobile communication protocols. Wiki sure could need some help here, as many articles on this subject are stubby. I sincerely hope that this is merely an opportunity foregone, that all what happened is that one/two/(three?) students are now disillusionized future Wikipedians, and we won't see them anytime soon. There is a risk though, that your welcome salvo has infuriated them, and thay you therefore have recruited one/two/(three?) future persistent vandals and trolls. We really should welcome new editors. Imagine! They could become future valuable assets. For the fun of it, I looked at your first article Trunk vs Toll waaay back in 2005. REAL crappy first version you came up with there, at least it managed to exist for 59 minutes, before being nominated for Speedy deletion. But you were a very norty boy and removed the Speedy tag yourself (oops), and then improved the article stepwise. Well, gratulations. I would say though, that it still (after four years!) has no references whatsoever, there is no claim of notability, and somebody could think it look just a bit like original research. Man!, nowadays, this kind of article could Speedied anytime. Power.corrupts (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that you like arguing for the sake of it. Facts:

• the only edits by user:Deeptisen which have been deleted were these
• is not this an attempt to explain myself?

Why don't you apologise profusely to Deeptisen on behalf of Wikipedia, ask them how they felt about my message and invite them to contribute. Do you agree that Mobility Models in mobile adhoc was a fork of mobility model? What would you have done if you had seen Mobility Models in mobile adhoc? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, I didn't see your encouragement note, because the user was redlinked, I realize I could have seen it in the revision history, because the talk page was not relinked. Only one deleted edit? I consider it very likely indeed that Deeptisen perceived your edits as deletions, while very stricly speaking they may technically not be so, because the contributions are still in the history. What I would have done? I would have put the encouragement note first, shown a good deal of patience, and done the redirect and page-protect later. Your put up your encouragement note 15 minutes after you protected the page, User:Deeptisen may not even have seen it. Certainly, your actions may have spoken louder than your note. Your encouraging(?) comment "I do hope you will find the power to corrupt mobility model with your stuff" here is also ambiguous to say the least Power.corrupts (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

All numeric grid references

Not strictly about Wikipedia as such, but mapping... I was delighted to find your GeoHack pages because I need to find the OS grid references for a list of places, but it turns out that what I need is All numeric grid references (the first, sensible sort). I can easily write something to convert from the classical form, but surely someone else must have done this before... do you know of someone who has? Can you point me in the right direction? Rachel Pearce (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• A) why do you need all numeric? b) are you aware that my resource accepts all numeric refs thus: 476620_191200. c) conversion from "Landranger" format, eg. TQ 378 345 to all numeric is very straightforward - see coor_g.php (search for "a-h"). If you need a bit of stand-alone code to do the conversion, I will be happy to oblige. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! a) I need all numeric as input data to plot the places on a map. The plotting software uses all numeric grid refs. b) I wasn't aware, but that is sort of the "wrong way round" - I can look up the place in your system (e.g. via wikipedia) but I can't see the numeric version on the resultant page c) That's very kind of you, but as this is a one-off I will do it myself (read: rip off the code you just linked to). Thank you! Rachel Pearce (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Great, if you can do the coding. It will not be a rip off - the code has a free software licence and I do not want any credit given. I have just changed the template to show the all numeric version. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That suits my purposes perfectly. Rachel Pearce (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

La Tumbona House

Regarding La Tumbona House, although I declined the CSD, I did not find a similar article that it should be translated from. It's one thing to keep it because it just needs better translation, which is what I thought at the time. It's a different thing altogether if it is a copy of some web page somewhere, translated badly. The building clearly exists, and the architect has a page in this project, but...I'm starting to think this article maybe needs to go. If you agree, perhaps AfD is the right venue.  Frank  |  talk  16:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A Google image search for "la tumbona" does not give a promising start! But on the second page I found this description. I tend to be more kindly disposed towards geo/archi articles than other topics. For example I actually went out and took this photo to illustrate How Green House (I had to trespass to get the photo which is why it is not uploaded yet). That article has stuck even though we don't yet have an article for the architect.

I have left a note for Pruxo. I suggest give it a week to see if they can improve the articles. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

My name is Guillermo Carone, my ID 47638069-D and I would like to report a copyright violation for the following articles on http://en.wikipedia.org:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_%E2%80%9CCapotesta%E2%80%9D
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Perla_Spa
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Tumbona_House
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital_Naval
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_Universidad_del_Salvador

All of the above are a direct copy from www.wikiarquitectura.com which has a clear privacy policy for the information it contains. The direct translation of copyrighted information it’s still a violation of the copyright license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoiolgroup (talk • contribs) 11:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

wikiarquitectura

Excuse me, I think that www.wikiarquitectura.com have a wiki open copyright license. I put the reference in the wikipedia article.--Pruxo (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied here.  Frank  |  talk  12:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the mistake but WikiArquitectura.com doesn’t run under an open copyright license. I invite you to read the Privacy Policy of the website. Of course the right to cite information exists, but yours was a direct and full copy of all the content of the articles.

As I’m sure you know WikiMedia and WikiPedia is not the same thing as you can read on the help page “what Wikimedia is and is not”. Therefore the assumption that all the info contained in all projects developed with WikiMedia automatically belongs to WikiPedia is sometimes wrong.--Hoiolgroup (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"reposted drunled nonsense"

Why does starting the article for this title go to a message you created of "reposted drunled nonsense"? I wondered what you meant by the word 'drunled'. Thanks.--HootlePooch (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

“ WHEN I WAS is an internet meme based on the My Chemical Romance song Welcome to the Black Parade. The meme generally involves people posting the image of Gerard Way, and it has been documented on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Please don't delete this page, because I'm drunk and you should assume good faith.

It was popular on 4chan for a while.

”

• The above is the text which had been deleted. I assume that by "drunled", I meant "drunken" - perhaps I was a bit drunled myself. If you were thinking of trying to re-instate the article, you could to raise the matter at deletion review but do not expect much joy. Internet memes do not fare very well here - you would not believe how many versions of Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series lurk in the sin bin. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Aniand (book)

...is back. PRODded, but can you think of a speedy, perhaps by IAR? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Don't worry, PROD (predictably) removed, gone to AfD. Yaya J (talk · contribs) has another identity at Yaya jallow (talk · contribs) with no undeleted edits but with large extracts from her (why do I assume it's "her"?) books on the user and talk pages. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Larry Schultz

I think you should adjust your nomination comment on this AFD. The nomination about the school gave a hint it was about promotion. This article is being nominated because it was written by a SPA, but unless the user is hardblocked and evading a ban, who wrote it is irrelevant to a deletion debate. Please provide a reason that considers the merits (or lack thereof) of the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dr Michael O'Connor

You prodded this one in early February. It just got nommed for db-spam, and I decided to delete; it had grown 3 times as long since you prodded it, and even more self-congratulatory. If you would prefer it, I'll always check with you if you've decided to prod an article in the recent past before I speedy; I don't have any feeling about this either way, except that I never want people to think that I'm "overruling" a competent speedy deleter with discussion. (Watchlisting). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Neolibertarianism

Hi, I would like to write a new article for neolibertarianism. I have most of the sources I need, and was going to write on my user space first. I just wanted to have your permission before I start writing it up. — ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• You do not need my permission! But you are wise to ask my views. I assume you have read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neolibertarianism (2nd nomination) and the first nomination. I suggest you start with a short, well referenced section in the libertarianism article. If it sticks for a fortnight, ask me and I will create neolibertarianism as a redirect. If others add to the section, propose in talk:libertarianism that it could be moved to its own article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I kinda had to ask your permission because it's locked. But ok. I assume the best place to put it is under libertarian conservatism? ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Or under conservative libertarianism - you decide. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on AfD nomination

Would request if you could contribute to the discussion on [[1]] as you have already seen this page.

Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Constitution in translation

On 6 March 2009 you asked me to merge a page (or a reference to a page). I deleted the reference *1* because I do not yet know how to merge a page *2*. However, the content (minus the reference) remains on the page *3*. Let me know if this change does not fix the problem. Broadcaster101 (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Broadcaster101

• *1* deleted which reference where? *2* so how would you describe these edits if they are not merging a page? *3* remains on which page? It helps if you provide links! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Switched capacitor filters

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Switched capacitor filters, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} 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)