User talk:RHaworth/2011 Oct 17

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

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

[Title width guide]

++++ delete above here if no further edits - already in archive. If further edits, move below here.

Redirection of cpow to complex.h

Hello, you have redirected the page of cpow to complex.h can I get reason? I want to create the page properly again, can I do that? Please reply. --Pankaj bagul (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Please reply" indeed! May I refer you to this message where I answered your first question above and asked a question to which you did not reply. Yes you could create the page properly again but there is a risk that it will be taken to AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we can edit Wikipedia articles properly with help of campus ambassadors. The question is about functions in C programming language, many of which are already on Wikipedia and we want to add some more functions. If it is that Wikipedia is not manual, then where should we put these page's or articles of C functions? While creating the page of cpow again, I will take care about it that it matches with Wikipedia criteria .Pankaj bagul (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• I refer you again to my previous message. I will offer you another option: post your articles in Wikibooks. I will repeat my question: why must these articles be in Wikipedia? As to your argument that there are articles for other functions: if I bothered to send them to AfD, they would almost certainly suffer the same fate as the two examples I quoted. What on earth is the point of creating a link to C? Please answer both my questions. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• I mean to say,C (programming language) not C.And I want to say that ,these topics Cpow and Abort(C standard library) mentioned by me are under WP:India Education Program and they will be improved properly.If you are deleting these function pages in C (programming language) then give attention towards others also.I liked your advice of writing these pages to Wikibooks ,I will think about that.Pankaj bagul (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

University of Rhode Island ROTC

Just letting you know I declined your CSD nom here. I got beat up at bit during my second RFA for not being aware that for some reason an infobox is considered sufficient to avoid speedy deletion as an empty page. I don't really agree with that, but apparently that is the policy we are expected to follow. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it though, it does qualify under A7, most ROTC programs arre not going to be individually notable. So is is now deleted, but for a different reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Clock and data recovery

I meant to create a new page in the Wikibook I am writing: Clock and data recovery. A few days back, you notified me of a mistake about the page "Clock and data recovery/Noise interacts with the PLL".

Thank you for saving it into my sandbox.

1. But what did I do wrong? I still believe the page would be a valuable addition to the book, even in its draft present state. Would you please give me a piece of advice?

1. BTW, would you please also help me understand "Note that wiki markup generally does not need <br/> tags all over the place." ?

Sorry if these two requests sounds stupid, but your help would be appreciated. I may also do good, that am accustomed to do evil, if I can get some assistance. Pierandrea Borgato 13:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BORGATO Pierandrea (talk • contribs)

• What did you do wrong? You posted it to Wikipedia! I have copied it to wikibooks:Clock and data recovery/Noise interacts with the PLL. Please take it from there. "Wiki markup generally does not need <br/>". Surely that is obvious: look at this page after my edits - how many <br/> tags are there? Is it still readable and well formatted? To start a new paragraph, leave a blank line in the wikimarkup. What do you need <br/> for? Look at any long article here - is it peppered with <br/>s? No, because we don't need them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Reinhilde Veugelers

I found plenty of her citations at Google Scholar and Google books. She has been a visiting scholar at many prestigious academic institutions, and is a full professor in Belgium. She easily passes WP:PROF. So I removed your ProD tag. Please look at those sites before nominating scholars. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Person centered thinking

This has been redirected to person centered planning [no it hasn't! R], but I think they are separate. If you look at the previous PCT talk page, there was some discussion about this. Riverside2008 (I think) would know a lot more about this. Cheers Heywoodg ^talk 09:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Heywoodg, got here before me! They really are two different things, and person centred thinking is a much broader category than person centred planning, person centred planning is a specific, and highly refined application of person centred thinking. If person centred planning = house, Person centred thinking = building. Riversider (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• OK, if you both think that way, feel free to re-instate person centred thinking as an article. If I feel strongly, I shall seek consensus before re-redirecting. Please decide whether the word is centered or centred! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks R. Person centred thinking is practiced in both the UK and the USA, the spelling will depend on which country's preferred spelling system the editor uses. I can see the spelling issue haunting this topic throughout its lifetime. Riversider (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Responsive Open Learning Environments

Hi, I would like to ask you to reusify the above standing article. I have created it in the best will without intending to present the facts with bias. However, it seems that this was not enough. I would like to improve the article so that it is appropriate for the Wikipedia. Thank you, best regards, Thomasova ZSI (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• What is it about the Seventh Framework that people seem to think that independent references are not needed? See this list. Or perhaps it is that most Seventh Framework projects are simply not notable! Yours in fact was better referenced than most. I have restored it to User:Thomasova ZSI/sandbox and blanked it because it does appear to be largely a copyright violation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I see the confusion is present on both sides:) Notable they are, but not in line with wiki policies, that is my impression. However, what happened with ROLE wikipedia article is still buffling me a bit. Currently I am wondering if you say copyvio from ROLE website what do you mean? That the source was not attributed with the inline reference? I especially took care not to copy the text or sentences, yet to combine all different information in one text (or should I rewrite the whole text?). Any feedback with regards to this is appreciated. I am studying now anew the wiki policy and I understand it is wise to seek feedback in Wikipedia's village pump for idea incubation. Thank you for your reply, I guess this is a learning by doing process. -- Thomasova ZSI (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Notable they are, but not in line with wiki policies" is a pretty meaningless statement. "Notable" when used in a WIkipedia context implies "satisfying Wikipedia notability criteria". If they don't meet the criteria then they are not notable for Wikipedia. Attributing a source via inline references is simply not enough - if you are going to copy text then you must get proper permission. But the best solution is to re-write in your own words - the article is probably 4 times longer than it needs to be for a new article on this subject. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. Do you feel it is appropriate to keep all widgets and widget tools that were presented in the article or does this breach any policies? I can get the permission of the content creator, that is not a problem.--Thomasova ZSI (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• What on earth do you mean by widgets? It is just conceivable you are talking about the images. If so, the licence terms for File:ROLE logo 300x121.jpg must be changed to fair use. For all the other images you must: get permission, confirm it as explained here and tag each image description with {{OTRS pending}}. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear enough. I meant a Web widget. In particular, those ones that were developed within the project - http://www.role-showcase.eu/widget-bundles. Can I just include them in the article or I need to ask for permission as well? thanks for your patience! -- Thomasova ZSI (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• It might help if you gave me a link to a specific example of what you are talking about. But the answer probably is: yes, you would need permission to embed a widget in the article but it is probably inappropriate to do so - the article is discussing widgets not supplying them. To link to a widget does not require permission. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, in the article that has been deleted, there was a list of all the widgets present in the widget store (which is a widget repository that can be used all for free) and list of all widget bundles present on showcase platform, where you can also try out some of the widget bundles. I am interested whether I can list all the prototypes (widgets, widget bundles) with links to the respective widget/widgets bundle. I do not want to embed anything in wikipedia, indeed, just provide the full list of prototypes and links - do I need to ask for permission as well? thanks--Thomasova ZSI (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• What deleted article??? It would be inappropriate to include lists of all the widgets in a Wikipedia article. Providing external links to those lists is a good idea and, naturally, does not need anybody's permission - that is a basic principle of the web (as I understand it). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Déjà entendu (psychology)

Restarted... but wait, there's MOAR! Hi again RHaworth. Déjà entendu (psychology), an article you may have deleted as an expired WP:PROD is up and running again, but without recourse to WP:DRV. But wait, there's more - Deja Entendu appears to be a fine little stub. I'm frankly so perplexed about all this that I'm not sure whether I've spelled "perplexed" correctly or not. Your thoughts about this? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• I did not delete anything. I prodded déjà entendu then immediately changed my mind and converted it into a redirect. But in any case, it is perfectly OK to simply re-instate an article deleted as an expired prod. You could try an AfD for the new article but I think the best solution would be to make déjà entendu (psychology) into a redirect to déjà vu and encourage Jaldenpage (talk · contribs) to write up déjà entendu as a section within the déjà vu article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Piston and crankshaft design

Hi. As per my knowledge, the article piston and crankshaft design is proposed for being deleted. Can you please elaborate on the reason for why it is being deleted? Also, I am editing this article as a part of a project under the Wikipedia India Education program and the editing that I do will be assessed for. Its too important, do reply soon. -- Umemabohari —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC).

• Surely the AfD discussion provides ample elaboration? Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that the idea of the Wikipedia India Education program was to teach you how to write Wikipedia articles! If you simply want to post your essays then do it elsewhere because Wikipedia is not a free host. In the case of this topic, please improve the existing articles on piston and crankshaft. Your supervisor will be able to see your edits in the edit histories and mark you appropriately. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll also point out that this article was a copyvio synthesis of several blogs and websites on the subject. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

D'Oyly Carte & the Infoboxes

Hi - I have a vague recollection that you may have mentioned in London back in July something about an ongoing tug of war between members of the classical music project and supporters of ubiquitous infoboxes. If you do happen to have any thoughts on this matter, would you perhaps care briefly to express them in conjunction with either a Keep or an Oppose here, in this section? Thanks.--MistyMorn (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Are you sure it was me? I have no feelings in this matter. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't sure... No matter, sorry for the disturbance.--MistyMorn (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hide Top Contribs available now

In response to your semi-aside request at the Village pump: The "show only edits that are not latest" option is available now with my HideTopContrib script. Mark Hurd (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

MYMOSA

Please reinstate MYMOSA. As you may have seen, I was in the middle of editing the article. I already added two references and I was in the process of adding others. If it is going to be deleted then please let's have a proper discussion and a chance to add some decent references. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• I will admit that there had been too much input from others to justify deletion with {{db-g7}}. But I am getting fed up with articles about Europrojects where the authors seem to think they are exempt from providing independent references. I have restored it to User:Biker Biker/MYMOSA. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm interested because it is motorcycle-related, the fact it is an EU project doesn't bother me, but I can understand your frustration. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

13 (number)

Hi Roger. Looks like you're involved in a slow-burning edit war over this article. I have fully protected the article for a week and will "encourage" your opponent to join the discussion, which you started at Talk:13 (number)#Zenith. Favonian (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Many thanks. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wedling

Hello sir, we are editing article of symbols and conventions used in welding documentation as Wikipedia:India education programme. If you help us for editing this, we are grateful to you. Can I know why our article gets renamed? Patilvs.mech (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Obviously the capital letters in Symbolic Representation And Conventions Used In Welding were unacceptable. What meaning does "symbolic representation" convey that is not conveyed more succinctly by "symbols"? The addition of "documentation" is obvious: welding does not use symbols; it uses welding rods and other hard physical things. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Grace Helbig - request for unprotection

Hello. It seems you protected the article about Grace Helbig (a living person) indefinitely on July 18 2011. The person in question had made a joke in a video of hers that day about her not having a Wikipedia article, which caused some of her fans to create several unstructured articles without sources in a short period of time. I certainly understand why you protected the article at the time. However, I feel the protection is no longer necessary since it was highly related to the aforementioned joke. So I would like for you to unprotect the article. I already started writing a new article recently that hopefully succeeds in establishing the subject's notability. Thank you, Lunferd (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• If the AfC decision is to accept the draft, unprotection will be non-controversial. If the AfC is accepted by a non-admin, they can request me to do the move. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I see. Thank you for shedding some light on the matter. Lunferd (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Hello again. The user Chiswick Chap has accepted the AfC but is unable to make the move due to the protected status of the page (see comment on the AfC). Can you make the move, please? Thanks, Lunferd (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Unprotected and Chiswick Chap notified. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! Lunferd (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Termination Letter

It looks like Termination Letter has been recreated virtually word-for-word by the same user (User:Manassingh1989). You deleted it previously, do you want to take a look again? --Biker Biker (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Someone got there first. But keep watching. If it is re-created again, ask me to delete and protect it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And it's back again. I have reported the user at WP:AIV because he is ignoring advice/warnings from multiple people for his efforts on this and other articles. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help/support. Much appreciated. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you blocked this user's IP. In case you weren't aware, he is also socking with another account now and has already recreated "termination letter" under another title - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manassingh1989 --Biker Biker (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

C functions

hey actuly i want to know your opinion on inclusion of the page on difftime function in time.h! I am part of wikipedia project under which i had created the difftime page.plz let me know if it is okay with you if I create a seperate page for difftime.same is the case for sinh() C function which is also redirected to math.h! plz rply soon sothat i can make changes accordingly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divya crazy 27 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• My current recommendation is that you should create articles about these functions in Wikibooks. Here, you will run into endless problems of deletion or redirects. On Wikibooks you will find all is peace and light. See for example fgetws, strxfrm, wcscat, wcscpy, etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

hey thanks for your help..i will try to edit this in wkibooks!if you have any other suggestion or ideas plz feel free to tell me!once again thanks!divya crazy 27 13:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divya crazy 27 (talk • contribs)

GeoHack for region:GB

Hi, how would I go about getting the link titles on the GeoHack page (region:GB) fixed? See, for example, here - at present we have the following:

Ordnance Survey NPE 1:50, circa 1960 (via OpenStreetMap)	OS NPE 1:50 maps (England// Wales)
Ordnance Survey NPE/7th 1:50, circa 1960 (via OpenStreetMap)	OS NPE/7th 1:50 maps (Scotland)
Ordnance Survey 7th series 1:50, circa 1960 (via OpenStreetMap; partial coverage)	OS 1:50 maps
Ordnance Survey 1st edition 1:25, circa 1960 (via OpenStreetMap)	OS 1:25 maps

but these are the wrong scales - the pages reached show 1:50k and 1:25k, so these titles should either show the same, or show 1:50000 and 1:25000. (That's aside from the fact that the NPE and 7th Series are actually 1:63360, not 1:50000)

There is a second problem: each of these four has a ref tag, but the page has no {{reflist}}. An error message shows (in black) close to the bottom.

Sorry for being a pain, I'm asking you because I don't know where the main discussion page for the GeoHack pages is! --Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Just go ahead and edit Template:GeoTemplate! Note what the talk page says: "changes to this template may take several days to propagate to the toolserver". I have deleted the refs - they are simply not needed - none of the other sources on the page uses them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, have amended - I really had no clue that it was in a template - once found, easily amended - but first I had to find it... --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, on the geohack.php page there is a link at top left to the template. I note that my removal of refs appears to have filtered through already. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Aluminium phosphide poisoning

• Discussion moved to talk:Aluminium phosphide poisoning

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Please return the text from article: Silicon Valley Code Camp you deleted without any discussion reasoning at all. dmode (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I have e-mailed you the text. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Arkadiy Abramovich

Please can you suggest how I might rectify my error? I feel that an article on Arkadiy Abramovich, son of the world famous billionaire and business man Roman Abramovich, is worthy of inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesstewart99 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Did it ever cross your mind that it might be a good idea to include links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources? When you have provided them, I suggest you re-submit via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like he just went ahead and recreated the article - complete with the speedy deletion tag intact. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Knaphill Athletic FC

Thank you for once again deleting our clubs page on Wikipedia. Sorry you felt our achievements weren't worthy for inclusion. How are we supposed to publicise the club and annoy weirdy beardy football haters like you if you keep deleting us and then locking it so we can't recreate it? For example, is Tongham F.C. really so much more informative? Turn it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.165.7 (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Try Facebook and Twitter. I don't hate football - I hate self-promoters. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit strong. We're an amateur club run by unpaid volunteers. How do you list a clubs achievements (just like every other organisation listed) without appearing to "self-promote"? Do we have to win the FA Cup before we become notable? I think our achievements in our first year were definitely notable. You might not agree but then you never saw Tom Aldridge clattering a player as he "slipped" or Jamie Clarke scuffing another effort over the bar. OK, fair point ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.165.7 (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oops, broke my own rule. I don't talk to IP addresses. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy CFD

Hi, RHaworth. You recently removed my speedy deletion tag from Category:Victims of political repression in the Soviet Union. According to Wikipedia:Category deletion#Speedy renaming and speedy merging

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense", "recreation", categories that have been empty for four days) can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as ((db|reason)), and no delay is required for these.

I've also seen other categories speedily deleted by administrators on the ground of "recreation". Category:Victims of political repression in the Soviet Union is a recreation of Category:Victims of Soviet repressions, which was deleted following a CFD discussion last year. We've also deleted dozens of similar categories previously. It just seems pointless to go through the motions of another CFD nomination. Just what's the procedure that one follows here? Thanks, Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Depopulate the category and I will delete it without hesitation. Ie. edit the 19 pages that are currently in the category to use the replacement category or just delete their use of that category. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's ready now, thanks. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sub-heading

Please spare a thought for the editors whose edits you revert with nothing more to justify their removal than "(recreation of deleted category, emptying for deletion per admin's request http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#Speedy_CFD)".

Pointing to this page and the cryptic text above does little to inform editors of previous discussions and decisions made regarding the removal of categories. I would have appreciated a link to the actual log/archive of the discussion -- this would help me to 'learn' about the reasons for the reverts. Although I did eventually find the discussion regarding the difficulty of categorising "victims" here, why couldn't you bother to provide this link, given that you used this as a basis for removal? It is not very helpful to go to this page to find out the reason for deletion as "C1: Empty category" -- after all the articles were removed (by you) to make it empty!

Worse still, this laziness in not bothering to provide reasons for removing edits extends to this example, where I (in good faith) tried to improve the clarity of an already ambiguous category. Why is it alright for User:Zloyvolsheb to remove dubious categories, and not OK for me to try to improve the wording of ambiguous text? Very trivial (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Very trivial, please spare a thought for the fact that we are all volunteers here, and that you may be criticising the work of one of our most experienced administrators. When you have made significantly more than your 200 edits, you may understand more of how Wikipeia works. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Besides being patronizing and elitist (WP:ARGH!#Avoid_projecting_elitism), the logic and argument expressed in your comment is irrelevant to the issues I have raised. It is irrelevant to what degree someone is "experienced" — no one is above constructive criticism. I note that you have not constructively responded to any of my specific points. Your implication that because I have not done "significantly more than 200 edits" — thus suggesting that I am not 'qualified' to make comments, is a good example of an Ad hominem argument. Suggesting that I don't know how "Wikipedia works", suggest that only "experienced" people like yourself are qualified to make comments, or criticize fellow administrators... You are also making a prejudgment, without considering the possibility that I may have edited under a different username previously. In any case, the number of 'edits' is actually irrelevant, and should not be used for 'point-scoring'. -- Very trivial (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Very trivial is talking to Zloyvolsheb. I think the edit summary quoted is more than adequate. But Zloyvolsheb needs to learn wikilinks - they work in edit summaries. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct — I was mainly responding to User:Zloyvolsheb, and asking him to communicate with the people affected by his edits, rather than "chumming" with those who seem to regard themselves above "newbies", who according to Wikipedia policy, are "Wikipedia's most valuable resource" (WP:Newbie). I also made the point (so far not acknowledged) that no reason was given for one of User:Zloyvolsheb's changes. There is at the very least an acknowledgment by Wikipedia policy: WP:EDITING, WP:DONTBITE and WP:ARGH!#Avoid_projecting_elitism of the need to give useful explanations of changes. -- Very trivial (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Art journals

Category:Art journals. Please restore this at once. It is the subject of an ongoing CFD, which is not likely to end in its deletion, and was emptied out of process, which frankly you should have checked. Ideally please restore the contents as of ( I think) yesterday - there were not that many. The CFD is here. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• You forgot that subtle colon for when you want to talk about a cat or file. You can have a valid moan at Tsuchiya Hikaru (talk · contribs) for removing the CfD notice. How on earth can I restore the contents? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I thought admins could see or recreate past contents of categories - but I have reverted the string of edits & I think all are back now. I should say I hadn't seen that he had put a deletion template on it when I made my first post above. He is indeed a troublesome editor, whether through inexperience or deliberately I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

UK Colonial Marines costuming group

Sorry for United Kingdom Colonial Marines being put back up prematurely. The group has been dealing with fallout from previously deleted libellous material that came to our attention last night, and one member jumped the gun in putting up a new page without checking certain aspects of it out first - as per User talk:LadyofShalott.

We will put up a revised page as soon as we have had it signed off as appropriate by the heads of the group - For your information, we are a similar entity to the Star-Wars based 501st Legion.

Notable members of our group include cast and crew from the Aliens movies, and many such persons who are not technically with the group are also proud recipients of the Aliens Legacy Gold Award, presented by UKCM members to those recipients who happen to be in the UK at the time of presentation. — Reverend Scapegoat (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• In case you have not seen it, I have e-mailed you the attack version. The name of the author, Smendrick83 (talk · contribs) may well suggest someone you know. It is always a bad idea to put work-in-progress in the (article) namespace. Really you should wait until someone with no COI thinks the group is notable. But if you insist on trying to force an article in and if, and only if, you can demonstrate the notability of your group, create a properly referenced draft in user:Bmused55/sandbox and submit it via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Static and dynamic data structures

Hello, you tagged this article Static and dynamic data structures for proposed deletion given this reason fork of existing articles. Actually there is no such article as Static data structures or Dynamic data structures. And in Data structure there is nothing on static and dynamic. Can you please let me know to which article is it a fork ? I think of mergeto tag instead of PROD. Thank you. aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 12:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Anything you have to say on the subject of static and dynamic data structures should be added to the data structure article. That seems obvious to me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks so can I change the tag to mergeto ?? aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 14:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• No!! Sagargurav123 (talk · contribs) and Amrutdeshpande (talk · contribs) should update the data structure article with anything that needs to be said. I suspect that their supervisors are looking for complete essays that can be marked easily. If so, you may point the supervisors to this edit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 17:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Indian temple problems

I thought I'd drop a note here as you've dealt with some of the Indian temple articles I tagged for CSD (G12). I'm seeing a nasty pattern in these articles, and have requested help for investigation at Village pump. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Handed some tips out!

Re my thread at Village pump (temples), I noticed your comment on getting these people to talk. I've dropped some info onto the talk pages of everyone listed at your project page, which is just stuff I've found useful for newbies in the past. It may get through to them, and help them a bit. Do feel free to use the same thing as often as, and wherever, you might find it useful :o)
{{subst:user:ThatPeskyCommoner/ArticleHelp}} ~~~~
{{subst:user:chzz/help/ref}}

Here's hoping some good will come of it! Cheers, Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• I shall be very surprised if you get even the slightest response. But thanks for trying. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It has to be worth a go. I don't care at all if there's no actual reply - but if they just read it and take some on board, that will do just fine. But ... I;m not gonna be holding my breath on this one! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Stud contact system merge

Hi RHaworth! I just stumbled across Stud contact system, where you placed a merge tag in May 2011. No one seems to object to this proposal, so I was wondering if the merge was still valid and if you wanted to perform it? I would do it myself, but have absolutely no knowledge in this area, and so am worried I would inadvertently change meaning/accuracy. If the merge isn't still valid, let me know and I'll pull the merge tags from the various articles. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• You don't feel confident to do the merge, I feel no inclination at the moment to do it. So let the merge tag remain in place - why not? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Image deleted for copyright infringements

Hi. I am writing an article on a well-regarded book on inventory management called Smart Inventory Solutions. I have been given permission by the author/copyright holder to use File:Smart Inventory Solutions.jpg. At first I uploaded it in the wrong category and it was marked for fast deletion -- and you deleted it for copyright infringement. When I realized what I'd done wrong, I tried to re-upload it under anther category and with a more detailed explanation of why I have the right to use it. Unfortunately, it won't let me reload it. Am I doing something wrong? What do I need to do to reinstate the image? Thanks! Laura P Wright (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We have to be very careful about copyright here; and we can't just take your word for it that the owner of that image has agreed to license it under our (rather expansive) licensing. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more details. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What if I get the author/copyright owner to upload it in the Commons area? How will you know he's the owner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura P Wright (talk • contribs)

• See donating copyrighted materials. But for an image of 211×300 you should be safe uploading it here with a fair use tag. However for fair use, you must write the article first. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sandals

I seen them shorts and sandals you be wearing here and on your website. You need to put some damn jeans & shoes on. Damn hairy asss legs and big feets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.133.100 (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think Tolkein got his ideas about Hobbits from somewhere? Lighten up. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Tolkien got his inspiration from the dwarves that inhabit the caves in the Malvern Hills. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Predictable process

I was looking to create a page for predictable process and saw that you had deleted a page a few months ago with the text:

07:13, March 26, 2011 RHaworth deleted "Predictable process" ‎ (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject)

I was wondering if you remember the exact reasoning for this since in stochastic analysis, predictable processes are an important subject. Of course if there was good reason I don't want to create a page that is considered "unworthy" (blanking on a better term to use). Zfeinst (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Here you are: deleted revision of predictable process (as of 2011-03-26, at 07:52:10) by Lovezhujing (talk · contribs), the entire content was: "the class of predictable processes forms the smallest set containing all adapted and left-continuous processes, and which is closed under taking limits of sequences of processes." It was entirely predictable that a page as short as that would get deleted by due process. If you actually write an article on the subject, it will almost certainly stick. You might also like to improve on Lovezhuing's version of optional process which was: "the class of optional processes forms the smallest set containing all adapted and right-continuous processes, and which is closed under taking limits of sequences of processes". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'll get on that then. Zfeinst (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Nigerian law

Re: An Analysis of some offences affecting administration of criminal justice under Nigerian law

Some couple of days ago I forwarded an article with the above caption to hoping that you would be kind enough to go through it for possible edit. I just wanted to know how far you have gone with the article.

Thanks, Dr Suleiman Oji, Esq, Ikpe 10:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC) — unsigned and cack-handed edit by Ikpe (talk · contribs)

• You vandalised this page with this edit and then you had the cheek to repeat it! If you want me to look at an article, you place it somewhere else and then leave a short note here pointing me to it. You do not dump 70 kbytes (!) of text into a page which is obviously not for that purpose. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a learned journal. It is not. Your submissions fall firmly into the original research area. I strongly advise you to publish elsewhere and forget about Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Studies in Medievalism

I've rolled this into the discussion of the publishing organization as they seem to be linked in notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Society for the Study of Medievalism. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

TOFOP your speedy was declined

Hi! The article on TOFOP popped up on my radar today (as a new article which triggered a possible Project tag). Unreferenced, full of of puffery. You tagged it for a CSD (A7), which was declined by another admin. Under normal circs, I would look for possible references. I am really not going to look for refs for this article due to the content (better things to do with my time on Wikipedia) but I notice that (alongside the clearly promotional tone) it has been created by and added to a group of SPAs. I've tagged as unreferenced and for the puffery and I think that is all I can do. I know I could nominate for AfD but that would require me to look for references first (did I mention that I don't want to do that?), so the best I can do is to mention it here and look away. Hope that's OK.--CharlieDelta (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC).

Its at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOFOP now.--CharlieDelta (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• What a strange idea - having to look for references before sending to AfD! Despite a recent reprimand in this AfD discussion, I am totally unrepentant. When I see self-promoters and others with a COI submit unreferenced articles, I feel the need for a form of protest stronger than an {{unreferenced}} tag and a comment on the author's talk page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, having spent over a year working on the UBLP backlog, in which I came across several articles that had clearly been tagged as unreferenced when just a few minutes longer and a simple search would have provided at least one RS, I have a self-imposed rule to look first, tag second. If I find the RS, I edit out the promotional wording. If not, I leave it as it and send to AfD. Just was disinclined to make the effort for this one. But thanks for taking the time to look and respond.--CharlieDelta (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Justice with Judge Jeanine

Is a show on FNC. I'm not sure how it doesn't meet the notability criteria and yes as an expercienced user I have read the criteria. no evidence of notability? It is a show on the most watched cable news channel. Give me a break.

BTW. Thanks for not engaging on the talkpage.

--Andy0093 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Maternal oral health

I certainly empathize with you about your feeling we should blow up this hot mess, but it is not original research; it is well-documented. So I removed your prod. Please give me 24 hours before sending it to AfD. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)