User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2009 April
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:RHaworth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives
Color Terminology
Today you send me a summary about your concerns regarding the page Color terminology: universalist and relativist perspectives. This is, in fact, a student project, and we currently are reviewing it extensively. We agree with many of your concerns. Our aim was to elaborate on the significant scholarly debate about the universalism of color terminology across languages. Eventually, we were going to create a link to our page from the "In natural languages" section of the existing article, Color term. This article provides a good introduction to the topic, as you indicated was necessary. As you suggested, I have indicated that this is a student project. We are also working to revise our text to make it more simplified (better fit to the encyclopedic tone).
Any further suggestions, critiques, and feedback is most welcome! (We must present our assignment formally tomorrow afternoon). Thank you. Bepett (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for declaring yourselves. "Eventually" indeed! A proper wiki article would have included a link to color term in the first sentence of the first draft. By all means keep your article up until tomorrow. But thereafter, I suggest you transfer it to one of UCB's websites. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime, I was hoping I might enlist your help in changing the title of the page since my account is still less than four days old. We feel the title 'Universalism and Relativism of Color Terminology' is more fitting. Bepett (talk) 20:04, 9 April 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)
- *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)
*1* Which reference? At the very top of the Broadcaster 101 subpage there was a sentence that was a link. This sentence appeared above the title, U.S. Constitution in translation. I deleted that first sentence.
*2* Merging? Whatever I might have done, I would not describe it as merging a page. I deleted the link that appeared at the top of the subpage. I continued to edit both the subpage user:Broadcaster101/United States Constitution in translation and the corresponding section under the page, United States Constitution.
*3* Which page? There is content on my subpage, Broadcaster101|U.S. Constitution in translation. This same content appears on the Wikipedia page, United States Constitution, as a separate section. In the table of contents United States Constitution, it is Section 7. I added this section, United States Constitution in translation, because that is what I thought you meant by merging.
To prepare this reply, I looked again at the page, United States Constitution. I do not see the references to the translations, and I know I put them there. *4* I will correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadcaster101 (talk • contribs)
- I wish I had never asked. You leave me more confused than before. Why do you use external format when wikilinks can be used? You need to learn to use the tools that a wiki provides.
- These edits constitue "merging" within our usage of the word. And the diff listing shows clearly that you put some "references" in the article. Put you only have to look at the history to see that I took them out because they seemed quite unnecessary and they were stuffed untidily at the end of the article instead of being integrated with the existing notes and references sections. Why do you think we need your "references"? Various of the translations are at constitutioncenter.org and you have given links to them. What point is there in giving a link to constitutioncenter.org as well? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
1. Use of external links. After reading your reply, I read the page Help: Link. Here is my answer. I used external links because all the translations except one are at sites outside Wikipedia itself. The one exception is the Thai translation, which I uploaded. In the future will use internal links for uploaded materials.
2. Use of references. This is why I added references. When I drafted the new section (United States Constitution in translation) on my subpage, I included footnotes. However, the footnotes did not appear when I saved the subpage. To assure that references supported the translations when I edited the page, United States Constitution, I added the references you saw. --Broadcaster101 (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
On 10 April 2009 you suggested that a version of the United States Constitution in Vietnamese might already be on the web ("the text of the constitution is source material and would go in Wikisource except that it is probably on the web already"). Any leads to such a translation would be appreciated. Broadcaster101 (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I could not find any on a quick search. So why don't you post your version to the Vietnamese Wikisource? Incidentally, the three PDFs you have uploaded should be in Wikisource not here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of page - Storyz
Hello RHaworth. Back in November of 2008, you deleted one of my articles, for the website Storyz (storyz.com).
04:22, 11 November 2008 RHaworth (talk | contribs) protected Storyz [create=sysop] (indefinite) (Excessive spamming) (hist)
You deleted the page as excessive spamming. It was not my intention to create the page for spamming purposes. Back then, the website was still in Beta stages. Maybe this is why you confused it for spamming. It is no longer in Beta and has since officially launched.
The page has been protected by you. My question is this, am I unable to recreate an official Wikipedia page for Storyz following the guidelines of not spamming indefinitely? Please advise. I cannot understand.
Thanx. Djpinklady (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I also thought it was spamming because the article was written by user:Storyz! Why did you create another account that screamed "spammer" when you already had Djpinklady? Very strange. But no matter.
- Do not spend too much time on it, but do create a draft of your proposed article in User:Djpinklady/sandbox. Then raise the matter at deletion review, mentioning that the title is currently protected. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
--thanx RHaworth. i was just beginning and well, you know... Djpinklady (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of page
University of York Code of Best Practice.
Firstly, it's not a dormitory in any respect of the word. It's the code of best practice for letting agents in the city. Secondly, there is a lot of contention over the content and it has been coming up recently in heated arguments between the university and letting agencies. Thirdly, it is not protected by copyright. The code is notable, in the news and a perfectly acceptable article. There are a lot like it and I've written several myself that have been accepted without problem. And it took me 2 hours to write the thing! Thanks Kypzethdurron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC).
- I know it's not a dormitory manual but it is still utterly unencyclopedic. Whaddya mean took you two hours to write? How much of it did you write? I have e-mailed you the text but this is an encyclopedia. Your article was source material not encyclopedia material. You have described it here - that is all the topic needs. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Mifsud
Your comments about the profile that a friend has posted on the encyclopedia and which you condier a hoax is a bit didturbing to say the least and I did not realize that my life contained more than the above average series of activities that broght me before public attention. I am amazed at the vague insinuation that I might be some sort of ghost. I know it is difficult for people who have hardly ever made a social contribution other than purely academic and on a general level, to accept life histories like mine. I challenge you however to prove that any of it is false or even mildly exaggerated. YOu will find some of my articles in articlesbase.com under my name MICHAEL CHARLES MIFSUD CANILLA.--Spiralmif (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- On the contrary, we require you to prove that there is even one grain of truth in the Michael Mifsud Canilla article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
A while ago you speedy deleted this page, after or while I was removing the speedy, maybe an edit conflict. Many consider "Full Prof at Northwestern" enough to avoid A7, and in any case I think the article, even in its state then, would probably pass an AfD. (His top cited (coauthored) work has over 1,000 gscholar hits, a very high number.) So I was wondering if you'd consider undeletion and AfD if you think it necessary. Regards,John Z (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- There has never been an article on this title! What I deleted was a CV (apparently Americans don't use that term!) and probably a copyvio from his own website. I have e-mailed you the full text. There is nothing worth undeleting - start again from scratch. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for replying and emailing, but as there is no speedy deletion criterion based on being a CV, I still believe it shouldn't have been deleted as an A7. I checked and you are right it is mostly a copyvio of his site's CV pdf. He did write a first sentence, which I would have stubbed it to. Articles on academics are often not all that much more than CV's, formatted differently. The possibility of alienating a possible productive future contributor is worth consideration. I'll recreate it eventually. Cheers,John Z (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is also worth considering whether a self-promoter who clearly has no idea what an encyclopedia is should be given any encouragement whatsoever. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for "saving me the embarrassment of having it discussed at AFD" when I didn't put it up for AFD. It was PRODed. Killiondude (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
NeoTokyo
Hey, you deleted and protected the NeoTokyo article, but we have a disambiguation page at Neo Tokyo. So it might not be a bad idea to redirect it there.--Sloane (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- True. Done. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. -- Sloane (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think it was a weird article? Do you not study computer science (CS)? The term 'html reader' is used in CS to mean things other than a web browser. Though I wrote it from a CS viewpoint that does not necessarily make it weird, and it does not matter if it is. The only thing that would make it wrong is if what I stated was incorrect. I gave examples of how the term is used otherwise as I stated. I suggest it be returned and if you think it is 'weird,' then rewrite it.--Dchmelik (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I found your article confused and confusing and I saw no "examples of how the term is used". "Some html readers read older URL protocols" - things like telnet & gopher I presume. If they do that, would it not be better to call them internet browsers rather than html readers? "People that strongly prefer succint communication often write 'html reader'". A) should that not be 'people who' rather than 'people that'? B) What on earth are you talking about - 'html reader' and 'web browser' are both eleven characters long? What is "variable-width html"?
- Please give me one example of an html reader which cannot be called a web browser - preferably one which I can download for free and run under Windows 98. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Glassy State
Hi RHaworth. On 13 March User:Logger9 created a new article titled "Glassy State". It appears to have been a commendable effort as the article comprised 34,500 bytes. However, on the same day you re-directed "Glassy State" to an existing article, Glass. I hope you intend to contact User talk:Logger9 to explain the rationale for your action. That would be consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia. Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- My policy in a case like this is that it I think it is perfectly obvious why I have done the redirect so no message is needed but if Logger9 asks me, I will give a prompt explanation. You see this policy operating above - I redirected html reader without telling Dchmelik. They have asked me, so they get a response. In any case, I see that Logger9 has taken the hint and is editing glass. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I am deeply disappointed in your response. It seems so selfish. You refer to your policy. There are policies that have been agreed across the WP community for the good of Wikipedia. No-one is particularly interested in the personal policies of individual users. You also say you think it is perfectly obvious why you have done this. Let me assure you it is not perfectly obvious. It is not even obvious. It is not even a little bit obvious. (Your attempt at defense of your action has failed.)
Logger9 has asked me if I can explain what it happened to his article, and I have asked you to explain it to him. I am now asking you a second time. Will you please write to Logger9 and explain why you effectively hid his contribution by creating a re-direct? Now is a good time to demonstrate the good-will and community spirit that makes Wikipedia such a wonderful instrument. Dolphin51 (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done. You may have to check the talk page history to see it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing that. I have worked through the Logger9's history page and I see that you have provided him (her) with an explanation of your action. Logger9 is an enthusiastic newbie and your explanation will assist him in maturing as a WP editor; a process we must all go through. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- The article Glassy state should not exist and your redirect to Glass was the appropriate action. The author is simply trying to publish their own essays on the subject and is making a curently making a complete mess of the article Glass - there are two problems (i) they are trying to publish extensive essays that they have written on the subject and are ineffect trying to replace the current content and (ii) they keep bloody copy and pasting material from all over wikipedia and adding it to the article. This is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong - but there is absolutely nothing I can do about it - please see talk:Glass for numerous issues I have raised which are all being completely disregarded. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Jdrewitt! Thank you for your efforts in helping Logger9 understand the thinking that lies behind a collaborative document like Wikipedia. Communicating clearly with a user, particularly a newbie, may not be very effective in the short term but it is very powerful in the long term. In contrast, cancelling a newbie's work is effective in the short term but has little long-term value. Your effort at communicating is commendable. Dolphin51 (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi - it's frustrating - I have tried though, as have others. Logger9 has put a lot of effort into their contributions - this is the frustrating part - cos we don't want their efforts to go to waste - but we also need to find a way that we can include their contributions without compromising the quality of the articles themselves - we have all got a bit frustrated over this but at the end of the day have been acting in the best interests of wikipedia. Hopefully not too much damage has been done and Logger9 will actually see that we genuinly were trying to help. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Alfred Reynolds move
Thanks for your advice and apologies for not doing it properly. Marshall46 (talk)
Hi, there is just a discussion going on about an article similar to the one you had recently problems with (Glassy state) at the talk page of the article Glass. I do not have problems with the proposed article, but if you have, it would be nice to mention them. Thank you... --Afluegel (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I still do - I asked for the problems that have been raised with the article be dealt with at Logger9's sandbox FIRST - but this is yet another of my requests that has been ignored. I am keeping out of it now and you won't hear much from me whilst I am on my wikibreak. But it would be nice to see some of the policy problems that have been raised are dealt with - Not to mention the fact that a glass is not a supercooled liquid - it is a solid formed from a supercooled liquid, so this part of the physics is wrong - I have numerous references to back this up including references 2, 3 and 4 currently cited in Glass - Elliot, Cusack and Zallen - extremely important texts that extensively deal with the Physics of Glass.Jdrewitt (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- The size of the article should be not above 400kB, if it is independent. The notion that glass is a solid formed from a supercooled liquid and not just a supercooled liquid must be notet in the article, because all views should be given in an encyclopedia. Sure, the article still has a textbook character (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK), but Logger9 must chance to work on it over time.--Afluegel (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Tinyportal I wanted to develop resources. excuse me.--Turkyucel (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain more fully...
The deletion log states you closed an expired {{prod}} for Ensuring Lawful Interrogations on 2009-1-23. Aren't prods supposed to run for five days? How could a prod placed on an article about an Executive Order that was only signed on 2009-1-22 -- one day earlier, have already expired on 2009-1-23?
I won't claim to be an expert on executive orders. But I did start a dozen or so articles about them. And a wikistalker I used to have nominated some of them for deletion. Now this was several years ago, but it seemed to me that the consensus from those discussions was that executive orders were innately notable. I know consensus can change. Has this consensus changed in the years since then? Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I could perhaps have given a slightly different reason but I feel that "simple regurgitation of an executive order: unencyclopedic" was sufficient reason for speedy deletion. I could also have cited the reason as "copyvio from this press release" but it probably counts as a US govt document and is therefore public domain. It was primarary source material and did not belong in an encyclopedia. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Talon Marks, a student newspaper
Yesterday, I tried to create an article for the student newspaper that I am the online editor for. It was speedily deleted, and I feel it was wrongfully so.
I searched for other California student newspapers and found several. The Orion (California State University, Chico) and the The Advocate (Contra Costa College), among others, have Wikipedia pages.
Thank you for your time. I understand that you want to weed out the garbage that people submit here. The Talon Marks isn't one of those though. It is a multiple award-winning newspaper. It has the No. 1 community college publication Web site in California.
I will find a list of JACC awards the publication has won. And the only evidence of the Web site being the best is the word of one of the JACC board members. It has won the general excellence award for the online edition for years, but that is an unranked award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOTLWolfie (talk • contribs) 05:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added links. Please consider allowing the Talon Marks to have the same privilege the Advocate has.
I am not trying to make arrogant claims here. I am trying to add an article to inform others with information about the Talon Marks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NOTLWolfie (talk • contribs) 21:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, given your blatant COI, you should not be writing about the newspaper at all. Have the modesty to leave it to someone else to decide that the newspaper is notable. But if you persist and add your text to the Cerritos College article, I may well leave it untouched. But you will certainly have to provide evidence to support your arrogant claim that "it has the No. 1 community college publication Web site in California". Whenever I see the phrase "award winning", I retch: what I expect is a sentence beginning "it has won the following awards" - and list them - with evidence. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let us first see if it sticks in the College article. And we do not want the staff list! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you create this article, mark it as patrolled, and delete it immediately? There is a bug with the newpage patrol backlog listing that prevents anyone from marking it as patrolled, yet it populates of articles to patrol. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are too impatient. Did you check the log before you went off and asked someone else? As it happened I got called away before I could reply here. As well as complying with your request, I have reported it here at Bugzilla. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
A new user is making these edits, i'm thinking it would help if you explained your reversions. Thanks. --Falcadore (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is this message sufficient or do I need to say more? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies, missed it since it was under the heading of another article. Will say no further since it appears you've crossed swords with this editor before and I'd assumed this was a first time editor since their previous entries have been on deleted articles and the edit history was otherwise blank. --Falcadore (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm a new contributor and you've changed the title to be sentence case, which is great, but could you tell me how to do it myself please, as if I use the create page option it always seems to create it with capitals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardvark1685 (talk • contribs)
- The only reason capitals are appearing in titles is because you have typed the title with capitals! See this edit and note: lots spurious capitals corrected, the first char of a title is case-insensitive, use spaces not underscores in links - no need to pipe. There is a probationary period for new users but I think you will now be able to see a "move" tab at the top of every article - that is how you change a title. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Orphan/dead end
Something about AWB is borked, they are fixing it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:45 28 March 2009 (UTC).
Hi I am spdevry4 and I am a student at DeVry in Pomona I need to create a 3rd party article on this particular website because it is my assignment on a new avenue for the fantasy sports phenomena, this website seems to be the one that will become popular maybe I do not know but it does have a national journal and a good gimmick. The fantasy sports industry has over 27 Million participants so and I play fantasy sports myself so I like the subject. Should I wait to see more news articles on the matter? or should I rewrite the article to keep it minimal? any suggestions? Spdevry4 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest you allow the article to be deleted here. By all means publish it on your own or the university's website. If the site achieves any degree of notability, an article might be accepted some time in the future. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
non sibi sed patriae
Nothing professional about your actions, clearly pure mean...mean is non-productive --PietroSavo (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Pietro (meet you on the level)
- The whole point of Wikipedia is that no proper editor of it gets paid for doing so (your inscrutable reference to a "publicist" gives an hint that you may be getting paid), so "professional" is an irrelevant term to use. You simply do not seem to have got the idea of an encyclopedia. Look at the article fluctuat nec mergitur. Do you think it would be appropriate to add to that article a gushing essay about Paris, France? So why is it OK to add an account of the Battle of Iwo Jima to the non sibi sed patriae article? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Mate 2nd Class John Bradley and battle of Iwo Jima defines 'Non Sibi Sed Patriae, I'm sorry you don't understand that. The Greatest Generation that came about because of WW II is why we enjoy the freedoms we have, and we don't have to speak or write in German unless we desire to do so.--PietroSavo (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Pietro Good Luck and focus on the true value in words and the meaning will set you free!
Can this name be unprotected? There is scope for a worthwhile article on this notable company, though I don't know anything about its spamming history. . . Rcawsey (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The entire content of the most recent version was:
- Moonpig is a webiste that offers personalised greetings cards. It has a popular advertisment in the UK. Moonpig offers a mind-boggling choice of cards.
- All previous states were vandalism. I am satisfied that you have no COI so I have unprotected it. But you will have to work hard to convince me that the company is notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've uploaded a first attempt; hope it doesn't get deleted too speedily. . . Rcawsey (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of The Free Bible
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Free Bible, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Free Bible. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Just FYI re Otheruse
I am working with a user who has been recently frustrated by his edits seemingly disappearing, and since this page was deleted speedily in the midst of an RFD discussion, I IAR'd and restored it to show him where it went. Hope that's OK with you. Another RFD discussion (along with several related and similar CNR's) was opened at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 31. cheers, –xeno (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Another note: It appears that WP:CSD#R2 is not meant to apply to CNRs from the mainspace to Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal. –xeno (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Two letter musical instrument codes
I followed the link, thank you. Actually the idea of a 2 letter ID code was discussed privately until now. Maybe you are right to say that moving our proposal to the article namespace was probably too much at this stage. Anyhow I don't think incorrect to ask for a public discussion here, even before getting a possible ISO.
Why don't you move this proposal to the right discussion page here and help the project? A public debate wouldn't be bad on this topic where appropriate, because the need of a standardazation on this matter is a reality.
IMHO indicating the common short name for a particular instrument wouldn't even need an official ISO to be shown, even by means of a template. On the other hand this use is not a personal opinion. We are simply showing a common practice which can be extended to a larger pool of instruments.
Please try to find a solution different than simply deleting: my purpose here is to help when I can. Thank you--Florenus (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- No. It most certainly is incorrect to try and have a public discussion here. Discussions here should be restricted to Wikipedia content - not things which are patently a long way from being encyclopedic.
- Having said that, feel free to try. You must find "the right discussion page" - don't expect me to do it for you! You do not need to move your proposal - when you find "the right discussion page" just create links to your user pages. RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
For us common abbreviations of musical instruments are part of the Wikipedia content. Language is not a personal opinion.--Florenus (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Who are "us"? But the operative word is "common". Give me an example of a two-letter abbreviation which is in common use. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The practice is quite typical in artists curriculums or concert programs. Just one: http://www.massimilianomotterle.com/repertoire.htm See "Chamber Music", (in Italian "cameristico", http://www.massimilianomotterle.com/repertorio1.htm): "L. Van Beethoven: Quintetto per pf., cl., fag., ob., cr. in Mi bemolle Maggiore op. 16". But I can show you many. The abbreviations are common in this kind of language. It is right that the wikipedia shows the meaning of the word "op." : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbreviation#Plural_forms so, as a reader, I would find logical also to find the meaning of the abbreviations pf., cl., ob., cr., etc..--Florenus (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is a world of difference between properly documenting well established abbreviations and trying to create a complete new system. By all means do more edits such as this. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, actually, the subject of the table I posted was a first collection of these common abbreviations, with the idea of completing the research with other contributions. I had already thought to edit as you suggested because this topic is MISSING in wikipedia, and the template I prepared (what you suppressed) was a first step on this direction, being the collection of the first data of that table. The musical instrument infobox would have been in my view the right place where to start those edits. In fact the way I did not all the musical instruments would have had their abbreviation, have you noticed? :)--Florenus (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Help? Would you be able to help me with this page? I have seen many pro gamers pages on this site that have the exact same layout. I would like to create some for these players because they deserve recognition. I'm not saying make a page about every gamer, only the best. This is the first one that I am trying to start, and he was at one point one of the top 10 teams in the Nation. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Rticles (talk • contribs)
- You cannot be serious. Reluctantly, I will point you to deletion review. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Kingsley Moghalu
Hi there,
I came upon Kingsley Moghalu and noticed you were trying to delete it via prod. A simple google search revealed a lot of independent third party sources, 3 of which I've added. I hope you will do a simple google search next time before trying to delete an article because of it's format.--TM 13:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Elbow contributions
Hello, thank you for the info. First of all, I will remove the quotation marks for the titles, as you suggested.
Secondly, I'd like to address that redundancy of the separate singles for Elbow is partially correct: on one hand, it's very common that singles have their on article on Wikipedia (check any artist, e.g. Feeder, Muse etc.). On the other hand, in these other examples, these separate articles are all summarised under a second sub-article "(artist) discography". Naturally this would likely be preferable, if it wasn't so that the entire disco-table by Elbow also consists of the albums released, making it a comprehensive and orderly overview of all their releases.
Thirdly, I'm aware of the second "Not a Job" article created. This was a mishap that I unfortunately couldn't undo myself. I hope you can correct my mistake, by deleting the one article that isn´t directly linked to the Elbow-wiki page.
Thanks! Unit371 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, you clearly have not yet learned about your contributions list - a glance at it would tell you that all the quotes have been fixed already. Thirdly - give me specific links to the Not a Job title duplication and I will fix it - that is my job as an admin. Secondly, I will let us others decide on the question of separate articles for sinlges. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, It seems the duplication-issue has already been resolved, in the meantime.
Here are some links about the "separate articles for singles"-issue, as examples how it's done before on WP already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kylie_Minogue_discography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muse_discography
The argument that "people dislike separate articles", is of course debatable. Just because I have created these articles for the singles, doesn't mean WP visitors are forced to click on any links. It can still read like a standard overview of releases, thanks to the table I have created for it.
Unit371 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to add the following WP-page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gray_(musician)
Here you can see that someone before me has created a similar overview of releases, with separate WP-articles on each single. Also, the titles are in between quotation marks.
So is this also not allowed or is this page exempt from certain rules? Are the demands you asked me to meet your own or WP's?
Dumez Bridge in Kirkuk city- Iraq
I have nominated Dumez Bridge in Kirkuk city- Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Greggers (t • c) 16:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Waste of time even opening the RfD. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal attack
Please bust out the ban hammer. I did this kid a favour, took off speedy delete and sent it to AfD, and he calls me an asshole. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Block done. Please see my edits to your message above! Using <ref> tags is useless and why use external format links for internal? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Rohtas District]] to articles/subcategories that belong in it.
I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.
If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.
I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I see you have placed a deletion tag on this article. I have looked at the relevant policy; it says: "A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." I have multiple reliable sources (see article) that describe/criticize in detail this concept, so I believe the article is consistent with policy. --Green06 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Raptor Jesus
Could you unprotect Raptor Jesus ? I would like to redirect the page to List_of_Internet_phenomena#Animals. --DFS454 (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment
I have removed the usages here for this English Wikipedia image file: File:Caloenas nicobarica.jpg
You should be able to delete it now. As an aside, if I see a duplicate image on the CC BY SA 2.5 list, how would I tag it for deletion? Just curious, Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- By "CC BY SA 2.5 list", I assume you mean: Category:Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 images. Answer is: exactly as you have been doing - or am I missing something? It seems better to use {{db-commons}} rather than {{NowCommons}}. Have you encountered the Commons Helper? Also (and it is not very important) you should be able to tag images with one edit instead of three. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I meant 2 duplicate images on English Wikipedia of the same person or thing. Uploaders often lose track of photos they place here and they upload duplicates (2 identical sets) on English Wikipedia. I was inquiring about the deletion code for duplicates here, not on Commons. Do you know how I would tag them? Thank You from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- How about
{{db|duplicate of [[:file:…]]}}? You could also add a thumbnail of the duplicate image so the deleting admin can see at a glance that it is a dupliace. There probably is a specific tag but just use my suggestion until someone who knows tells you. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank You sir. I'll copy your note to my talkpage. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Compuserve UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compuserve_UK They put it back after you deleted it :/ R3ap3R.inc (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. How long is it going to be before you learn wikilink format? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Project o South Africa
In wikilink format Same guy as Compuserve, also previously deleted. I support a 24 hour block of the user so he doesn't recreate them again, or creation protect... I'll leave it up to you. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- No!!! That is not wikilink format!!! Project O South Africa is wikilink format. Can you see the difference? Try going in as if to edit the message. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Christ's Church
Thanks for your contribution, but there is no need to take an attitude. There was no other article named "Christ's Church" when I originally created the article a year ago. The disambiguation page was an afterthought. Mgreason (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do not see any evidence of "attitude". I was merely doing the courtesy of notifying you of a move in case you were not used to reviewing your recent contributions. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey
Please read the ENTIRE MESSAGE. my article, Archive digger, was deleted by you, BUT it had the Wikipedia thing in front, so it wasn't like a normal article, and the humor thing was up. Please explain. Thanks! JMS Old Al (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please look at your contributions and the log for archive digger and then tell me what has been deleted. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Movement of A.H. Ahlbrand article
Thank you! I would have lost that content as it got speedily deleted while I slept. :) Jeff.mcginley.indy (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Internal?
Sorry. I am new to Wikipedia. I forgot to prepend those pages with User:Dnessett. I have created the appropriate pages as subpages of my user account. So, go ahead and delete the "Internal" pages. In regards to your suggestion that I "invite an established editor to move the them back into the (article) namespace rather than doing it yourself" I left a message on Talk:Associated Legendre function/Comments suggesting adding a proof for the orthogonality of the Associated Legendre Functions. My contribution to the Comments page was the first in 2 years. I have not heard back from anyone. I would be happy to work with an established editor for the Associated Legendre Function page if I could find one. Dnessett (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I gave you above links to your userfied articles - why did you re-create them on other titles? You are allowed to do things like that in your user space but you run the risk of confusing yourself. I know that links to "Talk:…/Comments" pages exist but such pages are very rarely used. If you want anyone to notice your message, you should do it to Talk:Associated Legendre function or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. You claim that edit "was the first in 2 years". But your contributions history says it was your first ever. It might be helpful if you told us about your previous contribs on your user page. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I am new to Wikipedia. So, please be patient while I learn the appropriate way to do things (I have looked at the guidelines for creating new pages, but I don't recall anything about user space page title recommendations). I will use the pages that you set up. Is there any way I can delete the other "duplicate" pages in my namespace? I will copy my suggestion from Talk:Associated Legendre function/Comments to both Talk:Associated Legendre function and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. I think you misunderstood what I wrote about the edit being the first in 2 years. If you look on the Talk:Associated Legendre function/Comments page you will see that the previous comment (from another user) was placed there about 2 years ago. So far, the two contributions that I am working on are my first. So, if and when they are integrated into the articles, I will note that on my user page. Dnessett (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- There are no rules on user space page names - that is why I left your stuff untouched. To get rid of mistake pages, just tag them
{{db-author}}and they will go within a few hours. OK, I get you now re "first in two years". Have you looked to see what Wikibooks has in your area? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleting an "implausible" redirect
Before deleting Internal - Proof: Orthogonality of Solutions to the General Sturm-Liouville Equation as an "implausible redirect", you might have checked to see if anything does in fact link to it. In fact, there's a link from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. (I've now made a note of the new name in that discussion.) Michael Hardy (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- What are we to do with someone who leaves this message and two minutes later makes exactly thesame mistake? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
NOR
I saw your comment "some we developed on our own". That would make it original research which is not allowed here. I suggest you look elsewhere for a place to publish. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- The proofs are not original research. When I stated "some we developed on our own" I meant some of the steps given in publicly available material was either missing or stated in a way that made them hard to follow. We made some large leaps into smaller steps. Dnessett (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and good catch!
For this diff, I thank you. It was late when I created it and my fingers were tired (not a typist), so I guess I forgot the colon. thank you very much. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
A funny name
Do you really mean "Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/mathing missematicians"? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Of course I meant it - aintcher heard of humour? If you don't like it, move it (yet again). — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
No; I do like it. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Pings Xiao Deletion
I do not believe that this article should be deleted because Pings Xiao is a Buddhist religious leader who is having his ever-growing influence over the Buddhist community in Taiwan and now gradually in China too.
--Passinglight (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Haworth, could you please advise how this article can be kept?
Pings Xiao is now exerting an important influence in modern Mahayana Buddhism. As mentioned in this article, he promotes the underlying essence of Buddhism (Tathagatagarbha), an notion that has not been very evident in the last few centuries except in the Zen School. By citing many sutras, and with his careful approach and logical reasoning, he has caught great attention among the Buddhist community starting in Taiwan and now in China. For his ever-growing influence on traditional Buddhism, and for the benefit of people who want to know more about who he is, I believe we should keep this article. Could you please help to make the article stay? Thanks! Passinglight (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- How about some external links to reliable sources? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Haworth, Pings Xiao's Chinese name is 蕭平實 (Xiao Ping Shi). His Chinese (both Traditional Chinese for Taiwan and Simplified Chinese for China and HK) pages have been on Wiki since May of 2008. He is a very notable and influential Buddhist leader in recent years and there is a cultivation center in Los Angeles now. Based on the Chinese Wiki page, I summarized, re-edited and translated it into English with the hope of having more people can read it. It is my fault not including the external link of reliable sources in this article. I will solve this technical problem. Please give me some more time and please do not delete this page. Thank you very much! --Jack W Mayer (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is too difficult for you to provide links to these alleged articles on other wikis? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not difficult for me to provide the links to other Wiki pages. As you can see from the original page which I did, I did not add any link in the text, even it is a reliable source. I apporogize for this mistake and, with your guidance, will fix this problem. I am doing it now. Although the Chinese page of Pings Xiao was frozen due to no consensus and vandalism, I do not think the whole contents are alleged. I will link those facts which have enough evidence provided. Of course, I will link other reliabe sources within or outside Wiki environment as well. Thanks.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I try to make a internal link of 蕭平實 by using internal link tag, but system prompts this internal link does not exist. I am not sure if I can use it this way or not. Any way, I will try again.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi RHaworth, Very appreciate your modification on my editing bugs and others. Frankly speaking, I am a novice Wiki editor. I have put some external/internal links of reliable sources to this page. Please let me know if I progress on the right trend or not according to Wiki's guidelines. If I make any mistake, please let me know. Thank you very much.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- So which of your external links is to a reliable, third-party source that confirms the notability of Pings Xiao? I do not see any.
- You mentioned "Chinese (both Traditional Chinese for Taiwan and Simplified Chinese for China and HK) pages" above. I have found zh:蕭平實. Which is the other one? zh:蕭平實 is protected for "no consensus" - no consensus for what? To delete?
- I see three people editing the article: yourself, Lister2243 (talk · contribs) and Passinglight (talk · contribs). Can you assure me that you are three different people because we do not like sock puppets and if so what is the connection between you? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
From Wiki's guidelines, I tried not to put any advertisement to the page. This is what I learned from other similar Wiki pages. Now I am quite confused between the evidence of notability and advertisement. Please teach me about the difference.
zh:蕭平實 is the traditional Chinese version which I mentioned. I did not notice the exactly Wiki code "zh:" so that make you be confused. Sorry! The no-consensus, according to my understanding from the prompt message and historic records, some vandals irrationally deleted other editor's previous modification without any reason. Therefore that page was protected/frozen.
Technically I do not know how to assure the other two persons are not me. But I can promise to you that I have only one Wiki username. I have told this Wiki page to some of my friends and they are quite interested in that.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- For goodness sake, evidence of notability is almost the exact opposite of advertising! We need to see independent, third party sources - do you understand those terms? For example Peter Coyote's website is not a "reliable source" because it is self-promotion (but it is OK to link to it from his Wikipedia article). This interview with Peter Coyote probably is a reliable source because we can assume that Heyoka Magazine made an independent decision to interview Peter and were not paid by Peter. Do you see the difference? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Redirect: Private Life of a Masterpiece
Hi RHaworth, I intended to create a new page, Private Life of a Masterpiece, as the basis for a WP:redirect to The Private Life of a Masterpiece but I don't think I succeeeded. My motive was these titles of TV documentary series are frequently confused. Perhaps you could help? many thanx Mick gold (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I take it back. I think I did succeed! Maybe I've become software genius without realising? best, Mick gold (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Since you deleted that page, why not delete Main Page/Errors? Main Page/Errors has always been in place as a redirect, so I cannot understand what would be wrong with having Main Page/Sandbox. More of an explanation and/or a reconsideration of the deletion would be greatly appreciated. -- IRP ☎ 19:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would delete Main_Page/Errors but it scraped through this RfD. I would say the RfD provides good precedent for deleting Main Page/Sandbox but you tell me: what earthly purpose would a redirect on that title serve? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The same purpose that Main Page/Errors does. It could have been that the closing administrator missed Main Page/Errors. -- IRP ☎ 02:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- And what purpose is that? The admin closing what? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I nominated Main Page/Errors for deletion for clarification from other users. -- IRP ☎ 02:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)