This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

[Title width guide. Delete above here if no further edits – already in archive. If further edits, move below here.]

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)

Dr Mr Haworth, From the tone of your email in your talk page in response to the article which I erroneously posted to you on a wrong page it is clear that your were highly irritated by the method of submitting that article to you. In truth I never intended to be cheeky when I posted the article to you. I only needed your confirmation as whether I should go ahead to post the said article for consideration in the Wikipedia. I sincerely apologise. If you kindly permit me I still intend to post the same article on sandbox page and to see what other editors may say about the article. I hope you will kindly oblige me.

Thanks, Dr Oji — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikpe (talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• I will not prevent you from posting it on a sandbox page. I am confident that you will receive the same response from other editors as you did from me. But they will express it more gently. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• The immediate response to your submission was this edit! But others will be gentler. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

• I wonder if you can see a subtle difference between your article and Must Love Kids? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, RHaworth! We are students working on an APA Wikipedia Initiative project at Davidson College and accidentally created a talk page instead of posting on the discussion page. We have re-posted our plan for editing in the discussion page for encoding specificity principle, and are planning to have a revised page by this Friday, October 21st. Thank you for your assistance. — DrewBlundell (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Noted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Roger – I came across a deleted page for Atlas Venture which you seem to have speedily deleted because it did not assert notability. I am not sure what the content of the article was but this is among the largest and most notable venture capital firms in the US. It was founded 30 years ago with a couple billion of assets under management. Additionally, there are several dozen articles on wikipedia that mention Atlas but the link has been removed. I would appreciate your help restoring whatever content was available (so long as it is not unsalvageable). Thanks |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• If I had seen that the article was seven years old, I would certainly not have deleted it. I have restored it to User:Urbanrenewal/sandbox. Please add the necessary independent references and create the (perhaps not dozens but certainly several) incoming links. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear RHaworth! Please help me. You have protected the title of the page I created (inLOBBY) because the article didn't satisfy the wiki policies. Now I have changed the article and I need the title as it is the name of the company I work for. If I need to make other changes I will do it as long as the article is appropriate. Please, tell me what I should do. Thank you! -- Hasina10 (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• What you should do is perfectly clear: you should wait until someone with no COI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. Even if the company always writes its name with shouting that is no reason for the Wikipedia article to shout. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead link at: User:RHaworth#Pictures uploaded. — wmhanks (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

May I edit and use this channel for communications instead of creating a new section each time I wish to contact you?

RE: Wikipedia internal links – I did notice the two buttons to choose internal or external links but when I clicked the internal button it read out that it was not an active link, when I pressed the external button it registered an active link. I knew I wanted to choose the internal link button but every time it showed "inactive link". So I did the only thing that worked. I will now go back, ignore the display on the add link window, and replace god only knows how many links. I'll try again. Perhaps that will suffice. My neck hurts.

I found your photos. They are extrodinary. Do you have any of the Malmesbury commons? In one of the earliest documents of British history, King Athelstan conveyed the commons in perpetuity to the descendants my family and others of Malmesbury for helping him drive the Vikings back to the sea. It must have been the decisive victory that made him the first King of all the British. Of course he's buried at the Abby. I hope to visit some day. wmhanks (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Instead of creating a new section" – whaddya mean – you have created a new section! All the "New section" tab does is to add a == section header and generate an edit summary. Yes you may use "this channel" but most editors prefer it if you do not delete previous messages, even your own as you did here and here. Wikilinks problem now sorted – I hope.

Malmesbury Common. A bit curious: Streetmap knows about Malmesbury Common and places it bang in the middle of grid square ST 90 85. There is a Common Road nearby so the location is probably correct but I cannot see the word "Malmesbury Common" on any of the maps. Go to this at Geograph for pictures. The photos for that square and the eight squares around it are totally boring but wonderfully redolent of English countryside. The only interest is the church in Foxley. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That location appears to be somewhere near Malmesbury. I found this reference which mentions the gift of land to the men of Malmesbury who fought with King Athelstan in the Battle of Brunanburh in 937. I am directly descended from the Hanks of Malmesbury who fought with him in that battle. Athelstan is a very interesting English King and apparently the first to successfully make the claim of being the first: <http://www.infobritain.co.uk/Athelstan.htm> . (Re: New Section – I know this is one, I just meant instead of creating a new one each time I contacted you, could I just edit this section?) I'll get back to work on "Thorne" now. Thank you, wmhanks (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Haworth, I am at a point of near completion on the User:Wmhanks/Thorne Webb Dreyer piece. I revised the todo list on the talk page to reflect what seems to be remaining. However, if you would check it to make sure the items I have listed are indeed those needed to complete the task I would appreciate it. After checking off the remaining items I would like to remove the "issues" tags, post it publicly and begin work on the Wyatt Hanks article. Thanks for all your help, wmhanks (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Are you ever going to learn wikilinks? They are not difficult and, if anything easier to do by hand than using the edit toolbar. Looks good to me so moved to Thorne Webb Dreyer. Just to bring the job to a tidy point (I won't say finish the job because no Wikipedia article is ever finished!), address the ((orphan)) tag by editing the first eight or so articles in this list. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"Are you ever going to learn wikilinks?" please, pray tell, specifically what it is you want me to learn, and show me how to learn it and I will be pleased as punch to do so. Imagine that I am a computer program you are coding and you have to specify the action and where to fetch the resources to carry out that action. You know, "GIGO". Thanks, YF&OS wmhanks (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please go back and read this – ie. a message on your user talk page headed "Wikilinks??". I made two recommendations: "please study …" and "please read …". If you actually study carefully and read as recommended, then you will, I hope, agree that your question above is redundant. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you had published some photos of sand sculpture. You may be interested in seeing some sand sculpture of my old and dear friend Walter McDonald https://www.facebook.com/amazinwalter I'm going back to read through all the references now. It seems to be growing clearer. Thanks, wmhanks (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have got the Wikilinks concepts mastered. The variations mentioned in the references will require more study. The thing I need to work on now is the references protocols. Do you have an example and a "how to" article for building and using reference lists that you could recommend? Thanks, wmhanks (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the interesting sand sculpture link. References: this article is an excellent example of the use of references. How-to details in Help:Footnotes. What more do you need? Incidentally, regarding the photograph, if you do get copyright permission, then it should be: uploaded at the highest resolution available – not just a 270×360 near-thumbnail, with no border whatsoever and to the Commons. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Some link backs to the Thorne Webb Dreyer article have been added. Would you check and see if that is sufficient to remove the orphan tag? Of course much is left to be done: more link backs, final check on reference links, layout of images, and the question of resolutions of the images that you mentioned, etc. But, I guess we're getting there. Thanks, wmhanks (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you. You are listed as an administrator who will supply copies of deleted articles. I wonder if I might ask you to Userfy (or otherwise provide me with a copy of) DeusM. Many thanks.WebHorizon (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unwilling to userfy – the links look like press releases to me too. So read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I would like to know why you deleted my article entitled GSA – Grounding System Analysis. GSA is a software that I use in my university studies and I just want to write an article about it. The deletion seemed strange to me expecially because I used the iGrafx page as pattern to write the article. I wait for your answer. Anyway, thank you for your collaboration. comment added by Sintingegneria (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• You picked a bad example in iGrafx! I deleted your article because of a total lack of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. But even if you found such references, I doubt whether the article would survive because it is only of interest to an extremely small group of people. But do feel free to work on other articles here – you created a link to EN 50522 – how about writing the article? And are the ground (electricity) and earthing system articles perfect? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, RHaworth. In 2008 you protected Aden Jefferies from being recreated. I'm just wondering if you would be willing to unprotect it and move and history merge this sandbox into it's place? User:Raintheone/Aden Jefferies. — RaintheOne ^BAM 19:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Despite the length of your article, given the decision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Harris, I am unwilling to move the page myself. But in any case given that all the edits to the draft are by you, I see no reason to move all of them to the new title. I have unprotected. Feel free to copy&paste your text. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that RHaworth. :) RaintheOne ^BAM 22:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I created Ehtuish Ehtuish and you said it might be deleted soon. It is now more professorial can you check it out? Can you please tell exactly why it might be deleted? I'm new and I hope I can keep creating more pages about Libyan politicians Espa1010 (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Firstly, why on earth did you move it to Ehtuish ehtuish? Within the article you spell it with two capital Es, so why should the title be different? I applied the original prod because of a total lack of extranal links. I am not entirely happy that the links you have added qualify as significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources but I am not sufficiently concerned to take any steps to delete it. Create draft articles in User:Espa1010/sandbox and do not publish them until they contain links to reliable sources. Do that and you should have no further deletion threats. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, isn't "al jazeera" reliable enough? It's the most important channel in the middle east.. and do I need links for each story? Do I need links for his early life and family? thank you. Espa1010 (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Al Jazeera is undeniably a reliable source. But this is the English Wikipedia, please try and provide links to pages in English. If you have links to each stage of a person's life then provide them. But as long as you have one or two links that should be enough to protect an article from speedy deletion. If it gets prodded, sent to AfD or tagged with ((refimprove)), then is the time to definitely add more references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Is his personal website reliable? and intech is a worldly known publisher in the field of Science.. Espa1010 (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Links to personal websites should always be provided but they are never evidence of notability. Intech is no doubt well known but that particular link simply proves that Ehtuish has published a paper – by all means provide the link but it is not really evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

He is a former Libyan minister isn't that notable? he worked with qaddafi? they're all notable and the libyans and everyone wants to know more about them Espa1010 (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Have you provided evidence that he is a former Libyan minister? Have you provided evidence that he he worked with qaddafi? But above all: I am no longer proposing the article for deletion so why do you keep going on about it? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

oh yay thank you so much. but i still have "Welcome! Hello, Espa1010, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Ehtuish Ehtuish, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted...etc" on my talk page Espa1010 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• So delete it if it bothers you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my typo. on Ballets to the music of Gioachino Rossini! — Robert Greer (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the creator and only contributor of substance has just removed your PROD tag from the article. Personally, I agree that it's not notable enough for inclusion. 69.181.251.214 (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello RHaworth! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr Haworth

Thanks so much for the attention you have given to me since my encounter with wikipedia. I cannot remember sending this instant article to wikiversity. It is true that I have sent some articles to wwwnewarticle.com. The article you said was deleted was sent to the sanbox after I got My Jimfbleak approval to send it there for his confirmation. I thought it could be reconsidered since I improved it. But I am not bothered about the deletion since I know that the article can be published in any learned journal. I have learned a lot since my contact with the wikipedia. I have learned what notability means and what are original research articles. This may be the difference between this instant article with your wikipedia contributions. But I believe that this article meets notability requirement considering its source as I had earlier explained. I therefore believe that if you bring your wealth of experience to bear on the article it may be given a place in wikipedia.

I feel highly obliged by your kind attention. Please do have a nice day and may God bless.

Yours sincerely Ikpe 16:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Dr Suleiman I Oji

Hi RHaworth, It seems your ((prod)) and move of comparison of color models in computer graphics got the editor who wrote the page rather upset. Since your motives have been impugned, I figured I’d let you know, in case you want to chime in. Cheers, jacobolus (t) 08:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Not sure just doing that move will help, but I guess we’ll see how it goes. –jacobolus (t) 08:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• The move was not intended to help or hinder – it was just a screamingly obvious and necessary simplification. But what else do you want me to do? If you are still concerned that it is OR, why don't you take it to AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Having communicated with the help desk, I feel that the best approach is a reset in our relationship. I suggest that we cooperate on a common goal: to eliminate the forking that has taken place generally on the color topic. All I ask is that you, Jacobolus, and I refrain from acting without a consensus. I have added some ideas/suggestions on the discussion page of the article. What are your thoughts? — Steve11235 (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think that you should learn to put comments in the right place on this page. That you and jacobolus are both hopelessly long winded. I am happy to let you and jacobolus fight over the content but please try and explain in less than 1000 bytes what your objections are to the title I prefer. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Comparison of color models in computer graphics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by April 1, 2011.

I would like to see the text for a Wikipedia article named Agenda: Grinding America Down so I can compare it to the one I have authored. Thanks Phoenician Patriot (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• See User:Alien Observer/Agenda: Grinding America Down. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. It look like advertising, thanks. I'm going to post my article, User:Phoenician Patriot/Agenda: Grinding America Down, and hopefully it fairs better. Phoenician Patriot (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I need to make a magazine about nanotechnology and I don't know what to call it. You do heaps of stuff on wikipedia so you should know what I should call it. — Signor clock2 (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• How about "Nanotechnology"? But where are you going to publish – that might affect the title. Heaps of stuff? Your contributions history says different. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"An Ethiopian cannot change his spots and a leopard cannot change his skin!" (on my user page). You are a stupid head you did it the wrong way around, you are so stupid. It is an Ethiopian cannot change his skin and a leopard cannot change his spot, you are such a weirdo. And where did you put your stupid picture where you had the snow on your head, why did you take it off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signor clock3 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• It was a joke. In case you did not notice, I have it as a link as an hint that I do know the correct version. And while we are about it, please get it correct yourself – it is a rhetorical question – see these translations. Do not create multiple accounts – you are liable to be accused of sock puppetry. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean it was a rhetorical question, I never said it wasn't, you are such a weirdo, and your translations are stupid. Signor clock3 (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• The verse in Jeremiah 13:23 is a rhetorical question. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The request for formal mediation concerning Comparison of color models in computer graphics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

I was wondering why you have deleted the article Vitruvian Society of Architects from Wikipedia. It is a revolutionary movement right now for the realm of architecture, and the VSA is very similar to Archigram and Archizoom, team 10, and CIAM. It is difficult to source things about the VSA due to the secrecy, and the relatively new creation of the VSA, but sources were provided for the inspirations from other sources. The VSA has not yet been published in any books, but that will change soon.

If it is impossible to put the article back on wikipedia, may we at least have our information back? Much of the text was written directly on the creation pages, and is not saved on a separate file.

Again, this is not a promotional article for a group, a club, or a company, but rather a movement occurring by the architecture students and faculty within the growing issues of architecture.

I hope this finds you well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitruvainsocietyofarchitects (talk • contribs)

• I deleted your article because of a total lack of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. If it is "difficult to source because of secrecy", then it is probably unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. I have e-mailed you your text but given your blatant COI, my best advice is that you should wait until someone with no COI thinks the society is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding page name Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan. I totally agree to your opinion and Wikipedia naming conventions, there are some keywords that are as important as the name, and become more important to highlight as well e.g. the Keyword "Saint" is to define who he is "Ji Insan" IS HIS LAST NAME which I have told you earlier as well so I don't understand what is problem you have in this, And I have given you the same explanation earlier as well. request you to please visit the following pages where the Page name starts with word SAINT/GURU:

Saint Candidus, Saint Cleopatra, Saint George, Saint Patrick, Guru Gobind Singh and many more. Hope it make scenes, I think you have blocked my rights to "Move" the page So I am undoing your changes, may be it will help me to change the page name, If it didn't helped than I will be waiting for my rights to be resumed so that I can "Move" the document. So request you to please resume my rights to "Move". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas.insan (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to undo but it didn't changed the document name, so please give my my rights back to move this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas.insan (talk • contribs) 19:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• A significant difference between Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and the saints you list is that all the saints are dead! And even among dead saints, we prefer if possible, to strip the title – see for example Thomas Becket, Ignatius of Loyola and Teresa of Ávila. Where did you tell me earlier that "Ji Insan" is part of the guy's name? If you can provide sound evidence of that fact and can persuade Utcursch (talk · contribs) to move the article to Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan, then I will not object. But I can see absolutely no justification for adding "Saint" to the article title. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Here are forty more saints that don't have Saint in the article title. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with you User:RHaworth, its clearly state in WP Policy that honorifics should not be used, WP:Surname, WP:Honorifics. Gsingh (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but i found it quite illogical that someone is Dead or Alive, Let me tell you that their name contains the Title "Saint" not because they are dead, but because they were Saints when they were alive, So who told you that a Saint can use a title "Saint" when He is Dead??

Also what do you mean by saying that We Prefer To? I know there are articles of Saints without the Title Saint, but you can't deny that there are many articles with the title Saint If its a part of Wikipedia policies why this title is there for The Saints I listed earlier as well eg Saint Candidus, Saint Cleopatra, Saint George, Saint Patrick, Guru Gobind Singh If you don't know then to tell you that All the Names I mentioned are sacred and to differentiate them from normal human beings this title is used. because there is no such restriction on using this title then why you are putting you own brain into it. Sorry but I am not satisfied, and I will be more than happy if you prove me wrong?

And About the "Ji Insan" in last is, as I told you many Times That is a part of his name means, it is a part of His Complete Name And for your kind knowledge Complete Name = First Name + Second Name+......+Last Name(Surname) Hope its enough for your understanding or I need to explain more??? Please move it or prove me wrong. And also there are more than 4.5 crores of followers who call him by this complete name and know him as a Saint ^{[1] [2] [3]} To Mr. Mr Singh: Please Visit Guru Gobind Singh and tell me as pew which Wikipedia policy all the Honorifics are here, and assume mine changes as per the same policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas.insan (talk • contribs) 06:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Where there is doubt, there should be a local consensus for the title and I suggest you propose a name change on the article talk page to reach such a consensus. I agree that such honorifics should in general be avoided, however MOS:HONORIFIC does allow for such titles if this is unambiguously the most common name used in sources. In a similar fashion I have raised a proposal at Talk:Guru Gobind Singh to remove the honorific as unnecessary. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

To Mr. Fæ are you still in doubt?? It may be only possible if you don't understand English First thing is there is now no doubt left that The Title Saint with the name "Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan" is justified, hope none of the other user is having any problem with this now. Secondly I am not saying to remove titles from the existing, but I was just giving examples. Thirdly And why did you suggested to remove honorific from article of only one Saint Guru Gobind Singh from the list I mentioned, What about other Saints I mentioned eg. Saint Joseph, Saint Candidus, Saint Cleopatra, Saint George, Saint Patrick and many others,so start removing all of them, and come back here to write anything when you are done. Thirdly I think some people are putting their own brains into it, otherwise those Honorific would have already been removed years before when these articles were created, As far as consensus is concerned, I will not be concerned about all the Saints I mentioned earlier and even I haven't heard of them as well, so my opinion for them may be of no use, the same way your opinion is of no use here, As the concern is about the people who are concerned i.e. more than 4.5 crore followers, and with a short name it may be difficult for them to search it on Wikipedia, because they all know him by the complete name Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan.

Also request you to please read the reply completely before replying, i don't want to write the same lines/names again, hope you understand and agree. And Mr. RHaworth where are you, I am still waiting for getting my rights back, to move or your reply. Please do the favour. - Vikas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas.insan (talk • contribs) 09:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it does appear that my considered opinion based on my understanding of policy and current consensus is of no use here. My advice was intended to help you understand how to resolve your issue but I would not want to waste our time if this is unwelcome. Thanks for your feedback, good luck with your complaint. --Fæ (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Remarks like "it may be only possible if you don't understand English" are liable to get you blocked for incivility. So far we have Utcursch (talk · contribs), Gsingh (talk · contribs), Fæ (talk · contribs), Falcon8765 (talk · contribs) and myself who all think the present title is OK. But follow Fæ's advice: raise the matter in Talk:Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, even solicit comments from other members of WikiProject India and if a clear consensus emerges, then the move will be non-controversial. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Vikas.insan, Guru Gobind Singh should not have those honorifics there, it is Wikipedia policy, so if you want to change it if you wish, I do not support honorifics in that article even though I am a Sikh, you must be impartial in writing on Wikipedia. And if you want to talk about concensus, we already have 4 people. And Ji Insan is not part of his name, stop saying that, show me proof it is his name in a reputable article or government document and I'll believe you. Gsingh (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for any of my statement because of which you got hurts. As required here are the link to some links to articles/certificates of Guinness World Records that shows his complete name, so please update it accordingly.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1000/largest-blood-donation/ http://derasachasauda.org/en/news/271-word-record-in-environmental-preservation-by-dera-sacha-sauda.html http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1000/most-trees-planted-simultaneously-%28multiple-locations%29/ http://derasachasauda.org/en/news/271-word-record-in-environmental-preservation-by-dera-sacha-sauda.html http://derasachasauda.org/images/stories/articles/world%20record.jpg

Secondly If there is even a single example to support, that signifies that wikipedia is not against it and can be applied at other places as well & I have given 5-6 examples. And I have given you the supporting docs as well, hope this is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas.insan (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• So why are you telling me this? Did I or did I not advise you to seek consensus at Talk:Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing seems to be happening on the page, and User:Vikas.insan is reverting all the changes I've tried to make in relation to the honorifics and they obviously need to be removed. It appears that we have the consensus right now. Is there any way to make the changes, because it seems as if the user thinks he has ownership of this page. He has reverted almost every change made by another user. Gsingh (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think you should now let matters rest. As long as it is clear within the article what is name and what is honorific, it is no great matter if the full name with honorifics is used more than once. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear sir/madam, could you please clarify why you have deleted my band's article from Wikipedia? My band is called The Aiais, I had just created the article and not long afterwards I received the notification that it was deleted. Could you please explain it further? Regards, Anita Ibanez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahloxxx (talk • contribs) 21:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• You did not submit an article. What you posted was an insult to Wikipedia – one sentence 111 bytes long. Since it is your band, I recommend you to wait until someone with no COI thinks you are notable and writes about you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to INSULT no one. I apologize for not having enough knowledge to post an article in here. Thanks for your explanation anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahloxxx (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look over Medici Archive Project.The creator is constantly removing the tags even after warning.What should I do now?I do not want to edit war.Please help.Dipankan001 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please point me to the previous discussion referred to in the ((db-repost)) tag. If, as I suspect, there is no previous discussion, then feel free to send the article to AfD. I am prepared to overlook the author's removal of speedy tags. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you please undid the deletion of the Philippines national under-23 football team because they will participated at 2011 sea games. More fan of azkals want to know the history of the team. — Andy4190 (Talk)

• I am certainly not going to restore a totally unreferenced article. I will gladly send you a copy of the text – but read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is the German redirect allowed to stay then?--Rafy talk 01:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am very disappointed that the German redirect passed an RfD discussion. I can see absolutely no point in the one you created. Why should anybody want to key that in when they can simply click on the My watchlist link which is there at the top of every page? And get to their watchlist in one click instead of two. Please reply. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

When at arwiki I would just replace the prefix to get to the soft redirect, instead of opening an empty page that attempts to load all the edit tools, which takes up a longer time.--Rafy talk 13:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are you saying that you go to your browser's address bar and change ar to en ? That seems rather long winded. Also please give me a link to an alleged "empty page" that loads edit tools. May I suggest the following: from any ar: page: click on your user name at the top of the page; click on the interwiki link from your user page there to user:Rafy; click on "My contributions" at the top of the page. Three clicks, no keying and no loading of edit tools. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't mind the deletion, I already have my watchlist bookmarked. I was just curious to see a soft redirect for the German wiki and I though of creating a similar one for arwiki. I still don't think it's fair to keep one and speedily delete the other.--Rafy talk 23:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Life, my dear boy, is unfair. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• touché.--Rafy talk 01:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't tell me why you got rid of your picture in the snow, it was very funny and I don't know why you got rid of it, you should put it back on now! And I didn't make multiple accounts, I only have one account, I wanted to name it Signor Clock but someone had already taken that and I couldn't do Signor Clock2 so I made Signor Clock3. — Signor clock3 (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• The snow photo is nearly seven years old. My appearance has changed. See this edit by Signor clock2. Four minutes later you edited as Signor clock3 – don't try and tell me that you are not Signor clock2. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please may I draw your attention to this. The user seems to think it is acceptable to merge article content (from Electromagnetic levitation) without author attribution, see this for example. I have alerted them of WP:CWW but incase they don't get the message I'd appreciate an admin to step in. It's only a small stub with a small history, but the principal remains. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note left at User talk:Incompetence. If the behaviour persists, feel free to contact me again. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, I really resent all this. While I didn't attribute it correctly initially (my subject line only stated it as a 'merge') I had already attributed it almost two hours before the above post.[1] and he had twice removed it.

According to WP:CWW you only have to add a hypertext link, and I had done that, before the above complaint. And I have every reason to think that his above complaint was done knowing this.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 01:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact is you didn't attribute the merge. Besides the fact that I disagreed with merging without discussion in the first place so was entitled to undo your contributions on both those counts. Your reversion and subsequent re-adding of the unattributed text was disruptive. Electromagnetic levitation is not the same concept as magnetic levitation, in the field they are two different techniques used for different applications. I agree that this needs to be clarified and that the levitation articles need cleanup with this regard. But ultimately, please don't copy content from one article to another, and if you do perform a merge attribute the content in the edit summary. Polyamorph (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I endorse that: you did not attribute correctly. But the solution is ridiculously simple: with this edit you should have provided an edit summary of text copied from [[foo]] – with foo replaced by the title of the source article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's true, had an attribution been made in the edit summary I would not have reverted. Polyamorph (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Since Pond air pump is already at a AFD, this PROD seems unnecessary. Why not just let the AFD run its course? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• So what edit did I do 55 seconds later? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Your image File:Midget sub 135.jpg has been used in a book without author and licence. Details on de-WP --Martina Nolte _Disk. 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Seems it was not just mine. Given the extent of the violation, I hope Wikimedia Foundation Deutschland is taking legal action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my question is: why did you delete the article about: Ekkehard Nuissl von Rein? — Elli Fant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.85.129 (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (assume from Elli Fant (talk · contribs))

• Consider yourself lucky – I normally ignore IP addresses. You created a reasonable start to an article in the Sandbox. So why did you just post a single 83 byte sentence to the article title? If you actually submit an article including links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, it may well stick. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So, that means I have to extend the article, including links (f.e. website hall of fame, DIE)? Thanks for help! Elli Fant ps: shall I write it newly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elli Fant (talk • contribs)

• As well as logging in, you must also sign talk page contributions with ~~~~ Since you have not yet submitted anything that can be called an article, then obviously you will be starting from new. Please explain why you created the text in the sandbox and then failed to copy it to (article) space. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sry, but why did you delete Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Book car rentals and taxis online in India, from anywhere in the world? Such articles were only declined as advertisement and that was it. At AFC we delete only articles which are copyvios or are attack pages... mabdul 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blatant advertising and vandalism/hoax are grounds for speedy deletion in every namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm no admin, I only saw: A7, maybe add next time hoax to your reason next time. mabdul 11:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Where, pray, did you see "A7"? The deletion log clearly states G11. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I wrote the page 'the bombshellettes' and as you can probably tell, am totally new to this whole wikipedia thing! is there any chance you can send me the stuff I wrote 9as I don;t have a copy) and tell what I did wrong so I can edit and re-do? thanks so much, really appreciate it :) Rosie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennsylvania65000 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)