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.

Hi RH. I was wondering about your proposed deletion for the Summer School (2006 film) page. I was under the impression that because of the full-length reviews at Dread Central and multiple other lesser notable reviewers, as well as articles in Screen Magazine (an internationally distributed magazine). The standard for a major award is not set, but it has recieved nominations and won an award at a national level. I also question the tag of "advert", because I don't understand what part of the article is non-neutral, except for citing positive reviews. Enlightenment would be appreciated. If you still feel that it falls under non-notability, the film will be distributed by Blockbuster, Netflix, and stores in April. Will this meet the criteria for for film notability? Scarleted0lotus (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was Cool Yule Comics deleted? Cool Yule Comics is a real publisher and the only one who prints Christmas comic books today. Other Christmas comic books and characters are on this site so why delete this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christmas Boy (talk • contribs)

• Sure they are real. But what evidence have you given that they are notable? Zilch. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they're the only publisher of Christmas comics and that their anchor characters are all strong female characters. What makes other similar companies, books, and characters listed here any more notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christmas Boy (talk • contribs)

• How about: "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think this would fall under all 5. (Google George Broderick, Jr. He's won several major comic book awards with his work and has worked on official comic books based on properties ranging from Bozo the Clown, Lost in Space, Speed Racer, and many others. His original work has won awards too. Suicide Blonde won, I believe, an Eisner Award. The first Jill Chill book has won a couple dozen art show awards as well and whenever Ed McCray has entered a Jill Chill advertising float into a parade it has won first prize. (I see Jill Chill isn't on this site either.) The Christmas Eve books (as well as other George books) have also been majorly tied in with the Mid-Ohio Comic Con to the point the characters have appeared on the staff T-Shirts. When you live in the U.K. and don't follow the comic book field I don't see how you can judge what is notable or not in this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.216.74 (talk • contribs)

• Have you ever come across a thing called an hyperlink? See "Google this". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would it matter since you maintain it's not notable as if you know what you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.228.55 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Absence of hyperlinks is the main reason that I dismiss it as non-notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am currently interning for the University of Louisiana at Monroe to work on publishing turnrow, a bi-annual literary journal that is published by the university. I thought that it would be really neat to see it on Wikipedia, as it would make the publication even more accessible to both writers and readers. It is a work in progress, but I've seen other literary journals on this page so far as well. -- Green eyes170 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Interning", "neat"!! This is the English Wikipedia, please write in English! If all you can do is copy&paste the journal's own website, then you need to rethink. Start by finding whether it has received any critical acclaim outside the University of Louisiana at Monroe. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If all you can do is be sarcastic, then you need to rethink. Some (mature) constructive criticism would have been appreciated. Green eyes170 (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• So why is "start by finding whether it has received any critical acclaim outside the University of Louisiana at Monroe" not constructive criticism? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• To "copy&paste" you: " "Interning", "neat"!! This is the English Wikipedia, please write in English! " was not. Green eyes170 (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I undid, rather crudely, your rename. The purpose of this article is to explain how prevailing winds influenced European discovery and inperialism in the days when ships were wind powered. The discussion of wind belts at the top was only a necessary introduction to the sailing route section at the bottom. This version is only a start and I hope other editors can clean up some of the problems mentioned at the bottom. I am not competent to write a proper article on wind patterns, which seem to be adequately covered in the linked articles Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should have asked permission before trying to undo the rename. I will try to be more deferential in the future. *1* Is there a list of WP articles or a master article that points to sub-articles? I find it difficult to navigate through the maze of instructions. *2* I am OK with your proposed rename if you want to. Removal of the outline of wind patterns makes the rest of the article difficult to understand since the bottom half depends on the top half. *3* - Benjamin Trovato (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• *1* No, no, no to being deferential! The Wikipedia motto is "be bold". As you can see, I accepted your title.
• *2* For list of articles, start with Special:PrefixIndex. The search box on the left of every page works quite well and Google patrols new pages ferociously. But if you mean help on contributing – try Help:Contents. But accept that there is a learning curve.
• *3* Here I disagee with you. Remember you are contributing to an encyclopedia, not writing a stand-alone essay. To make the "bottom half" understandable, you put wikilinks in it – and if necessary, improve other articles.

— RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am just checking with you about my deleted page. I have re-written this page to make it as factual as possible however, it was still deleted for blatant advertising. Please help me understand why and show me how to make it acceptable for listing. -- Vickin70

• Did you see my message on your user talk page? Wait until someone else thinks they are notable and writes about them. You can of course raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I get it – it's got to be someone else writing about this otherwise it is seen as a conflict of interest. Could this someone else be from our same company, i.e. from another department or has it got to be a member of the public, possibly a delegate who attended the event or a speaker? I would be most grateful if you could send me to the right direction. -- Vicki70

• Obviously not someone else from your company. To be credible in my eyes, it should be an established Wikipedia editor with a clear history of edits on topics related to your company. Do some research woman! Find articles here about events similar to yours. See who has written about those events. Contact one or two of the editors and ask them if they are willing to write about your company. (Please log on before doing any edits, sign talk page messages with ~~~~ and is it you who lives in Pratt's Bottom?) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate your comments but the side remarks aren't necessary nor helpful. Moving forward, I will take your advice and find an established Wikipedia editor to write about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.22.89.41 (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• What "side remarks" pray? The advice to log on was basic and helpful. Why did you ignore it? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

as I mentioned to DS and MZMcBride I ask to publish the page user:Alfax/Livecare Support into the Comparison of remote desktop software article. MZMcBride told me to ask to you the unlock of the article (discussion). the article was previously locked because it was badly written. Now I completely modify it; and it's similar to the others articles in the same list. I wait your reply regarding this issue and I really hope my work is ok. Thanks. Alfax (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• The evidence of notability in your new draft seems extremely thin. Raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of user:Alfax/Livecare Support. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I'm notifying you that the article is into the deletion review discussion. I hope in a positive result. best regards. Alfax (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

3 new editors trying to immediately create their 1st article. ==

End milling – I would have encouraged them not to start there as their very 1st edits. Ah well. I put a construction flag on it because they seem to be creating it as they go... maybe reading it out of the book? I gave them welcome template messages and hellos.sinneed (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm. "Sinneed, why are you writing that on my talk page?" Sorry. You had killed a couple of their sections... they seem to be putting in a section, adding a sentence, then moving to the next.sinneed (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I can only see one new editor, not three. I am tempted to tag the article ((mergeto|endmill)). — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• A fourth one has popped up – Flopper32. What on earth are they? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • WhiteShadow1234, Kirktd, Jface009 – all newbies. I originally flagged it to mergo milling machine, as it all looked like OR (some of it is just wrong), then I saw the book and they seemed to be making progress. -- sinneed (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• At a guess: Kids tasked to create an article from a book for a class. Sometimes teachers brains fail. I wish we could yell "STOP NOW! ARGH! at them".sinneed (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect they don't know how to read their talk pages, nor look at the history, and are simply not seeing our notes. *sigh* Off to bed. Good night and good luck!sinneed (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ROFL I just had a thought. They are sitting in a classroom together. They are going "Man, I type something in, and it just vanishes. Or. Like. It changes to something else! WHAT'S GOING ON?" This time for real. Good night. :)sinneed (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder if they are coonected to user:1390russell who did a copyvio from the same book at Routing (manufacturing)? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so this morning I wake up and they have filled in a lot of 1-liners. I hit the web, pull the book...and the *ENTIRE* article, almost always word for word, errors and all, is pulled directly from the book. Even the part about most mill work being 3-axis (tool perpendicular to the surface) is DIRECTLY copied from the book. I warned them and murdered the text, redirecting to endmill as you had thought to do...my redirect to milling machine I don't think would have been as good. Oy.sinneed (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Let us hope they have learned the error of their ways. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Just found another: Band Sawing by A01074236. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Copyvio source: Todd, Robert H and Allen, Dell K. Manufacturing Processes Reference Guide. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Nother likely one: existing article Sandblasting doctored by user:Epaine2003. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Truly bizarre. Though it did lead me to a cool image of a single carborundum crystal. *blink*sinneed (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was faster to find abundance of references, than it was for you to add the PROD template. Of course it takes a little longer to actually add a reference to the article. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello RHaworth, Hope all well.
I believe you were concerned in removing my recent entry for the band Samuel Purdey.
At the advice of another here, I've recreated the page (with additional facts and figures) at User:Rolluprob/Samuel Purdey. I am still prepared to work on this some more (if need be) rather than have it removed again. Can it be reviewed already? Many thanks. (Rolluprob (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

• Given that the AfD has only just closed, I suggest you leave it a month before trying again. Take it to deletion review. I shall abstain from comment at the DRV. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove my "Red crusade page" I am reporting you for false removing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ILager (talk • contribs) 09:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• At least you have asked a question in a civilised manner instead of the childish vandalism of last night. But I have already given you an answer with constructive suggestions here on your user talk page. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I noticed you've deleted a page I recently created about the students' union at the University of York. I'd created a stub intending to come back and improve it later basing it in the model in the OUSU article. Did I do something wrong? Am I supposed to create the entire article on creation, rather than incrementally? I looked at the AfD you gave in the deletion reason and it seemed to be related to a completely different students' union (the one of York University, Ontario, Canada, rather the the University of York, North Yorkshire, England) – I don't understand how AfDs work. I thought you needed one for each article, rather than a generic one for all students' union.

Sorry for making a mistake, I'd appreciate advice so I won't waste my time creating articles to get them deleted in future. --Laser2k (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Have you read the AfD discussion? The Unions at Oxford and Cambridge are somewaht different from those in other universities so that comparison is not valid. Comparison with Southampton University Students' Union is more appropriate. Please fix the ((logo fur tag on File:YUSU.png or it may get deleted. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The AfD is for a different article for a different Union at a different University in a different country, which is where my confusion comes from. (York University is a University in Canada, the University of York is in the UK, it's a subtle difference but an important one) --Laser2k (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Not true. The first line of York University Students' Union was: This article is on the University of York Students' Union in England. For the Canadian version, see York Federation of Students. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, I didn't know that. Someone obviously created the article with the wrong name then. --Laser2k (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • btw, I'm not sure how the University of York Students' Union is closer related to Southampton than Oxford. York consists of colleges and JCRCs which deal individual colleges, in addition to the overall students' union, very similar to the Oxbridge and Durham systems, unlike Southampton which isn't a collegiate University. --Laser2k (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• I suggest you put your stuff in University of York#Student activities and ask at talk:University of York to see if there is consensus for a separate article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems a lot of hassle. I think I'm just going to leave it. I was just trying to help improve Wikipedia but obviously I don't really know enough about the policies, etc, to be able to do it without cocking up. --Laser2k (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just uploaded several hours work on an embrionic article to my userspace sandbox, to work on over coming days and weeks. It needs further data, references etc.... Some idiot moved it from my userspace to Wiki and now you have deleted it. Between you you have just destroyed a great deal of work. Thank you very much. Would you please put it back into my userspace so I can continue working on it. Thank you 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• For goodness sake! Look at special:contributions/21stCenturyGreenstuff. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah It is OK, it was moved back while our messages were crossing in the ether....sorry to disturb you 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re your move from Code Letters to Code letters. As the phrase is a Proper Noun, shouldn't both words be in Title Case? Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is it a proper noun? My car has a number plate not a Number Plate. The code letters were used as call signs not Call Signs. An aircraft has a tail number not a Tail Number. Discuss at talk:code letters for a third opinion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i just want to ask how could i verify of prove the significance of an article. Do i need sources or what? Please tell me what to correct so that i could fix it! Thanks! Xarhtna (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Do nothing. When the band becomes notable, an established Wikipedia editor will create an article about it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's ok i guess! But what does notable mean actually? If you run 7edem on google you would come up with a lot of stuff! Who makes that decision? Xarhtna (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Notability (music). The links in your latest version were typical of every non-notable band: their website, myspace and youtube! Absolutely no independent mentions. Feel free to go to deletion review – but get some refs first! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This page should not have been moved – the company is only known as h.m.p., I only added the Houyuu Media Produce reference as an historical explanation, not as an alternative name. All Japanese sources call the company h.m.p. (in Latin characters) and this is also the title of the Japanese wiki article on the company. The entry on the disambiguation page was meant to resolve any confusion – not wanting to get nationalistic, but for myself and 300 million other Americans HMP doesn't mean Her Majesty's Prison. I am trying to be polite but I'm afraid I find this very rude behaviour – it would have been more appropriate to inquire in the page's discussion or my talk page before a major change was made. I am asking you to please revert your edits, they are more likely to confuse users than enhance Wikipedia. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I repeat: I have no objection to your moving Houyuu Media Produce to h.m.p. (foo) where foo is anything sensible, eg. Japanese company. h.m.p. should remain as a redirect. I have already fixed seven articles which used to link to it. To show willing, once you have decided what title you want, I shall fix the other articles that link to h.m.p.. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the page to h.m.p. (Japan) – does that meet your criteria of "sensible"? I would appreciate your changing your edits to reflect this – but please keep h.m.p. only as the text displayed in the article not h.m.p. (Japan). Again, if a similar case arises in the future, a note on my talk page would be polite.

Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Roger. This crap unfortunately does exist, and in Canada, apparently it's the cool teen magazine to read [1]. -- Samir 18:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. There is not a single word of advertising on this page. Can you please tell me specifically what you are complaining about? Also, please try doing a google search for "Kandis Blakely" and/or "New Decision Therapy". As far as the image of Kandis Blakely, it is a photo that I got from Kandis Blakely when I visited her wellness retreat. It is also the same photo that appears on her website, kandisblakely.com. Please give me some advise here on how to get this article accepted. I've read all of the documentation and do not understand why you would label this article as blatant advertising. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrpittman (talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• You provided not a single independent reference to her notabilty so you don't really deserve having the article restored. Feel free to comment in the AfD discussion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Christina Baldwin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Baldwin (2nd nomination). Thank you. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you let me know what process I have to use to keep my wiki formattin while still working on an article. -- belovelife (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• What on earth do you mean? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw this guy in the RC channel and checked up on him. I guess we don't get such a thing as block conflicts now that they can be overwritten (eg, I hope you don't mind how long I decided to block him for).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, no objections whatsoever. I always hesitate about blocking people who are mainly attacking me. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you redirected the page I started about "bents" in timber framing and I was hoping you could please give me some feedback as to why. All of the information on the page was correct, factual, and not listed anywhere else on wikipedia. There are several other pages (see rafter, joist, girt and purlin for example) in the same vein that have been around for years. Please let me know which conditions my page failed to meet. Thanks, Vermont.timber (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unlike most of the spam that I see here, I did hesitate about what to do with this article. I am prepared to accept you re-instating it if you: a) provide two or three external links to show that it is an established term and b) remove the link to your company's website. (If it is notable, someone with no COI will put it back.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth

You've marked the article Avo Session Basel as being COI and written like an advert. I've just made some changes. May you have a look at it and let me know what you think? I'd appreciate if you could help me change the article according to the Wikipedia rules.

Thanks in advance! Sessionb (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• See talk: Avo Session Basel. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Phillip Jackson (Community Organizer), please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/uploadedFiles/test/FLIP_bios2.pdf. As a copyright violation, Phillip Jackson (Community Organizer) appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Phillip Jackson (Community Organizer) has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Phillip Jackson (Community Organizer) and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Phillip Jackson (Community Organizer) with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Phillip Jackson (Community Organizer).

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this person won multiple awards and is related to what appears to be a notable band, I've declined the speedy. Please make your case on AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As per User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2007 April#OSGB36 and WGS84 Talltim (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• A very significant advance: I am learning PHP! As you may have noticed, I have started the re-write – source code can be seen here (unfortunately the site is down at this moment). But the current version still has the 100 metre error. I have been pointed to the appropriate code and hope to fix it soon. Chase me again in four weeks if nothing has happened! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • cool, thanks Talltim (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a single university, it is an international union of universities, colleges and indigenous organizations counting more than one hundred institutions (and growing). Since entities like the University of Houston, a university system counting three institutions, has its own portal – I believe it is quite appropriate that one of this size has a portal of its own. There are many, many institutions, organizations, and other subjects that have wikipedia articles allready; that will be linked together by this portal.--Misha bb (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Constructing a portal (UArctic 2)

I'm very grateful for all tips on how to create a portal, as I haven't done it before. It actually hadn't occurred to me that I could create a /selected pictures-page of the same type as /selected panoramas. I'll see to it when I get time, hopefully tomorrow. Thanks. --Misha bb (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't get involved with portals at all. If the portal people are happy with it then that is all right. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, James Matador, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Matador. Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by Handrem (talk • contribs) 03:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strange. Have I ever edited that article? But thanks for telling me – I do find the whole "seduction community" rather nauseating, sexist, etc. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This was a good nomination. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. It was one of the very rare occasions where I restored a speedily deleted article rather directing the author to deletion review. I am glad I did: a clear AfD decision is better than one or two people speedily deleting. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

hi there, I just added a new page about JSPX, and you marked this for speed deletion. I hope you kindly guide me to complete what is required to keep this page. --Amr.eladawy (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. I have not marked it for speedy deletion. But in any case, do nothing! When the project becomes notable, someone with no COI will write about it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean the article will be deleted? how long till it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amr.eladawy (talk • contribs) 07:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why ask me? No, it does not necessarily mean that the article will be deleted. Look at WP:AfD to see how long an AfD is supposed to run. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• And you did not add it at JSPX – you added it at jspx. As a software developer you ought to be fully familiar with case sensitivity. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The map you placed in the sandbox Was added to the Nigeria Premier League articleEmbele (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed some of your speedy tags list "thinly veiled spam" as the justification for deletion under CSD. Doesn't CSD require blatant advertising for this sort of removal? It seems that in the cases of non-blatant advertising, PROD nominations would be the way to go. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, strictly they should be prod's. But I would cite SNOW as applicable here. Change to prod if you wish or just wait until see what another admin thinks. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a friendly note on Snickers salad. I removed your prod tag because a gsearch shows just way too many recipes for this admittedly gross sounding concoction. If you want to take it to AfD, be my guest.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK, seems comparable to and just as horrible as, the chip butty. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth. You helped me with The Basement Tapes by inserting a redirect on an article that overlapped in a confusing way – The Basement Tapes (sessions). I have now, belatedly, realised there is room for this other article if one re-names it as: List of Basement Tapes songs. This is what it is; it would be a valuable adjunct to the other article. If this long list were included in other article it would swamp it. I think the material can be found here. I've tried to re-name it, but I think your re-direct is preventing it becoming a new page in its own write. Could you possibly fix so it becomes a new page with suggested title? Then I can re-write opening para so it makes sense. Thanks Mick gold (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am confused: please spell out exactly what admin action you want me to do. Reversing your move by moving List of Basement Tapes songs back to The Basement Tapes (Sessions) is an action which you should be able to do – but I would not recommend it. Things at present seem fine but we do need:

• The Basement Tapes this must have a link to List of Basement Tapes songs. Absolutely vital!
• List of Basement Tapes songs. Introduction is a bit thin. I suggest that this state is fine – just remove the ((mergeto)) from the top.

— RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems to be fine. I thought I had been unable to re-name what used to be The Basement Tapes (sessions) as List of Basement Tapes songs. But it works.

I've added link at head of The Basement Tapes to List of Basement Tapes songs. OK?

I kept intro short. Any longer (eg this state) and I think it becomes a confusing second article on the topic. Mick gold (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out on the talk page and the sandbox article. Arilang ^talk 13:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, RHaworth. You have new messages at Star Mississippi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

StarM 13:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you hold on the removing until I can fix the current cisis? this is the first time i made a whole page on wikipedia and thus because i spend my time doing edits, just adding stuff on the wiki pages doing a whole page on wikipedia is having a ruff start. If you can not delete the page i will fix it within a day or 2 thanksBehellmorph 11:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• May I introduce you to the concept of context. You post your message above but give me not the slightest clue what you are talking about. You create Beauty and the Beast Unit without any clue as to where this unit of female soldiers might be found. Now go and write a decent introductory paragraph to the article and someone will remove the speedy tag for you. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth, I am new to Wikipedia. I was not sure how to proceed with making an article. I did little research on Wikipedia and I think it was not enough. So that's why I have two different user names. I wanted to have two sets of pages for Chitrananda Abeysekera. another friend of mine stareted another page by this name. As you instructed I will move all these to the Brigraphy page. And please let me know how to cancel one of my user pages. thank you for your help.

Chintananda Abeysekera (though my name look similar to the Article name Chitrananda Abeysekera, these are two different people). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintananda (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• In the account you are not using, change the user page and the user_talk page into redirects to the corresponding pages on the account you are using. And please remember: no SHOUTING. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Randolph Buss, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randolph Buss. Thank you. andy (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You block seems to have had no effect. He's just created another one of his icon pages in mainspace, and hasn't responded to any messages. Might I suggest that a further block is necessary. Mayalld (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have tried to be gentle because the user probably has limited grasp of English. But 'dumb insolence' annoys me and I have blocked them. Please watch them if poss. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

It's not the reason of my limited English grasp, it's the reason of me who is newbie to Wikipedia.

I would be geting used here soon. - Renxu350 (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Roger. I have been working with User:Cfscwg to get an article you previously deleted up to snuff. Some additional third-party sources are still needed to support the article, but I believe it now avoids being considered spam, establishes its notability, and makes a contribution to Wikipedia. Anyway, just wanted to be transparent and let you know what's going on. Thanks for all your help as an administrator. --Eustress (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• An established editor thinks it is notable. That is good enough for me. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

When i tried to create this page it said you had blocked this or something like that so please unblock this. It is nothing like yu gi oh. You can check youtube if you don't believe me. -- I am ironbatman (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• This time you have managed to leave a message without collateral vandalism so I will reply. "Check youtube ..." – if you cannot be bothered to provide a link, why the <expletive deleted> should I waste my time searching for it? But that is not the point – I do not need to check YouTube – I believe you that it exists. The question is not whether it exists but whether it is notable enough for Wikipedia and a dozen or more deleted titles confirm that it is not notable. Here are just a few from the deleted pages list:
  • Yu-Gi-Oh! the Abridged Series (96 revisions deleted)
  • Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series (181 revisions deleted)
  • Yu-Gi-Oh: the Abridged Series (63 revisions deleted)
  • Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged (24 revisions deleted)

I leave you to find the relevant AfD discussions. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That is proof that it is notible (because people keep trying to create it) and isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia so shouldn't it have almost everything. Any way there are 32 episodes of the abridged series and has millions of views and thousands of positive reveiws (unlike cloverfield and that has it's own page). Watch all the episodes (including the movie, council of doom episodes and the christmas specials and then you shall see that it is notable. -- I am ironbatman (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• When was it most recently discussed at AfD? And when was the most recent DRV discussion (if any)? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's being discussed here shouldn't that be good enough, any way it is being discussed on those things you mentioned and quite recently too. Why would you possibly not want a page to exist when there are bountiful amounts of information on it, unlike the hundred of thousands of stubs. this is just part of the systematic bias against internet based subjects. -- I am ironbatman (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• OK, if it is being discussed, give me links to the discussions. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion#yu gi oh the abridged series and Deletion review#yu gi oh the abridged series. -- I am ironbatman (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Learn to create Wikilinks. Do not even think about putting anything on this subject into the (Article) namespace until User:I am ironbatman/Yu-Gi-Oh! the Abridged Series has been to deletion review. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that possible to change my login name from Renxu350 to RENXU350? Mr RHaworth, do you have the priviledge of doing that? - Renxu350 (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Changing username. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweet. - Renxu350 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This tag of yours is completely baffling. You really need to pay some attention to what you're doing. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

...and similarly with this one. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Noted. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You did the salting, so I need to run the request by you. Could you take a look at User:Nancedw/Amalgam Digital? I think Nancedw has got a reasonably well-sourced article candidate. I don't like the formatting of the list of artists, but that's a style issue. —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Take it to Deletion Review. Concerns: I am dubious about whether the entry at Allrecordlabels.com is independent. See this and this re confirmed sock puppetry. I assume that Nancedw is yet another sock. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You may or may not recall responding to my request last month to have this page protected, which you granted. The user responsible reached out to me for help in fixing the problems with the article, and I think it is now ready to go. The most recent version is at User:Beeblebrox/Expervision. If I try to create the page, it says to go to DRV. At DRV it says to talk to involved admins first, so here I am asking that it be unprotected, along with the alternate capitalization Expervision. Thanks for your time. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• It is still being promoted by the same SPA and the external links remain thin. OK, you have involved me. Now take it to DRV. You have placed a draft in user space. Unprotection can wait until the DRV has decided on reinstate. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the purpose of this was – you tagged Exitreality for deletion, which I declined, then you deleted it. Why not just delete it outright? It did seem to me to be different enough from earlier deleted versions to warrant being kept. Kevin (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I feel very strongly that speedy deletions need two people to agree. I saw the article and slapped a speedy tag on it because it was such blatant spam (previous spammers did at least have the sense to use unrelated user names!) without bothering to check for previous versions. Only when I saw that you had removed the tag did I check the history and found that I had ample second opinions to justify a speedy deletion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the 2 people bit, except for G10 I guess. I just thought that the difference was probably worth the 2nd opinion. Either way, the article isn't worth any more discussion. Kevin (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Officer Ricky, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Officer Ricky is pure vandalism; this includes redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Officer Ricky, please affix the template ((hangon)) to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, RHaworth. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently the lack of sources leads to an interpretation of members of the list as "subjective"; but are you sure that it is "hopeless" and that there is no way to define and provide sourcing that is not subjective? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Try it! 'Pundit' is a rather vague, undefined term. You could probable find a reliable source for each of the names in the list which describes them as a pundit. But equally there are hundreds of other people who have been described as pundit and are not in the list. We then have to ask why these ones have been selected. We can try it at AfD but I suggest let it be deleted. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're an administrator. If not, perhaps you can direct me to one. User:24.46.114.125 keeps adding recaps of episodes that haven't aired yet to articles about television series even though he has been asked not to do this several times. First of all, there is no guarantee an episode will be broadcast as scheduled. Also, since he hasn't seen the episodes, he obviously is copying the synopsis from another website, possibly the one for the show or the network it's on. Can he be blocked for a few days as a warning? Thank you for your help. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry. I am reluctant to deal with an anon who cannot be bothered to check whether I am admin – do you see the word "Category" at the bottom of this page? The topics you have been edit warring over are of zero interest to me. Find out if Gwen Gale is an admin and ask her. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)