User talk:RHaworth/2011 Sep 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is an Online Ambassador on the English Wikipedia
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

[Title width guide]

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

Deletion of directed panspermia

Previous thread is here.
ALSO - Of Possible Particular Interest - And By Coincidence - A Related Earlier Discussion - In The Section "Forward-contamination" On The Astrobiology Talk Page - Occurred In March, 2011 Between Myself (User:Drbogdan) And User:BatteryIncluded On The Very Real Need For Some Of The Very Same Material That Seems To Be Well Presented In The Proposed "Directed Panspermia" Article - But Apparently "Deleted" The Previous Month (Feb, 2011) (?) - As Noted In This Astrobiology Discussion "...is there any real, and complete, assurance that there is not a single (at least potentially viable) microbe inside the Voyager spacecrafts being hurtled *out* of the solar system at this very moment? The related possible implications may be interesting to consider..." - In Any Case - Perhaps Time For A Reconsideration Of This *Very* Important Material? - And Possible Incorporation Into Wikipedia? - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Brief Note - At The Moment, I'm Trying To Locate The "MAIN" Discussion Area For All This On The Panspermia Talk Page - There May Be Other Editors Who Might Like To Join In On The Fun As Well - We'll See - Hope This Is *Entirely* Ok - Please Let Me Know If Otherwise Of Course - In Any Regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks For Your Comments - Some Of Us May Be In Catch-up Mode At The Moment w/ Some Of This Material - Nonetheless - Thanks Again For Your Help - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Pacific Union College Church article

Hello. I'd like to move the PUC Church article draft out of SDA project space to main space. (I've been working on the Pacific Union College article and the Church should be the most important building on campus). BelloWello isn't around any more to disrupt. Can you help me do it? I almost did a cut and paste, but you probably know a better, cleaner way. Thanks. --Kenatipo speak! 03:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You say you would "like to move", so why on earth don't you move it? Also, I find it utterly amazing that after six years you still have not learned about wikilinks. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your approval, Rita — I moved it. (Is it uncomfortable having your knickers in a twist?) --Kenatipo speak! 03:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Clampco Sistemi

Hello! In order to keep the page existing, some references were added to the institutional page. I want to underline the fact that this company is a small one in Italy, that's why you couldn't find a lot of references on GNews. I think those references could be enough to justify the presence of the page from an encyclopedic point of view...and if you don't agree, I hope you would tell me how to improve it! I really think that this page should be existing, and I'm taking responsibility to improve it so it can be considered encyclopedic. Thank you for your time and all the tips you would like to give me! Mmillo (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  • If it:Clampco Sistemi is marked le fonti presenti sono insufficienti, what hope for the English version? Kindly have the modesty to wait until somebody with no COI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • It is not "my" company! I just think that this Italian company has every right to be encyclopedic! The references added should prove that! The label you see in it:Clampco Sistemi is because of the references were not added to the Italian version as well. I'll add the same references that were added to the English one; if you could consider those ones I'm sure you will find them encyclopedic worthy!Mmillo (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sid Tarrabain

I just wanted to let you know that I have removed the prod tag from Sid Tarrabain because the article's creator has objected on my talk to its deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

sourodeep25

Respected RHaworth. After seeing your message I have edited and categorised my article named History of Hindu Mathematics : A source book. Actually it is a very important book on the history of mathematics in India and it is known to most scholars working in the area. I am specially interested to the history of mathematics and writing articles on this area. Please read the improved version of the article. I am sure you will like it. Thanking you Sourodeep25 (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I would still like to see better references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Bagad Bro Landerne

I can see you deleted the page for Bagad Bro Landerne. I'm fairly confused about that and did not fully understand the reason for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbld (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Banning-enforcement undermining

Template:Banning-enforcement undermining, which you deleted and restored, has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sid Tarrabain

Hello, I see that my article is yet again up for deletion. Sid Tarrabain was a highly regarded man in Edmonton Alberta, Canada and throughout Canada. He was one of the most notable lawyer in Western Canada. I am making him an article and as I am new to the Wikipedia world, it is taking me a bit more time to understand how it works. I am also collecting more information about his many highly profiled cases in Canada. So I am asking you to not delete my article, it would be very much appreciated. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawprofqc (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

deletion of mbrlen

hey i am working for my project.If you find any flaw please let me know. Dont just directly delete.Use the talk page. Pranav Manghat (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  • If you had posted your message in the preferred position, you might have noticed the suggestion: please feel free to contribute to the AfD discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Camptocamp

I think the deletion of this article was a little quick. I think this website is becoming a reference for people practicing mountain sports. I wanted to expanded it but I didn't have time because you delete it. Please restore it and give me some advice to make it match wikipedia criteria. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.6.174.13 (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

  • How can I e-mail the contents to an IP address? What do you mean quick? The article had been unedited for 30 hours when I tagged it for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So there is a limit of time before a new article is delete ?? I'm not sure why you want my email address. Will you restore the content ?? Sissssou (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  • There is no time limit on speedy deletions - that is why they are called speedy deletions. You should never launch an article until the draft text is properly referenced. I am unwilling to restore an unreferenced article but I am perfectly willing to e-mail you the text. Note that this does not require me to know your e-mail address - read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Could you give me a copy of the article in verbatim on my talk page please. I will rework the article an restore it. Thanks. Sissssou (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Placing a copy on your talk page is still restoring. OK, for an article that short, I am being far too fussy. But I have e-mailed you the text. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of content

Please don't delete content and call it a "Hoax" when you are too lazy to google it to confirm if it actually exists or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almarsguides (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Foregen

Hi, the Foregen page was deleted. There is another page Foregen Regenerative Medicine that should be renamed to Foregen. Could you rename this please? Thanks.--Farmsworth (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A Hope for Home

I removed the CSD template from A Hope for Home as I don't think they are unambiguously non-notable. I think an AFD would be better. Falcon8765 (TALK) 07:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind! Falcon8765 (TALK) 07:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't mind but I would like to know what assertion of notability you detected in the article? (Note to self: if it gets deleted then all their albums need deleted too.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)==mergable to an article on product line.
Specifically, I think it passes WP:BAND number 5: "Has released two or more albums on a major label". Falcon8765 (TALK) 05:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I need help getting this band's album covers put on their album articles, any help?MatthewCJones (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

UMISR

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. I think this might be an except to the rule that most of these aren't notable, so I'm sending to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Alan Missen editing

Thanks for the free lesson in WikiSyntax. --- Ericwilberforce (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Backslashed sandbox

Re this - thanks, not enough coffee yet this morning! JohnCD (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Eternal life

It's wrongly described. That's not the way we understand it in Christianity. What sort of super hero administrator do you think you are to call my edit 'disruptive' and yours 'factual' ? Alan347 (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Historical Reflections

I'm afraid I got in your way... I redirected this to Berghahn Books but it looks like you wanted to PROD it... Perhaps you can check to see whether you wanted to PROD the article on the journal or the article on the publisher. Sorry for the hassle... --Crusio (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I meant to prod Historical Reflections but prodding the publisher instead may well be better - if that gets deleted then several journal articles or redirects become easier to delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm curious to see what our friend Paolo thinks of this. After all, he "studies on" those journals... :-) --Crusio (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences & Research

hi, you put PROD on article but you didn't specified it. The only matter you told is notability for this please do Google for this article you may find lots of notable sources for this medical hospital article and this article passes WP:GROUP guidelines. Thanks  Dr meetsingh  Talk  12:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

uTRUSTit

Hi. You deleted the page I had been editing as one consisting copyright infringements. As a contributor to the project itself (of which the article gives basic information), I can ensure that usage of all the sources or texts featuring in this article have the consent of the creators (including myself in many cases). The consortium behind the project is currently reviewing the page - having me implementing the edits - in order to give it a final shape. What are the appropriate steps we should take to ensure Wikipedia of the legitimate use of our materials? Thanks Mexikoi (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

  • We would very much prefer it if you would have the decency to wait untit someone with no COI thinks this project is notable and writes about it - see {{uw-coi}}. If you really insist on forcing an article in here, please read this re copyright - but the likelihood is that the text will need re-writing to become a Wikipedia article - and this re notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

How about me writing a brief summary with referencing - but not copying - some public parts of the project, which may be enriched by anyone interested? Would it possibly go through? Mexikoi (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Depends on how good the refs are. Suggest you submit via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Maverick02

Hi, you proposed to delete my article, I am new to Wikipedia, as I understand, I need to rephrase my article to legitimize it, but I have an exam on 14 October, as a result I am not getting enough time to do the editing as per your requirement, I request you to not delete my article till the 14 Oct, after that I promise I will rephrase it and improve it...Thank you so much in advance! In case you want to know which article I am referring to: Marris's Managerial Theory of Firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick02 (talk • contribs)

  • I for one, am certainly not prepared to wait until Oct 14. I have moved the article to User:Maverick02/sandbox - there you may work on it at your leisure. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hassan Hathout

I do not see how you could regard an article about a Fellow of several royal surgical colleges and a professor at a major university as having no indication of importance. I agree neither of these are proof of importance, but that's a question for prod or AfD. Could you please restore it, and send it to one or the other. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd thing to say DGG, with a claim of fellowships, then such a BDP automatically meets PROF and any of the four fellowships mentioned is sufficient. Sorry RH, but unless I'm missing the point, this was a bizarrely poor A7 when a simple trimming and tagging would do the job. Fæ (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I hope you both saw what I told the author? I do not wish to be seen restoring a non-article. But I have to admit that the guy does satisfy our notability criteria. So I have restored it to User:Hathout2012/sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I have given it a trim as I suggested and chucked in the first few citations I found on GBooks/GNews (there are plenty), this could be an interesting and controversial biography if anyone wants to work on it. Cheers Fæ (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Query from KillerChihuahua

I am wondering if you would be so kind as to tell me why you felt my request not to speedy Paul Banks, Icon in Homer was unreasonable, especially given that the speedy criteria used was rendered nonsensical by the nature of the redirect. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 03:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  • At one level, simply because the word icon does not now appear in the Paul Banks (custodian) article. The phrase icon in Homer is utterly POV. Who thinks he is an icon and where is the evidence to that effect? Certainly Google has not found anybody else using that phrase to describe him. What on earth does "speedy criteria used was rendered nonsensical by the nature of the redirect" mean? The criterion was R3 which was totally sensible. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll try again, to ensure we're on the same page going forward with this conversation. Did you read my argument for not deleting, prior to deleting? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  • "Several discussions" indeed! How many of those four discussions are unaware that the page has been moved? In any case "if the author visits that page it will show the log of where the article can now be found" - that is more than enough. Perhaps you would care to look through the, possibly hundreds, of cases where I have moved without redirect and nobody has complained to me about not leaving a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Take three: did you read it before you deleted it? Its a simple question I am asking. There is no need to become hostile. i'm not questioning how many hundreds, or thousands, of articles you have moved. That is irrelevant. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, just asking if you'd read it prior to your decision. It would have been helpful had you made a brief comment at deletion; either in the summary space or if you'd had the courtesy to place a note on my talk page directly. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion tag

Can you please explain about the deletion tag on the page of abort (C standard library) & cpow ? What can I do to remove it, please explain ? Can you please, suggest a standard C library function page, so that I can refer its format to improve above mentioned pages? — Pankaj bagul (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mbrlen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strxfrm. Please discuss with the supervisor of the course why these articles apparently must be on Wikipedia. Why cannot you install the MediaWiki software on a machine at the College of Engineering Pune? Please reply. You could set it up so that you could create wikilinks to here, eg.: cpow is a function in [[:en:complex.h|]]. I am pleased to see you asking for guidance on a standard format page. I will take that as admission that the abort article is a long way from being in Wikipedia style. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Applications of stacks

Hi!! You had deleted my page applications of stack (data structure) citing the reason that whatever i have to write on the topic should be written in Stack (data structure). If u have a look at the page Stack (data structure) now, you'll see that the applications have become more than the content of stack itself. Plus, I have a lot of extra information to add in Applications. This would make the page difficult to read. So i would like to ask you, whether I can create a new page on Applications of stack (data structure) now?? Nipun Bayas (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Pacs1.jpg and File:Pacs2.jpg

Hi, these images were tagged with NoCommons and a user marked them for deletion in error. Please read image description pages before deleting them. fish&karate 14:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I did see the NoCommons tags but I was unimpressed. What earthly reason can there be for keeping these here as well? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In the case of these images, it's because I uploaded them and would like to be able to keep them on my watchlist. fish&karate 08:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  • That is insufficient reason. Is it too much for you to check a Wikipedia watchlist and a Commons watchlist. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. fish&karate 08:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Did you see the message "do not remove this notice from files you have uploaded"? That applies even to admins. But what is so special about these two images? I see you have many other uploads on the Commons. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see this ANI discussion which I have initiated on this issue. Why did you protect the image citing "vandalism"? fish&karate 09:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  • OK, I have apologised about the "vandalism". Now answer my question - what is so special? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Let's not have this discussion in two places. fish&karate 09:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
      • As an aside from the discussion, do you think you could self-revert the two speedy tags from the images at least until some kind of decision is arrived at? Thanks. fish&karate 09:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Much appreciated. fish&karate 10:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Indian temple related articles

Hi RHaworth! I noticed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharati Matha Burial Temple – III you identified a number of new editors who are created somewhat problematic articles on Indian temples. Some of the users created a number of new ones today. I came across them while doing some NPP work, and I really don't know what to make of them. Most of them are not coming up as copyvios, but I cannot tell if there are older, more substantial articles that they should be merged to. Any assistance would be appreciated. Singularity42 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  • It might help if you gave me links to the articles in question. You will probably get Google hits if pick a snippet from the article and include site:ignca.nic.in in the search. I do not get exact hits - the PDFs at ignca.nic.in do seem to be slightly different from the source from which these kids are copying. But if you can't show copyvio and you don't know where to redirect then simply userfy it! These editors do need to be taught that Wikipedia standards override any educational considerations. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ti era23 is clearly one of the group. I have started Wikipedia:Bhubaneswar temples project in the desperate hope that they will get their act together. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Villages

You are also unaware that I've expanded scores of stale articles on Higland villages like Aberchalder which were neglected for years and put some life back into them by reorganizing Category:Populated places in Highland. You are wrong about my intentions and capabilities. Do you not think I would like to see a full length article on every Conrish village eventually? This is the goal of course. The way I see it is that as a collaborative project we all have the same goals eventually and that an existing stub can be be expanded by anybody visiting it. I see far beyond the initial meager stub. The way I see it is that we should be working towards having a decent article on every British settlement asap. Sorry, but having done a fair bit of local research in my time I'd say that virtually any hamlet in the UK could have something substantial said about them,. I'd have to agree with you though that with the UK where information can be accessed for many places it would be better to start them with more information. You are aware there is a stub threshold option in your preferences to red link short stubs? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

An example. If I'd started Cwm Gwaun as I did a few minutes ago as a Cwm Gwaun is a village and community in Pembrokeshire it would still have been a start and anybody else could have expanded it... If everybody followed my example we'd have decent articles on all villages in no time at all! Of course if something needs doing no one better than yourself to do so, but given how much is missing it would be ridiculous to expect me to write every article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Project

Hi, apologies - i missed the last note. I will contribute in the bhuvaneshwar project S Sriram 16:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt

CSD notification

The page Environmental cleanup in China looks like it may be a valid CSD, but I prefer not to delete a page unless the creator has been notified. I understand that sometimes automated tools fail to do the notification for some reason. Not sure if that was the case, but could you make the notification? — SPhilbrickT 17:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I usually do let Twinkle notify creators for me. By the time I read your message the article had been deleted. I decided that the deletion log was a necessary and sufficient message to the creator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(Re-)creating E-Prime software page

I wanted to learn more about E-Prime (software) by PST, Inc., and I noticed that there was no current page about it. When I went to create one, I saw that there used to be one but that it was deleted by RHaworth due to violations of policies regarding commercial marketing. I'd like to create a more neutral page, but I want to ensure it won't just get deleted again. Could you advise what the problems were before so I can avoid them? I have no access to the deleted version, so I don't know what about it was inappropriately written. -- Showeropera (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh

Hi, I'm trying to figure out why you deleted my draft of the Winnie the Pooh home media section. Users are allowed to create drafts on their talk pages before posting. I plan on adding this to the Winnie the Pooh (film) article soon, but it is not ready yet. It seems that you crated a new article for the home media section, which is also not in accordance with WP:Film. Home media sections currently sit within a film's page, not as a separate article. In the future, could you please notify me before deleting my draft? --TravisBernard (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I see no such deleted page in your deleted contributions. I do see that you have two articles in your contribution list with similar names (Winnie the Pooh Home Media and Winnie the Pooh (home media) (which btw we certainly don't need 3 of these)). Are you perhaps looking for one of them? Syrthiss (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I apologize. This mistake was on my end. I forgot to add the "/" on my userpage, thus creating an actual wiki page instead of a draft. Sorry for jumping to conclusions here: the mistake was clearly on my end. I've never actually deleted a page, so can you assist me in deleting these pages I accidentally created? --TravisBernard (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The pages in need of deletion are Winnie the Pooh Home Media and Winnie the Pooh (home media). --TravisBernard (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)  Done. Syrthiss (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.--TravisBernard (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestivism

Hi, I noticed you deleted the list of artists on the Suggestivism article. Is there a general policy concerning lists of unlinked names? I've been searching and couldn't find one. I re-wrote that section to imply there is not a list, but with a citation to where the list can be found off-wiki. Thanks! Mattsenate (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:LISTN is the general policy and WP:NLIST is the policy specifically about lists of people. NLIST will usually be the more strict policy of the two. Kevin (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization

Hey RHaworth,

Thanks for fixing the capitalization issues. I wasn't quite sure how to handle them, thanks for the help. Debastein1 (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Textmapping

Hello Roger, You have speedy-deleted Textmapping (education) that I created. Would you be willing to reinstate it?

I am new to Wikipedia, and finding my way around. That is not an excuse. It is just to let you know that I'm still on the learning curve....

So...As to your concerns about the page: (1) Not a notable topic: With all due respect, this is simply not the case. Textmapping is an important instructional method in the field of education. This isn't just my work. It is the work of many people in the field. You'll see in my initial notes on the page that this work goes back 30+ years. There is a very large trail of journal articles on the subject (I'll be adding them and putting them in context). I can't explain why nobody has written on it. It is precisely the kind of topic that Wikipedia should have an article on.

(2) Conflict of interest: May I suggest that you give me a bit of time to build the page? Watch it grow. See how it develops. I'll be listing many sources -- few of them mine. This would be in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines for editors, which state that it's best to assume that people are acting in good faith (trust but verify, I would think), and that it is OK to give people like myself a bit of time to build a page before pulling the plug. IMy guess is that everyone in the field of education who has published on textmapping could be said to have a conflict of interest. The only "non-conflicted" person would be one who knows nothing about the topic.

So, would you be willing to reinstate the page? You can watch it closely. I think you will be pleased as it grows.

Thanks, Dave Middlebrook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemiddlebrook (talk • contribs) 13:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

  • The page I deleted was a very long way from being an article. I have e-mailed you the text. If you think you can create a COI-free and well referenced article, draft it in User:Davemiddlebrook/sandbox and submit it via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Gr8 work.... Wasim Mogal (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RHaworth. You have new messages at Debastein1's talk page.
Message added Debastein1 (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

radio listening post

I saw your edit and agree with it but as the most common name for this site ( which is used by the locals) is the chopmist hill listening post I again moved the site to that name. hope that was OK. Arydberg (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

HEARD

Hi. This article that you deleted has been recreated by the author. Please delete it. Thanks, — Abhishek  Talk 18:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Suckers

Hi RHaworth, you deleted Suckers (band) under "G2: Test page". At the time, it was mis-formatted because a newbie was still working on it. Please be a little more cautious in these situations. Thanks! Melchoir (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of page

I'm certainly glad you aren't in charge of anything above and beyond your interference with wikipedia content. The page you deleted was neither promotional nor nonfactual, and as an interactive encyclopedia your behavior is unacceptably controlling. Have a discussion before deleting someone else's contribution. I hope you understand how remarkably two-faced this behavior is, and how it's holding wikipedia back from being a reputable source for information. You clearly have no idea what you're doing, deleting this page. Have a discussion. Do not simply delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verybusywriter (talk • contribs) 19:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

  • So I have to guess which article you are talking about? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ombili

Hi RHaworth, I saw you listed Ombili as a suburb of Windhoek after cleaning up a new user's contribution. I undid that edit because Ombili is rather known as an NGO in the north of Namibia. Only after my revert (not good, I know) I investigated and found that there are indeed several informal settlements with that name, one of them in Windhoek. I still think it should not be listed under Windhoek because the northern suburbs of Windhoek are all represented already, and a listing of every unincorporated squatter camp would clutter the page too much, there are several dozen of them.

Regarding the Ombili page itself, I converted the redirect into a disambiguation page to spell out the meanings, but I'm not sure if this is acceptable: None of the entries currently have articles, and none of the target pages mention the word Ombili. I'm kind of hesitant to insert phrases like "Ombili is a suburb of Mariental" into Mariental, Namibia, knowing that there are several other suburbs which I cannot name because I haven't got a reference. I could provide references for the three entries there, but that would be strange, too, considering that it is a disambig page. What would you do in this case? Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Allen J and his Amazin Muzak

You have had a good deal to do with this prolific socker. As far I can see there has never been an SPI, though various groups have been tagged as socks of each other. As he is still active (3 new socks this month), I have collected all the socks I could find and raised WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Songboy193, so any new infestation can be listed there. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

DINDAYALPUR

Hi! I am OK with the deletion of the redirect, but I though I would just explain why I created it. At first, I too was convinced that this was an implausible title and moved the file without leaving the redirect, but when I went back to "New Pages" and saw the title still there with all caps, I started to wonder whether we should keep the original title after all. I was worried that deleting the original title might be confusing to a newbie creator. In any case, I agree that there is little use for a redirect at this point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

  • The all caps title clearly shows the move log. The author can look at their own contributions history. I think that is ample assistance for newbies. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

French Louie revisited

In your post on my talk page you said to use web links. I am new at this, but I think I read in some of the standards material that it was prefered to use wiki links, and not usually more than one regular web link. Am I misreading, or misunderstanding? Thank you for the web link by the way. I've been so concerned about finding book references that I don't think I've even seen that link before. DavidHenrickson (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Your post said you didn't delete my page... I think I see: RadioFan deleted my page, but forgot to delete the original path. Then when you fixed his mistake it looked like you made the deletion. I looked at your deletion log, and there's a link there to "revert". Intuitively I'd say that by clicking on that would promote my article back to the original namespace, but I don't know enough about these features to try it. Anyway, do I need to ask you to promote it back, or RadioFan? DavidHenrickson (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I can't even get to the User:French Louie/DavidHenrickson version. I had been working on it, does it exist somewhere else? DavidHenrickson (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

  • You can have as many external links as you think appropriate. The main thing is to send them to the end of the article using <ref> tags. Confused! Please get it into your head: nobody deleted your page. It was moved twice. that is all. The only deletion was one I did of a redirect created by RadioFan. Is that clear? Do you understand? What on earth is this alleged "revert" link? Please copy and paste it so I can try and understand what you are talking about. When you think it is ready for publication, look for a pull-down tab to the right of "View History" at the top of the page. That will give you a "Move" link. Use it! "Now I can't even get to …" Ten minutes after writing that, you did get to it. It would have been a good idea to come back here and delete that message. Hint: if you cannot find an edit, click on "My contributions" at the top right of every page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying: It's not deleted, but in a different namespace. Or more accurately "removed from the mainspace." I guess I'm getting caught up in the terminology. Here is a copy/paste from the deletion log:
17:50, 24 September 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "French Louie" ‎ (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace)
Since it says explicitly on there that you 'deleted' the page, I was just using the same word. The "alleged" revert link was at the end of the line in the delete log and it was within parenthesis. It was there, it's not now. Don't ask me why. Also after I noticed what you actually changed, I understood, and that's when I accessed the page. I thought it would have been dishonest, or more accurately sneaky, to remove the evidence of my ignorance. I'll follow your instructions for putting it into the mainspace. I realize you guys are busy, and I appreciate what you do. Thank you for your help. DavidHenrickson (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

  • My apologies. There is a (revert) link - but it is on the log entry for the move not the delete. You could use it but would be messy because of the double move - just use standard move. "I thought it would have been dishonest …" Quite right - the preferred style would be to strike out your text with <s> and identify it as your strike out with something like "Ooops! ~~~~". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I learn a lot from these little dialogues. I like that strike out thing with the oops. DavidHenrickson (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Well I put French Louie back in the mainspace, and RadioFan only had a minor problem with it. Thanks again! DavidHenrickson (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Update on courses and ambassador needs

Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors

Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/2011_Sep_28&oldid=1172213791"