Jump to content

User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2009 June

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

Wizetrade Deletion

I had no intention of advertising and attempted to be completely objective in illustrating the facts about this company. I wish to have a third-party (trusted wikipedia author) create the page so that I am not accused of advertising/spamming here again. It's not my idea of fun, nor was it my intention to advertise/promote anything. I just wanted to display the facts, and would like another opportunity to deliver these in a completely objective way by having a trusted Wikipedia writing expert perform the task. Please allow this action to take place - I truly appreciate it and wish you the best. — Thewizetradegroup (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewizetradegroup (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wizetrade. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

  • I don't know what makes you think that deleting external links makes an article more acceptable. But you have absolutely the right idea in asking for an independent editor to write you up. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • RHawthorn, I sincerely appreciate the tip (I know that seems weird considering the situation, but I truly mean it). I will go this route and hopefully things will turn out for the best. Thewizetradegroup (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Tourettes Guy Deletion

Deleting a page removes all context, so it cannot be identified I don't see how that gives it more identification or causes it to be less of a stub in anyway, you made it worse than a stub, because now it does not exists at all. I fail to see how your actions remedy the problem.

Editorial Suggestion

Hello RHaworth,

I did not mean to advertise for the author and have toned down the article since then. However, you also listed that my article is unreferenced and I really do not understand why. Prior to adding my article, I used some of the other author bios as templates, and besides the well recognized authors, many of them also use the author's official website as their main source (some did not even contain a source).

LurkMore (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I added to LurkMore's talk page about how to post to talk pages with the + tab. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Effectuation Deletion

Dear RHaworth -

Thank you for your comments on the initial effectuation page. Indeed, it was insufficiently connected with the body of knowledge across the rest of wikipedia, and I believe that I have begun to remedy that. Further, I encourage you to consider retaining the effectuation page. Effectuation, as is evidenced from the lengthy reference list at the bottom of the page, is becoming one of the significant theoretical forces in our understanding of entrepreneurship today. And as a result, you should anticipate that this page will be actively consumed and enhanced by wikipedia's many readers. Please let me know if you have further concerns.

Best, Stuart Read —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartread (talk • contribs) 08:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear RHaworth -

I believe that the integration with the rest of wikipedia, though never complete, has taken good form with a significant addition of external links. With respect to the listing pf publications, it was only my intention to add links to those so that people interested in finding these articles could do so in a central place (certainly not for promotion - these are academic articles). However, if you would be so kind as to reinstate the page, I will be happy to reduce the cites to 3 or 4, making the article a base for something I believe you would consider acceptable.

Best, Stuart Read —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartread (talk • contribs) 08:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear RHaworth, Just added a book source and a link list to the Effectuation article started by StuardRead. There is a growing number of people interested in that scientific topic all around the world. What does it take to get the artilce from the sandbox to the Encyclopedia? Anything I can contribute? BR, --Faschingbauer (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Tefen Deletion

I do not believe Tefen is advertising or spamming, it is simply a knowledge transfer from wiki users. --Cpriamo1 20:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Cpriamo1 6 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpriamo1 (talk • contribs)

CIBT Education Group Deletion

Please reallow access to edit content for CIBT Education Group. CIBT owns a number of entities that the public should be aware of. Emhc (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Roseworldoak:Youthful Influx Dimensions

Thanks for "saving me the embarrassment of having it discussed at AFD" when I didn't put it up for AFD. It was PRODed. Killiondude (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Pings Xiao Deletion

I do not believe that this article should be deleted because Pings Xiao is a Buddhist religious leader who is having his ever-growing influence over the Buddhist community in Taiwan and now gradually in China too. -- Passinglight (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Haworth, could you please advise how this article can be kept? Pings Xiao is now exerting an important influence in modern Mahayana Buddhism. As mentioned in this article, he promotes the underlying essence of Buddhism (Tathagatagarbha), an notion that has not been very evident in the last few centuries except in the Zen School. By citing many sutras, and with his careful approach and logical reasoning, he has caught great attention among the Buddhist community starting in Taiwan and now in China. For his ever-growing influence on traditional Buddhism, and for the benefit of people who want to know more about who he is, I believe we should keep this article. Could you please help to make the article stay? Thanks! -- Passinglight (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Haworth, Pings Xiao's Chinese name is 蕭平實 (Xiao Ping Shi). His Chinese (both Traditional Chinese for Taiwan and Simplified Chinese for China and HK) pages have been on Wiki since May of 2008. He is a very notable and influential Buddhist leader in recent years and there is a cultivation center in Los Angeles now. Based on the Chinese Wiki page, I summarized, re-edited and translated it into English with the hope of having more people can read it. It is my fault not including the external link of reliable sources in this article. I will solve this technical problem. Please give me some more time and please do not delete this page. Thank you very much! --Jack W Mayer (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not difficult for me to provide the links to other Wiki pages. As you can see from the original page which I did, I did not add any link in the text, even it is a reliable source. I apporogize for this mistake and, with your guidance, will fix this problem. I am doing it now. Although the Chinese page of Pings Xiao was frozen due to no consensus and vandalism, I do not think the whole contents are alleged. I will link those facts which have enough evidence provided. Of course, I will link other reliabe sources within or outside Wiki environment as well. Thanks.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I try to make a internal link of 蕭平實 by using internal link tag, but system prompts this internal link does not exist. I am not sure if I can use it this way or not. Any way, I will try again.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth, Very appreciate your modification on my editing bugs and others. Frankly speaking, I am a novice Wiki editor. I have put some external/internal links of reliable sources to this page. Please let me know if I progress on the right trend or not according to Wiki's guidelines. If I make any mistake, please let me know. Thank you very much.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So which of your external links is to a reliable, third-party source that confirms the notability of Pings Xiao? I do not see any.
You mentioned "Chinese (both Traditional Chinese for Taiwan and Simplified Chinese for China and HK) pages" above. I have found zh:蕭平實. Which is the other one? zh:蕭平實 is protected for "no consensus" - no consensus for what? To delete?
I see three people editing the article: yourself, Lister2243 (talk · contribs) and Passinglight (talk · contribs). Can you assure me that you are three different people because we do not like sock puppets and if so what is the connection between you? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

From Wiki's guidelines, I tried not to put any advertisement to the page. This is what I learned from other similar Wiki pages. Now I am quite confused between the evidence of notability and advertisement. Please teach me about the difference.
zh:蕭平實 is the traditional Chinese version which I mentioned. I did not notice the exactly Wiki code "zh:" so that make you be confused. Sorry! The no-consensus, according to my understanding from the prompt message and historic records, some vandals irrationally deleted other editor's previous modification without any reason. Therefore that page was protected/frozen.
Technically I do not know how to assure the other two persons are not me. But I can promise to you that I have only one Wiki username. I have told this Wiki page to some of my friends and they are quite interested in that.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  • For goodness sake, evidence of notability is almost the exact opposite of advertising! We need to see independent, third party sources - do you understand those terms? For example Peter Coyote's website is not a "reliable source" because it is self-promotion (but it is OK to link to it from his Wikipedia article). This interview with Peter Coyote probably is a reliable source because we can assume that Heyoka Magazine made an independent decision to interview Peter and were not paid by Peter. Do you see the difference? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Haworth, I was on a flight (and now out of country), and haven't been catching up with you guys with the conversation here. But first thanks for the tips! Good to see that the author is following up with your suggestions. As I mentioned earlier, Pings Xiao is an influential, while controversial to still many, figure in modern Mahayana Buddhism. I believe the view points for a someone like this should be made known for whoever only heard of his name but wants to know more about him or what he stands for.
Aside from that, I can see the point of the author when he was asking the advertising vs. displaying evidence of notability. As I know, many learning of his view points either follow him or make harsh arguments against him. The former may either become more or less Pings group or have reviews of his books and therefore it would seem to be making advertisement for Pings. On the other hand, the latter, from what I can see, have either been making unfounded statements or twisted Ping's view points. Perhaps that's why the author could have some difficulty in linking to the third party sources. Although this is just my speculation, could you please help him out a little here?
I won't be able to get back to this for another week or so, but I sincerely hope at the end you also agree the title article should not be deleted. Thanks again. — Passinglight (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
A review of a book is usually a reliable source. Why should it be considered advertising? But here we have the problem: has anybody bothered to review, for example, "Behind the Facade of Tibetan Buddhism"? "Help him out" - what you expect me to find the reliable sources? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth, Thanks for the explanation. Now I understand their difference. About the evidence of notability for Pings Xiao, as I remember there is a publication in Mainland China (not in Taiwan) referring to the influential Buddhist leaders of 20th century, written by a very famous professor in China. I think that will meet the criteria of independent third party. If I am wrong, please correct me. Thank you.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So let us see it! We will judge whether it is independent third party. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please give me some time to find it out. Thanks.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth, I have found the book. The book name is "Chinese Buddhism in the 20th Century", written by Professor Chen Bing and Professor Deng Zimei of China, recommended by Professor Lan Jifu and Professor Jiang Chanteng of Taiwan. They all are very famous Buddhist scholars either in China or Taiwan. This book is published in 2003 by Modern Zen Publishing Co. of Taiwan with ISBN 957-9622-37-X. Unfortunately it is in Chinese. I have some photo copies in pdf format. Should I send them to you for reference? In addition, which way should I put it into the Wiki page? Should I translate the text about Pings Xiao into English and use it as a citation (It is about half of a page and I can do it.)? Or using it just as a reference? ... Please recommend. Thank you very much.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A translation would still be a copyright violation so cannot be published here. But feel free to put it on your own website and link to it from the article. I am puzzled as to why you have left the prod tag on the article for so long - you were allowed to remove it! I have sent the article to AfD. (Note that this actually gives the article another five days of protection from deletion.) I want to see what other people think about his notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
If we perform a Google search, there are about 17,800 items matching "Tathagatagarbha" which happens to be the main doctrine that Pings Xiao always proclaims for the past 20 years. He may be the only one who masters Tathagatagarbha on our planet. His name is always associated with the eighth consciousness Tathagatagarbha, supposedly the true reality of our universe and the essence in Buddhism. He has already published about hundred books talking about Tathagatagarbha. All his books are among the best sellers. So is he famous in the field of the Tathagatagarbha. My understanding for Wiki is, one who dedicates his whole life in this field and becomes well known in his field deserves a place in Wiki. I also think whoever interested in Tathagatagarbha would want to know about the related articles such as one like this. Therefore I do not agree “this article be deleted because of the following concern: no evidence of notability”. Allenjane (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Are we losing something in translation here? Jack W Mayer took at lot of persuading to understand the difference between advertising and RSs. Now you are confused between a doctrine and one of its adherents. It does not matter how notable Tathagatagarbha is. It is the notability of Pings Xiao that matters and no one can give me solid external links to English language pages about him. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth, thank you very much for your guidance. I will do it just as you suggested-an external link. Actually I did not realize that I have the authority to remove the deletion template. I have roughly read through that page of introduction in the book, fortunately the concept of that contents almost similar to my introduction-"He is very professional in Buddhist doctrine and practice, but also gets lots of criticisms due to his criticizing others' errors too straightforwardly." I think my introduction and the contents of this external link will keep consistent. Thanks.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Although there are many external links about Pings Xiao, unfortunately most of them are in Chinese. Due to the concern on external links in English, I will keep on searching them. If I find any available, I will put it on. But it needs some more time to find them.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth, I have one question. Should I reduce the size of this article? Thanks.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth, the contents of "Hsiao P'ing-shih" is very few. In addition, most of the external links of that page are in Chinese and no help for those English speakers who want to understand him. Could I keep the first three chapters until Arguments? It is about one third of the original size. Thanks.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth, I will reduce the size of this article to a proper scope as you suggested and make more external links in English, as concerned by some editors. Thanks.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth, the external link of introduction from reliable third party was added. Please comment. Thanks.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the following link [1]. Thanks.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth, I realized that Pings Xiao's page has been deleted. I think that it the conclusion of the contributors. Since I know Wiki is a very fair and open system, could I know the exact reason? Thanks.--Jack W Mayer (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I asked for "third party". a202.idv.tw is not third party, even though it may be discussing third party sources. The exact reason for deleteion is that after reviewing the AfD discussion and giving greater weight to established editors, Nakon felt that the consensus was to delete. You could raise the matter at deletion review but I strongly recommend that you wait until Pings Xiao has acquired a lot more notability in the English-speaking world. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mistake

Thanks for correcting that. — Kpalion(talk) 18:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Animarathon

I've reverted your prod of Animarathon. Given its age (9 years and counting), there is a reasonable chance that reliable sources covering this convention exist. I think it is best to give others time to find and provide those sources. But if you feel that there is no chance of finding reliable sources, then please take the article to WP:AFD instead. --Farix (Talk) 19:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Broadland Housing Association

Hi. Re the declined speedy on this - whereabouts are housing associations deemed generally notable ? I can't see anything in WP:OUTCOMES or WP:ORG, and the article cites no independent sources or references to satisfy WP:N. CultureDrone (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

POV in your reason?

Hello, I deleted the word "weird", as it doesn't seem to be a technical term, just a mere POV. (Most of the articles on this page could be called weird, if you want: WP:STRANGE. And there are hundreds of them, existing for several years.)

Original research may be true, although it can be supported by existing sources.

Let me note, however, that the articles about languages don't mention sources for the words given as example words, since anyone can easily look them up. I don't think you'll propose them for deletion, will you? Adam78 (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was proposing all the articles for deletion that describe languages without providing exact references for the meanings of all the words mentioned as examples for this or that. That would mean deleting dozens of articles... that's why I didn't find it fair.

Anyway, I have provided the references now.

The article can be renamed, if you prefer that version. (I thought "meaningful in any language" might sound as if we were looking for certains sounds that are meaningful universally, in any language. I hope this ambiguity will occur to no one else.) Adam78 (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

List of RADIUS standards

I'm following the procedure for a normal deletion candidate and now you nominate it for afd. Quit starting crap.  kgrr talk 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  • What procedure do you claim you are following? I am also following procedure: I prodded the article, you removed the prod - fine that is allowed, so I take the article to AfD. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am following the procedure as outlined in WP:Proposed deletion: If you do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion you can do the following things: 1. Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page. 2. As a courtesy, notify the editor who initiated the PROD by placing a {{Deprod}} tag on his or her user talkpage. 3. While you're editing the article anyway, please consider improving it, especially to address the concerns given as a reason for deletion. 4. If you feel that the article should be deleted, but not without discussion, you may nominate the article for an Articles for deletion debate. 5. Consider adding (or modifying) an {{Oldprodfull}} tag on the article's discussion page as documentation for others. (Articles may be proposed for deletion only once, and then either an Articles for deletion debate or a speedy deletion must occur.)  kgrr talk 04:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And here is my courtesy notification: ==Deprodding of List of RADIUS standards== I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from List of RADIUS standards, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! But now, you are rushing to AFD the list. Let's make one thing very clear: You are a royal pain in the ass.  kgrr talk 04:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So you are fine with List of Web television series ... right.  kgrr talk 04:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I do not see the relevance but it is reasonable - the red linked items could be removed if it seems they are never likely to qualify for an article. (Do you know the difference between internal and external links?) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course I know the difference between internal and external links.

The article RADIUS describes the two main protocols RFC 2865 and RFC 2866. I have been cleaning that one up and removed this list of RFCs, which was a whole paragraph inside of this poorly managed article, and put it in a separate article which is a list - kind of like this one: List of minor characters in Dilbert. Wikipedia automatically makes RFC followed by a number an automatic external link to the RFC article like this: RFC 2865. Many of the protocols in this list are similar to the misc. one-off Dilbert characters - not notable for a whole article.

Do you assume everyone is stupid?  kgrr talk 05:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  • No, I do not assume everyone is stupid. To spell it out clearly: citing examples of "list of" articles which consist of internal links is not an argument for keeping an article consisting entirely of external links. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Whatever. It would have been a lot more civil if you would have made a simple suggestion on how to do it at the prod stage rather than insisting on the "rules" for rules sake. The rule you cite is mostly to prevent link farms in the external references section. (Which I whole-heartedly agree to. I put the whole list in table form into the RADIUS article in the same table format used by List of RFCs. Some things just don't work in prose form. List of RADIUS standards is no longer necessary.  kgrr talk 11:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Kay Barnard

declined speedy as it seems to assert significance. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Type Attack

I added the article about Type Attack as it is one of those mentioned in the article about Sirius Software, as other products of that company also have individual articles. It is not self-promotion, even if I was ancillary to the development of the product. The only points contained in the article are facts. Further, if one of the products of Sirius Software deserve separate articles, then all of the products deserve separate articles. William R. Buckley (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I should add that Type Attack was the first typing tutor product which employed the "letter fall" motif, a format that was later copied by other typing tutor games, such as that known by the name of Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing. William R. Buckley (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DRV of A classic education

Hi, this is to notify you that your speedy deletion of A classic education has been brought to DRV by Tosettialex (talk · contribs). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir

Hi there, I would like to move your attention towards the article of Azad Kashmir. The neutrality of this article was disputed as its Talk page clearly shows therfore there were tags placed on this article of balanced neutrality but all of sudden I noticed that tags were removed from them without any discussion or information on the talk page. I checked the history and I asked the user for reason of removing them. User didnot provide any reasonable answer to that so I again placed the tags on the article but the user BhainsRajput has again removed saying "Removal of wrongful tags does not require discussion". I had a discussion with him but he is just not ready to accept that its neutrality is disputed. I dont know whether you are the right administrator or not for this sort of situation but would like to ask you for your help on this as I see that act as vandalism of the article Azad Kashmir.

Thanks and Regards, --Shekhartagra (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Novarra deletion

Wondering why Novarra was deleted. I'm new to this and want to upload/repost and want to make sure I'm following the rules. Your help is appreciated. Novarra (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  • It was deleted because it was a blatant copyright violation from www.novarra.com (as it stood at that time). I was happy to delete it because I particularly dislike people who are so idle that they copy their own website and think they have created a Wikipedia article. Your user name suggests a COI so I strongly recommend you do not to seek to re-instate the article yourself. Please follow this advice instead. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Colorado Time Systems

Hi Roger,

I'm impressed by the number of edits you have made, and hopefully you and Charlie will both be nice to me since I am a newbie. I would like to know if you can suggest ways I might improve Colorado Time Systems page you flagged as spam. I am obviously not here to spam, and I would like to know how to help this particular contribution avoid deletion. Thanks. — Ebgundy (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I notice that you tagged the page Price of life movie for speedy deletion with the reason "an article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because this is an article about a movie, not a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, or using the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

BAO

Okay, sorry this is my first time making a wikipedia page, and I am not up-to-date with all the protocols. I appreciate the information. — Berkeleyjess (Talk | 26:33, 14 May 2009

moving my temp page

As they say - OY! That's what I get for creating a page at 4:30 in the morning... of course what you did is what I meant to do. Thanks for fixing it! As for my talk page, yeah, I will archive more of it soon. Tvoz/talk 17:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Calaveras Dome

Hi, hope you don't mind but I've declined your speedy on this. As with a quick search I've managed to salvage Calaveras Dome and give it context. Also I noticed you don't seem to be informing the authors of the articles you are speedying. Most of the templates give a prompt of a possible template to inform the author. ϢereSpielChequers 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ManagePro article March 26

RHaworth,

I would like to ask you return the ManagePro article removed on March 26, to Wikipedia or make suggestions how it can be adjusted to qualify for inclusion. We are trying to create a presence on Wikipedia so as to be allowed to be included on the page called list of project management software.

We believe that without our presence you have a hole in this list that you should not want.

It appears I have offended you in several ways and I would like to correct that problem. Hoping this assists you in determining that we do qualify to have at least a minimal presence on Wikipedia.

Apparently, you are offended by the scanplan and rbrim editing of the article. You refer to one or the other as a puppet. However, please let me clarify this. It was not an intention to be deceptive or create puppets. If you look at the complete thread at rbrim, you will see that there is not an attempt to hide or be deceptive. scanplan and rbrim usages are discussed, and workareas for both were set up by PMDrive1061 so that I could work in the background without immediately publishing articles. I originally inserted something under scanplan, but, you will notice there is only one event entering from the scanplan account and that was because after discussing it with management, we did not want to confuse the situation and be accused of having puppet accounts and all further access of the account is through rbrim. Scanplan was dead long before you blocked it.

I make a reference to being pushed to get something onto Wikipedia and you seem to indicate that I should tell management that they have to stop pushing me and Wikipedia, you do not accept marketing articles. Truly, we are not trying to insert marketing as a ManagePro article. In fact the article has no links back to our personal website. The article simple attempts to indicate that the company exists and attempts to indicate it dates back many years by providing history. Our purpose for creating the article is to allow us to present ourselves in a list at list of project management software.

Going to that project management software article and attempting to be included, it appears we can not be included in this list without having a minimal article explaining our existance on Wikipedia. In our Managepro article, we are including nothing, that we are aware of, that we see as commercial sales or marketing. However, we believe that there are some commercial software products in this list, such as Attask, that have entered their own content and this does not seem to have been viewed as a conflict of interest for this or other commercial project management packages.

We don't understand why we are different from other commercial project management software package included in the list and we are happy to do anything we can do to be included in the list on that page reference, simply making that list page more accurate and complete.

When I reference being pushed by my management to add the article, I was referencing the fact that I waited several day for PMDrive to review the article before I was going to insert it on the site. My goal was to have an article that was informative and not a marketing article. However, after several days, and PMDrive1061 too busy to review the article, I felt it was probably quite adequate and added the article. My reference to being pushed to add the article was my polite method of saying to PMDrive1061 ... "Please excuse my not waiting for you to review the article, I believe it is an article you will approve of and if it is not to your liking, please do not get upset with me, let me know and I will correct the problem." The comments seem to have the opposite effect, the article was up several days, then you apparently took offense by the article or my comment about being pushed by management and took the article off Wikipedia, asked I stop pushing to put the marketing article on-line and marked scanplan as a puppet. Please, I can change anything you consider marketing and remove it ... my goal is not marketing.

Please note that PMDrive1061 has gone back to the article that you removed, and said "Wow, looks good!" Then went off on a leave for a while.

Can you please help us understand if there is something we can do to get enough of a presence on Wikipedia to have a reference to us in the listing at list of project management software, we believe you would want us to improve the value of that page by correcting a listing that appears to imply some form of completeness in listing project management software packages ... we are a company with a project management software package, we have been around for years, we have large clients like 3-Com, Amdadl, AT&T, Bayer, Catepillar, Coca-Cola, Dupont, FedEx, Fidelity Investments, Intel, HP, Kraft Food, Metropolitan Health, Mitsubishi, Motorola, Navistar,Philips Petroleum, Raytheon, SeaGate, Texas Instruments, Verizon, United Airlines and many many more. We hope you believe that it is only fair that we be included in the list on page list of project management software, and will help us to determine a presence on Wikipedia that is adequate to be added to the referenced page. -- :) Dave Rbrim (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

your geo converter

Hello, my username in the german wikipedia is Kolossos and I working on geo-stuff there for a long time. I send you a mail, but perhaps you didn't get it. I believe we had contact a long time ago.

You published your geoconverter http://www.rhaworth.com/os/ under GPL. My question is where can I found the source-code and is it real free?

We have in the german wikipedia in the moment a discussion why the reverse function in the geohack seems to have a little mistake (a displacement of 100m in direction NWN). (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:WikiProjekt_Georeferenzierung#en:Template:gbmappingsmall)

And one of the wikipedians want to translate a long list of coordinates from uk-coord to wgs84. So for all of this the code could be usefull.

For questions of stability and security it would be perhaps better your script would also run on toolserver. There is a page where you can ask for an account: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Toolserver/New_accounts

Or if you want, I can publish the program there.

But perhaps it is also better to replace all oscoor Templates. The reason for this is that the faster extracting of geo informations for services like wiki-mini-atlas runs now over the external link table in the database which searching for "geohack". This is an important feature and UK shouldn't be a white area in such maps.

Greetings Kolossos (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the problem Kolossos is referring to has been discussed under Template_talk:Oscoor#datum. My idea is to implement the necessary datum shift both ways: from OSGB36 to WGS84 and back to OSGB36. The latter can be done inside the GeoHack (on the toolserver); we should find a way to realize the former. --Telford (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Worship pastor/Worship Pastor

Why did you swap them around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThankful (talk • contribs) 19:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Rugbymania

I'm sorry if you aren't the right guy to write, but I don't know where and to who write. I'm a italian user that sometimes adding the link in english voice to italian twin page. Some week ago i create a page in italian wikipedia for a on-line game (Rugbymania) because i have seen that on wikipedia there are page to other game of same kind, and i know this game I play. When I had finished to translate my Italian page I created the page in english wikipedia but now I see that It was be cancelled. I write you because I found a notice that said I can ask to an admin news about it... I would an e-mail with the page (if it's possible...but I read that it's possible) and I also want understand why the page was be deleted. I write it because I have found page like Hattrick, Football Manager Live, Goal Line Blitz or Blood Wars, Hattrick, Ogame, Pardus, Travian, Twin Skies and Urbandead.I thought that I could write a similar page...what differenze are there among this page?I must use a different format?thank you very much for you time an sorry for my bad english.--Cenzin (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, last question:if I find indipendent RS may I re-create the page??--Cenzin (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcomes

Hello, RHaworth. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Chzz  ►  18:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Online Racing Association

Hi Roger,

You marked my organization's wiki entry for deletion, on the grounds that; it is an 'advert for non-notable website'.

I would like to contest this three fold.

It is not an advert, as we have not payed to be entered into wikipedia or to advertise on wikipedia. Its is an encyclopedia history of our established organization.

Define non-notable. We are one of the most established sim racing governing bodies, in the vain of Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, are well known in our field, and have partnerships with Turn 10, Autosport, Radio Le Mans and SRT.

Yes we have a website (like all organizations) but that is not the focus of the entry, the website is referenced in one small section.

Hope this can be cleared up as soon as possible. Yours, AJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJzero (talk • contribs) 10:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DJ John B

Hello, I recently filed a request with Orangemike to reopen the wiki on the British drum and bass DJ, John B. I have been currently working on the beginnings of an article that has the potential to expand over time. I believe it is also a worthy asset to the wikiproject on electronic music which is expanding day by day also. I do feel unfortunatly that Orangemike is being unfair by being uncooperative in this process and that is why I am asking you, as the second person who deleted this wiki if you will reopen it. I have worked very hard on it so far, and believe that it is a good work in progress. You can take a look at it here: User:Jonzo1990/JohnB. Thank you in advance for your reply and taking the time to look at my wiki. {Jonzo1990 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)}

So, then, would one article be properly called a wikus?Gyldwiz (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OTRS

We got a ticket for Logic Voice, so I undeleted it as it is no longer a copyvio, but I figured I would let you know in case you wished to apply another deletion process. MBisanz talk 14:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Grave mistake

I moved List of links for information relating to Graves' disease to User:Sbharris/sandbox in accordance with my shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy. I now see that it is stuff hived off the parent article and that it had been discussed. But even so, I suggest you seek support at talk:Graves' disease before moving it back. Why not put it on your website? Or downgrade it to a sub-page of talk:Graves' disease? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? What makes you think you get to use "shoot first, ask questions later," and not I? Since I did indeed act first. The article I created was an exquistitely sourced and verifiable list of links which works fine as a stand alone list, and an expansion of the subsection of external links in the main article. It solves several problems. What you've done now is speedily delete an article out of process, for reasons which you cannot defend. Take a look at List of Chinese people. Not to be impolite, but why don't you insert that one into YOUR sandbox? You are not helping to solve problems, here. SBHarris 23:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop moaning and just reverse my move! The only thing I have deleted was the redirect left behind by the move. What earthly relevance has List of Chinese people to the current matter? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's just an illustrative monster useful for illustrating that a stand-alone list can cover a multitude of problems. Thanks, I'll go ahead and recreate it. If somebody else doesn't like it, I won't fight, but I really think this is a better way to keep good info than in my sandbox. ;) SBHarris 01:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an exquisite difference. How many external links are there in list of Chinese people? Re the re-creation: I said move not re-create. But that is not important. What is important is that you should have created the article with an edit summary of: "split off from Graves' disease - see discussion in Talk:Graves' disease". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you doing to the dyslexia project

Why are you destroying the work of the dyslexia project editors trying to carry out a standard WIKI task of reducing an over large article into smaller more accessable units. It is bad enough being dyslexic and having to workout all the text based instructions that WIKi use to describe all their codes with few diagnrams and examples hard to find, without someone undoing your work half way thought he process.

So please look at the discussion board before making any more vandalistic changes. — dolfrog (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me what exactly I have "destroyed". In my view, all I have done was to correct a few non-standard article titles.
Re these changes: if you do not like alexia (disorder) as a title, please tell me what you would like. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

First Alexia is another term for Acquired Dyslexia, thye are the samething, and i have premission to merge Acquired Dyalexia with Alexia, but I created the joint name as some will still use both names when searching. It the very near future when the technology exists to prove the issues both developmental Dyslexia and Alexia will both be refered to as dyalexia, but not yest as research as not got that far yet.

On the Dyslexia you undid a days work of moving information from the main dyalexia article tro the new Dyslexia research category of articles, undid my summerisation of the content on the main Dyslexia article and changed the WIKI style links to the new article containing the fuller information, which will be added to in the near future. I did ask for help a bout a week ago but none was forthcoming, so as a dyslexic i have got used to coping and muddling through, so if you have any productive advice it is welcome, but please ask what we are trying to do in the wiki environment, which is very dyslexia unfriendly, it is impossible to work out how WIKI works there are easy to follow visual instructions, it is all text. — dolfrog (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I will ask the questions again: is alexia (disorder) an acceptable title or would you like me to move the page again? How on earth can a few page moves undo days of work? All you edits are still there and visible in the current version of each article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you could be more supportive it might help! fist Alexia is not a disorder. So Alexia (disorder) is wrong.

Alexia (Aquired Dyslexia) or some form of those words would be correct.

Second is are the changes you made to the Dyslexia you called it "tidy headings" and I call it "Vandalism" a difference of opinion, but you are not having to edit a project on your own while at the same time having to work out how wiki works. As I said before the are no user friendly instructions, and frying to find sample templates etc can take a day or more just to make the simplest of changes. The problem with the Dyslexia article is that one of the previous editors skewed the article towards a particular remedial program, and although the most recent research papers were included, the research somehow never match the content it was cited to support. So I have had to loclate the cited papers, to chech what they actually researched, and the results/ conclusions and then compare that with the content of the Dyslexia Article. I have spent the last month just correcting the technical content of the article before I could even bergin to add more recent research, and begin to break the article up into mkore managabler smaller articles, to take the placew of the overlarge sections.

The new articles and categories have been created so that the main dyalexia article can act as a summary for the whole project.

Yes I need WIKI technical help because my disability Auditory Processing Disorder which causes me to be dyalexic makes the wiki environemtn a very stressful environment.

I see that you are from the UK as well, so you will know what I mean when I say that having Auditory Processing Disorder qualifies me to the middle level of Disability Living Allowance. — dolfrog (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are acting pompously and making changes you do not understand, you have nom idea waht you are doing, just to satify your administrator ego. — dolfrog (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

apology accepted

Can we start again.

I tried to revert some of your changes but wiki would not let me undo your changes or it could be my lack of understanding of WIKI. If we couold discuss the vindividual issues further it would be greatly appreciated. As I havbe mentioned, i do have a communication disability regarding the processing of language both verbal and written, and cometimes it takes me awhile to find the words I need to use, it tis called having a word recall problem, and so i have to find alternativce words which may not be the appropriate words to express waht I mean which is why i takes me so long to make some edits, or understand the full meaning of waht has been stated especially when i am stressed.

I look forward to your reply. — dolfrog (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia: Orthography is an ugly title which needs moved. But first the article needs to be made comprehensible and its copyright violation removed. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem with that

I would prefer the "Genetic factors of dyslexia" To be reverted back to "Dyslexia Genetic research" your choise of word order and spelling is not a problem, but This is specialised area of Genetic research, which started back in 1987 and still has some way to go, so ther so called factors are still to be defined and fully understood.

I had a WIKI technical peoblem yesterday which concerned the new category "Dyslexia support by country" I have not yet work out this should be set up, but found a round about way of setting it up. (never able to find an understandable explaination from any of the wiki advice pages) There are otrher categories on othwer topics such as Education which have a by country category and the artilces appear in alphabetic order by country regardless of the first word in the article title. In my attempts to find a way around this problem the artilce which should be called "Dyslexia Support in the United Kingdom" has ended up as Dyslexia in the United Kingdom. The cause of this problem is the lack of willingness of those who run "Special Education" and "Special Educational Needs" artilces to take a global view on the topic of the provision of special educatiopnal needs country by country, including the statutory provisions, the rights of children and parent whoi have SEN problems, Disability rights (Especially DDA and DED in the UK) and the various support structurs in place and the locla voluntary support organisations etc. This should not be all related just to dyalexia but there you go.

Sorry for the rant. — dolfrog (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making the name change it will make asking others to make a similar articles for their own country much easier. — dolfrog (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi could you some how delete this article User:Dolfrog/Dyslexia Support Provision in UK I have removed all the content and it is now redundant. dolfrog (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Made some additions to Dyslexia: Orthography are they what you wanted

dolfrog (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Mass Effect

I guess it was a stupid idea to 'reserve' space for a future wikiproject, so no hard feelings about you deleting it. I will just restart it once I have done something with it. :) bye 'The Ninjalemming' 09:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

These are currently showing a 403 Forbidden error when accessed. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Never mind oscoor - all my recent holiday snaps are inaccessible! At the top of this page it says "Box16 accounts Q-Z are offline. Resolving...". oscoor is currently on Box16 with an R account. I have plans to move the resource to the toolserver - watch for my reply to your geo converter above - coming shortly. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

File:Beeston Regis Priory 24 01 09 (4).JPG
"Copyright rests with English Heritage - you as the photographer, have no rights to the image. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)"

English Heritage do not own the priory pond which is a SSI and is on land fenced of from the priory land and this photograph is of the priory pond and not part of the priory. I don’t see how this violates copyright. Stavros1 (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazon Kindle Content Sources

In the current discussion as to whether or not to delete Amazon Kindle Content Sources, you supported the deletion of the article due to the number of external links in the article. I have since removed the external links in place of proper names and wondered whether you would like to reconsider your opinion. Thanks! Greg Tyler (t • c) 09:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Email

I have sent you an email RHaworth. Please reply as soon as possible whenever it is most convenient for you.

Thanks Zack182 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sanghera

You suggested that Sanghera.jatt (talk · contribs) try recreating his Sanghera page, but the page is protected from recreation. Admittedly, his efforts have been poor, but after reading your suggestions to him about Indian gotras, I took a crack at the new page he created (which was just the same as the old pages). I believe the edited version falls more in line with the style of the other Jat gotra pages, although it does need references for verification. Can you unprotect the page and move Sangherajatt to Sanghera (its proper title)? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

advice on car park articles

Thanks for the tip on publishing on wikitravel. Shame no one else thought to suggest it instead of just deleting and redirecting them. Thanks again! — Stefanchou (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cower - copyright infringement

My apologies. I was involved in the Spirit Of The Game article and did not realize it had been copyrighted. That version needs some revisions and editing. Can you release the copy I had submitted to Wikipedia, or tell me how to get to that source, and I will rectify the submission. I have been getting feedback from my community with several suggested corrections and modifications. Thanks. — CharlieSchmidt (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The source is here. If you want the very light editing you applied to created the Wikipedia version - set up an e-mail address. But I hope you looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cower - despite the alleged antiquity, this has all the hallmarks of a recently invented game of the sort that we delete at the rate of about one a week - see the AfD discussions in this list. Do not even think about reposting until you have found multiple independent references to show that it is notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/Archive_to_2009_June&oldid=1173856717"