User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2006 May

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

denvilles station

Lil the Whore

RHaworth, as for Lil the Whore this is a traditional poem with no author. It dates to at least 1945 with the earliest printed version in 1947... I haven't added that reference yet. Oh, the 1947 book, Folk Poems and Ballads, was not copyrighted because it was considered obscene.

Yes, I know people are worried about copyrighted lyrics on Wikipedia but traditional poems can not be copyrighted. Hopefully I have demonstrated that there are variations to the poem. If you are still concerned, please read the Journal of American Folklore article by Baker.

As for the redirects, the Lil the Whore poem is found under various titles as is Eskimo Nell. Luckily there are very few variants to the title of Eskimo Nell.

So have you heard of Eskimo Nell before? If yes, were you familiar with the American version of the poem?

John Mehlberg 18:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)



find this station

south oxted. the southerner 18:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Never existed. What proof have you that it existed and where was it? -- RHaworth 01:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

precisely. you say it has never existed but it has. its still in peoples minds as they remember the station. you just cant find proof on the internet. i know that denvilles is on the net somewhere we just have to have a deep look. the southerner 09:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Subject : Cottier - Cottier, Cotter

  1. The thing that brought you to my attention was that you created "Cottier, Cotter" which was a very bad title, a) because you put quotes round it and b) because it was really two separate titles

My reply : OK - you're right, it should be two separate titles, then.

  1. You apparently learned nothing from that and created 'Cottier' with single quotes round it.

My reply : OK, there again- I'll replace those single quotes by double ones.

    • No. No. No. You omit the quotes from the article title.
  1. On a stylistic point we prefer " rather than “” and we do not leave a space between the quotes and the word enclosed. And in general italics would probably be better than "'s. Also you using bold too much.

My reply : Read you remarks - fine, if on Wikipedia (and you know about it much better than I) that's what's to be preferred.

  1. I do not understand you: you say "we CANNOT put article entitled Cottier UNDER article entitled Cotter" but then you write an article about both surnames.

My reply : I meant that one should not put the first (Cottier) UNDER (= AFTER) the second (Cotter), because this second word (Cotter) is etymologically derived from the first, and not vice versa ; so, either one should put Cotter AFTER Cottier, in one single entry ; or - put TWO different entries (but this last solution is not really satisfying, I feel).

  1. Let me explain slowly how we do things here: having one article about Cottier and Cotter is a good thing because it helps to compare and contrast them. Then, because multiple title are applicable we create the other titles as #REDIRECT articles. I think the best is Cottier as the main article with a redirect from Cotter (surname), but I shall not object if you move Cottier to Cottier and Cotter with both Cotter and Cottier (surname) as redirects to it.

My reply : This, according to me (putting BOTH names under just ONE single entry) is indeed by far more interesting.

  1. Truth is I have no interest in this topic - I just want to keep Wikipedia tidy. Avoid doing the following and you will probably never cross my path again: quotes in titles, copy-and-paste instead of move and double redirects.

My reply : I understand your wanting to 'keep things tidy'. I also understand your not having any special interest in the topic... Which makes your editing even more generous !

  1. All the above may seem confusing but I assure you it is all standard Wikipedia stuff. I was in Paris last week [1]. Think of this as my revenge for a street map which is arranged in a spiral !

My reply : What you've just explained is not at all confusing - it's very clear. And about the 'spiral' - I'm going to have a look at it right away. A Paris street map... Yes, they can be quite daunting (but then - hey, what about London crescents ???!!).

  1. Please don't let me put you off and please keep contributing. -- RHaworth 20:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My reply : You haven't put me off - quite the contrary, you've been most helpful. You've done here valuable, precise work (thanks for your patience...).

With many thanks and warm regards : Elisabeth Cottier Fábián 23:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sinagogue of Satan

Some time back, you speedily deleted and protected the page Sinagogue of Satan, and this was the correct thing to do, as the article was a poorly-written, PoV-raddled stub. However, I have now written a replacement article as a part of an agreement with the original editor, and I was hoping that we might be able to take down the protected page, and replace it with this new article.

The new article may be found at: User:Rev. Michael S. Margolin/Sinagogue of Satan. Would it be possible to go about this? Thank you. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 19:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • If you read my previous reply (now buried in the archive), please ignore - I was confused because you created the new version in Margolin's user space instead of your own. I am not competent to judge your article - it is not my area neither by subject nor by geography. Take your request to deletion review - and do it properly this time - instead of this pointless request. -- RHaworth 22:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, okay, thought I might try the Admin first. Gracie. And yeah, unfortunately, the original poster has done more harm to his case than good, with things like that request. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 11:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Denvilles - help needed

Heyup, you said you have sorted your problem, still if you need any help, I'll happy to at least look at my sources and try and help you out. Regards, Captain scarlet 08:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have added a coordinate header hoping that it will provide information to who knows the area/region and maybe shed alight on this fantom station. If anyone is in the area it might be appropriate to go on location, do some research and take photos. I've done that concerning dissused stations in Sheffield and it has served me well. Regards, Captain scarlet 10:30, 30 March 2006 (GMT)

Thank you but did you not notice the map sources link at the bottom? -- RHaworth 06:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Denvilles railway station

Hiya you voted "Delete" on the Denvilles railway station article. I've provided a new source and possible explanation for the lack of other verification. could you please review your vote? I appreciate that you may not want to change it after seeing the evidence, of course! Vizjim 10:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

move

I have moved Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann and clique to User:Bgully/Dbachmann and clique. -- RHaworth 15:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear RHaworth: Why did you move that page? Thanks. Bgully 07:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It was in the (Main) namespace where it definitely did not belong. Since it did not appear to have been properly linked into the RfA process, I moved it where I did. Now you should move it into the Wikipedia: namespace and raise it is an RfA. -- RHaworth 07:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I resubmitted it. Please check if all right, and correct if necessary. Thanks in advance, Bgully 07:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Correct if necessary - don't be cheeky - if you want arbitration you must do the work of requesting it. -- RHaworth 16:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

f

do you mind leaving my stuff alone you prat the southerner 09:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Please a) be civil and b) specify which edit/s you object to. -- RHaworth 09:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Regarding the article 9:The Teller of Tales, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "patent nonsense", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because it is not patent nonsense, it is a review of a cartoon show. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle 21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the article 14:The Purr-fect Plan, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "patent nonsense", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because it is not patent nonsense, it is a review of a cartoon show. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle 21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the article 13:Good Pirates vs. Bad Pirates, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "patent nonsense", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because it is not patent nonsense, it is a review of a cartoon show. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle 21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I did hesitate for a moment over tagging these. People who create context-free articles deserve all they get. But in this case the creator had not been given much time from being warned. -- RHaworth 08:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for collaboration.

Hello,

Thanks for tagging the IHRO entry for wikification. There is a newer tag which is rather similar in format to the {{cleanup}} tag you used. In the future, could you please use the {{wikify-date|April 2006}} tag in place of the {{wikify}} tag? There is an effort underway to make it easier to sort through articles that may require wikification, and using the suggested tag would be very helpful.

Your assistance with this effort will be greatly appreciated.

Cheers, Folajimi 17:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • You clearly have not noticed that a young lady called Pearle seems to positiviely love making this change for people - Special:contributions/Pearle. It would seem almost mean to deprive her of the pleasure. -- RHaworth 07:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops

Fixed the issue, and went do Starbucks to grab enough caffeine to figure out how I could make such a silly mistake (well, it was 1 in the morning for me). Thanks for pointing it out! -- Tawker 16:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Station article names

Hi RHaworth, there conrently no policy concerning the naming of station name other than the self appointed unappropriate, false and inaccurate policy of adding 'railway' to the name of every station article. I have only renamed the station names of the stations of the sector I am working on so as to not offend anyone else working on UK stations. It is my ultimate goal though to have all station articles both named after the actual station name and named after what they are referred to in litterature, atlases and guides so as to not create any confusion, nowhere is there a station called 'railway' other very isolated cases. I am not about to start a national renaming scheme (although I'd like to see one) of remainf all stations by removing the station and adding a capitalised S. I know that my scheme is the official naming scheme but some editors do not see it that way so I have only renamed closed statons articles so as to not disrupt the current unappropriate namingscheme. Regards, Captain scarlet 23:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: closed or open, we still like "railway station" no that's not accuratly true, you and trytuf (can't remember his name like that, but bboks, Britihs rail, timetables, maps and noral outdoor people don't, please refrain from moving regional articles which are actively used by regionale communities which are trying to promote and define an accurate picture of the region studied. Regards, Captain scarlet 00:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Structural moving

I just noticed this edit on the article and decided to let you know I've now categorized it. At the time, I couldn't find a good category and I was pressed for time as well. Will keep that template in mind... - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

redrought

Move, redirected its just the same thing! Storm05 18:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why you are deleting the topic?

why you keep deleting the topic Poizon Green? The topic got changed. This time I opened it and it's not showing any vandalism anymore i guess. You can compare it with the previous version. Even Abid Ahmed (the one who requested to delete the topic) commented that the new one is much better and standard now. So why keep deleting it? Filthy 16:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What? Why should i stick that with my user page? It's not my band. I'm a fan of the band that's it. Or you are saying if the people vote to keep the topic then i will be able to open it as a new one? (not with my user name) Filthy 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The second. Create in your "user area" where people are unlikely to notice its creation, let alone seek to delete it. Then seek permission to transfer it to (Main). As it stands, it is unlikely to be accepted - attend to {{wikify}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{catNeeded}}. -- RHaworth 18:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Malpas listed buildings

Hi Thanks for your suggestions regarding the Malpas Listed building things. I've done as you suggested and merged the Gates articles into the church article. Just a couple of things.

  1. I followed the wiki procedure for merging - it suggests a REDIRECT to preserve the revision history of the page - as I created those articles this morning and there were no other contributors, this seems like a senseless waste of server space - can you tag them for deletion and then I'll fix the links? (or can I tag them for deletion?)
  2. I'm now confused about what the policy should be when writing about listed buildings and whether or not I should give them a category tag. Church of Saint Oswald now has both Grade I and Grade II* tags, if I merge the Old Print Works article into Malpas, Cheshire should I give that article a Grade II* tag as well. Maybe it would be better to write a new article with a title something along the lines of Listed Buildings of Malpas, Cheshire which would be a really big article about all of the buildings and contain Grade I, II* and II tags? I'd appreciate your advice.
  3. Is there a fix for the IoE problem?

Many thanks and sorry if these are stupid questions but I'm a questioning kind of bloke. Russ --Mcginnly 19:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

    1. Redirects. You are right, redirects resulting from a merge should be kept to preserve the edit history. But in this case since both contributors are happy with deletion, I have done so and fixed the links. (Fact is tagging a redirect and deleting it probably takes up more server space than simply leaving it untouched!)
    2. I have not seen a policy on listed buildings - if you find one, follow it and ignore me! (If you can't find one, start one!) Please note that the extra links I have just added from Malpas, Cheshire to Church of Saint Oswald are suggestions only. If you follow them, it would mean the article would need to be in all three listed building categories but I see nothing wrong in that. Yes, I would say put all the listed buildings around the church into the church article and start Listed buildings of Malpas, Cheshire (with a small 'b' please) for the rest. I don't like very short articles and some of the buildings would definitely run into "notability" problems if you tried to write individual articles for them. I know Wikipedia is almost infinitely expandable but a separate article for each red telephone box? I don't think so - no more than I would think of creating a separate article for each of two hundred Coal Tax posts - so far have I just got one into Wikipedia - on the unlikeliest title: furlong.
    3. The IoE link problem is fixed - just omit the pid=2&.
-- RHaworth 08:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Many thanks the mists have lifted. --Mcginnly 10:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Arsenal of Democracy Speech Article Impetus

Hi! What a lovely way to jack up the edit counter! And me barely in Zzzzland!

There are a few of these FDR chats that are so important that we need the coverage here, IMHO.
If you disagree, I submit then the proper place to debate is on the talk with subsequent Vfd, etc. as the article matures.
I have far too much other work hereon to care much one way or the other, but I was shocked and amazed when searching our whole data base a few nights back failed to turn up this famous phrase.
Besides, my interest is in adding material, not exporting historic events because there is another wiki inadequately cross-searchable giving some coverage. Thus the detailed beginnings of the historical climate before and behind... something many readers browsing might find interesting and continue on from educationally, our focus, N'est pas?
In my opinion, this kind of tying article is one of our greatest advantages over printed encyclopedias and certainly follows in the spirit of WP:Btw.
IMHO, such are doubly important as it's exactly the kind of presentation that gets one to read more, or so I hope to nefariously plot to educate millions. LOL!
No matter, the search failure alone is a rather serious shortcoming considering how many hits it gets with the coresponding google search for same, and wikipedia was missing it's normal prominence therein. (Xposting to Talk:Arsenal of Democracy)

I'm a tad surprised you're unhappy with an article like this on our shared history. If we hadn't had this event, You in the UK would have lost before we got involved.
Best regards, FrankB 16:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Also What Do you Advise on this?

Hi again! I finished prepping '1939' last night in a temp file but the database was locked on me before I could xfer it over. I'll be getting back to it soon. (I've got to go play taxi-Dad right now.) This matter is also history driven.

What would you think about the wisdom of posting a discrete link to this notice at the very page top Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals, and how do you like the concept? Something in a box saying See this New Notice (Flashing lights and sirens wouldn't be enough as far as I can see!)

  • What other actions might be in order- RFC, VP, Adds at head ends of CAT:CAT and key children cats 'top down'...? The utility and desirability seems self-evident. Can't figure out why it wasn't part of the system from day one.

Sigh! Back to content edits! Best! FrankB 21:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What Do you Advise on this? Category Xref to parentFrankB

  • Sorry, perhaps I am thick but could you please spell out a bit more clearly what you are proposing. -- RHaworth 23:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • See again - edited update. Short form: I've been having vision problems, and missed the key tree in the forest. Best!FrankB 04:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I am still mystified. Perhaps a specific example of what you want people to do might help. -- RHaworth 04:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - You can ignore that now, but the example was given in the original link navigating to ... check failure!

More Egg on Face

Oops: I apparently didn't save the edit to the Category page... Here's the current note just posted:

  1. I apparently never saved out on the edit I was recommending. It should have looked like This example or when polished for presentation and organization, the current: Category:History of Canada . Apparently too many open browser windows, or the like. Apologies FrankB
    1. I'd not been aware of the parent category's, which on my default Skin, are usually off way the bottom of the webpage. I was proposing (and still do on long CAT pages) that we annote the category page with a link up and back to the parent category or categories.
    2. Also that we follow the unofficial convention I'd been seeing in some Cat Pages that inspired the idea, which was to list the title or titles of main articles coresponding to the subject category as well. This latter concept has recieved some acceptance in talks with various others.
    3. In sum, having spammed 5 of you more experienced wikipedians for advice, I found I was reinventing the wheel, but made one overt suggestion with apparently additional merit to some eyes.
  2. I also learned some about skins recommendations, and am now 'empowered' to navigate categories in ways that were inobvious, or unseen (The reference to my old eyes above). So in sum, sorry for the trouble, but it never hurts to get advice, IMHO.
    1. Speaking of which, I'm out of the Aresenal of Democracy article for priority 'older business' for a few days, but I couldn't turn up the WikiSource URL listing the speech to link it in the article.
    2. If you can relocate that and imbed a link to same in the appropriate section, I want to generate a peer review to garner further developmental suggestions, reactions, and such to ponder concerning further evolving it, or abandoning the effort. Or whatever. Add w/strikeouts: WikiServer was acting up when I tested the link you'd imbedded so it did nothing. Somewhat later it stopped taking all edits for a while.FrankB 17:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    3. Last, what policy/guideline are you invoking such that you want the source text out of this article? I'm reluctant to have the context, with an easily overlooked link in place of the hard to miss body, and if someone reads down that far, the article served an excellent purpose, and depriving them of the excellent speech would be a pity. If you've any thoughts on how to locate and embed a sound link, that would be a wonderful icing for this cake!

Thanks, again sorry. Best regards, FrankB 21:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oncostsatin

You should probably move your comments to User:Mvilchez to his talk page. Also see my comments there and add anything you feel appropriate. Thatcher131 18:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Oops! Thanks. -- RHaworth 18:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cent

Hello, I see you've recently edited {{cent}}. This is quite all right and I encourage you to help keep it current. But please don't forget to log your changes at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log. This will help us stay all on the same page -- no pun intended. Thank you. John Reid 12:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh dear, so much housekeping. -- RHaworth 12:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Method Engineering Encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia. This is a good idea — but I don't think that the AfDs should be closed unilaterally like this. They've been opened, are being voted in, and look set to achieve clear consensus. Closing them essentially means overturning that consensus. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • OK. Feel free to re-open them but I think each one should link to the centralised discussion. Also, I have to admit that of the three AfDs, I could only find one of the articles listed at WikiProject Method engineering. I get a feeling that we are being inundated by student essays. -- RHaworth 13:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

ME/Utrecht

I've had a look at the issues you raised. This is quite a little rat's nest. I can't agree with your quick proposal to give the lot the door; I think it's too soon to make that judgement. But I strongly agree with your initiative to handle the whole bunch as a unit. That's exactly what Cent is for.

I'd like to ask you, if possible, to reserve judgement for the time being and concentrate on internal research. That is, try to think of yourself as impartial and simply gather evidence for others to review. There are some particular things I'd like to see on the discussion page:

  • A list of every Utrecht-ian connected to this thing -- real name, user name, IP.
  • A list of every page they have created, no matter which namespace.

It would be especially nice if we could see any external links to some sort of primer or tutorial on the subject, some basic introduction.

Also, I find it funny that with all these articles, there is not one at Method engineering itself.

This is your ball now, so run with it; but I will be glad to help out. John Reid 14:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Social Nudity

Please examine recent user contributions by User:Cyndiann. She removed all content from Clothes free movement and Clothes free people and redirected it to article titles with the NPOV term naturism in the title in them, then rewrote the articles using NPOV naturism. Can you please help me get an admin involved this dispute? I'm sorry if I made errors. Where is the best place to discuss this? I'm concerned that any article that is in the middle of an edit/revert/move war could lose the dialogue. Please Please help!!!! Thanks. Dandelion1 01:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, even though I am into naturism myself, I cannot really spare the time to get involved in this. Especially since I approve of nudism redirecting to naturism and see absolutely no point in starting a separate clothes free movement article. And you've done it again! You copy-and-pasted The people behind naturism on to Clothes free people instead of using a move. Please stick to Wikipedia standards. I have deleted Clothes_free_people and recreated it as a redirect. This means (I believe) that a non-admin could reverse the move made by user:Cyndiann.
To answer your question. You have started the right way with a discussion at Talk:Clothes free movement and links to it. Create more links: from talk:The people behind naturism, etc. If you don't get a clear consensus or editor/s refuse to follow the consensus, then you can start a request for arbitration. -- RHaworth 01:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Vehicles in Carshalton pond

  • I'll take up your challange of getting a photo of a car in Carshalton Pond. I too see the fence broken almost every time I pass that way. The closest I've ever seen a vehicle in the pond was a coach which had one wheel over the edge. I dont actually think cars go in the pond that often though, just that they damage the barrier. If I see a car in the pond I'll take a photo and let you know -- laurenceandrews 08:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can trouble you for a little feedback

You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 19:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi Roger,

Would you be able to semi-protect the Transnistria page? It's under attack by an open proxy IP, most likely a sock of the banned User:Bonaparte. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 06:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • with pleasure - I reverted the most recent edit first. -- RHaworth 06:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot! --Khoikhoi 06:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Iggens Repost

Hi was the user that reposted Iggens User:JizzyJonII? Thanks.--blue520 06:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes - they actually did it to Infidel Iggens but I moved it to emphasise the fact that it was a repost. -- RHaworth 06:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, the user may be a sock puppet (hope I am wrong though) of User:WoodDaver or User:Obiwan82 also there is the article that is a bit suspect by the user Burgess the Great. What should I do next or who should I take this to?--blue520 06:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sadly there is little one can do except chase and delete their work as soon as you see it. I have seen this mentioned as the only solution to real-world vandalism as well. They will eventually get bored and go away - and there are more of us than there are of them. Blocking users is pointless - they just think of a new name. Blocking IP addresses may not work - they know to use dial-up / open proxies - see User talk:JizzyJonII. But read Wikipedia:Requests for investigation and all the things it links to. -- RHaworth 07:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that, I have had a good read.--blue520 09:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Nuder

Get involved in social nudity naming convention debates!

Hi, I'd like to invite you to get involved in establishing consensus in discussions concerning naming conventions for social nudity topics. Please join in this community discussion regarding the name of Portal:Clothes free. Participate here: Portal_talk:Clothes_free#Votes

Please also join in the discussion about what to name an article dealing with social nudity. I believe the the latter term is a better term to use than naturism or nudism as it is more WP:NPOV and is in use currently. Formerly the article was titled Clothes free movement. Participate here: Talk:Naturism#Move_to_Social_nudity

Cheers, User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 19:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Dialing Codes of Pakistan

I forgot to filter the extra numbers from the dialing codes. I will fix the page. Thanks for head up. Siddiqui 11:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Patimokkha

I'm aware of the general rule regarding the primary source. However, I thought that inclusion of the list is appropriate in this instance. Main reason is that the list is likely to be included in "Encycropedia of (Theravada) Buddhism" if such an encycropedia exist. In encycropedia, especially a specialised one, they often include information from primary source if the information is considered to be a fundamental refernce for the subject concerned. I'm following the wikipedia policy that wikipedia is an (online) encycropedia. So I added the list but forked it in different page. As I'm at least resorting to the spirit if not the letter of one of wikipedia's key policy, I would prefer it if you put this matter up to a discussion. Vapour

How about removing the comment which was added next to the lists. It reduce the size significantly. Vapour

Opps, I missed wikisource. yeah, I'm happy to move it to wikisource if it can be accessed easily from wikipedia. Vapour

  • The whole point is that this is Wikipedia and not the "Encyclopedia of (Theravada) Buddhism". (Why do I keep finding these - I am also commenting on some people who seem to trying to hijack Wikipedia to be the "Method Enginering Encyclopedia"!)
  • How about removing the comment which was added next to the lists - What source what lists?
  • I have created {{Patimokkha/rules template}} which proposes discussion.
  • Linking to wikisource is easy: just use {{wikisource}} or one of the other similar templates.
-- RHaworth 09:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Saturn's Flea Collar

Could you do me a favour and delete Saturn's Flea ollar, a redirect created just now by a mishit key. Ta Wikeawade 09:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if you think that's best then do it. I'd never even heard of the band before, I was just moving the page because I happened to see it had been orphaned at its previous location. Thought it'd never improve if no-one knew it was there. Wikeawade 09:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I did not notice that you were not the author. I will leave it - I try to avoid nn-band discussions. -- RHaworth 09:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Functional Neurological Deficit

Definition refined - comments please. -- Simon 13:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)alpinist

Comments:
  • You don't believe in Wikification do you? I am an idle bugger, if someone leaves a message such as yours, I expect them to provide a wikilink to the article in question so I can just click to get to it.
  • All I can see that approaches a definition is: presentation may be similar to a wide range of other neurological conditions from paralysis to weakness which still seems awfully vague. Perhaps you should try a different approach and write a section called "Diagnosis"?
-- RHaworth 13:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break I've only started!!!

Simon 16:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)alpinist

Image:AberdeenBestiaryFol56rPhoenixDetail.jpg

Please see my reply at Image talk:AberdeenBestiaryFol56rPhoenixDetail.jpg Dsmdgold 14:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Goon Show

Thanks for the note on the The Goon Show format article, I had missed that. I don't think separating the article is warranted at this time. Tex 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Control card

I don't want to step on anybody's toes, but I think your article on the Control card was better with a disambiguation page in it like it was earlier today before it got reverted.[2] It looks like the revert and the deletion of the disambiguation page was part of some battle going on between the editors, but shouldn't the most important thing be which version of the article is best? --Pinot noir 02:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about this, Roger. It looks like I got in the middle of a war. I added the disambiguation back to the page and a citation. Now JW1805 has deleted your whole article, redirecting it to punch cards. --Pinot noir 02:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Image:Skyway1 full.jpg

The Image you specify is from the official city of heroes website. (Toored 13:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

No way ted

see Talk:Gare de Le Havre

RE: Your comment on PIA Flight 740 about "FL"

Hi Roger, I just updated the article with a link to Flight Level for FL. Simply put, FL350 means 35,000 feet (although it may not be 35k above mean sea level, see Flight Level for explanation). Waqas.usman 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks. That's what Wikipedia is all about - provide a link and you can use an abbreviation such as FL350 without further explanation. -- RHaworth 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Publow and Pensford

I created this article as List of civil parishes in Somerset includes a link to Publow and Pensford but each of the villages have a seperate entry - is there a more elegant way of doing this? Rod 10:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I think I would have written one article at Publow_and_Pensford and made Publow and Pensford into redirects. See for example wot I done to Aingers Green. But what you have done is also acceptable. Main problem was, you omitted the phrase "civil parish" from all three of the articles! Publow_and_Pensford is now, I think, "correct" - it falls into the same class as disambiguation pages. There is no need to link to it from the two village articles because it is purely a navigation aid. -- RHaworth 10:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this & what you've done is great. I probably need to do the same thing with Stowey Sutton and the vilages of Stowey and Bishop Sutton. Rod 10:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

NEETZACH - changes

Dude, Sorry to bother u, but u deleted the entry on NEETZACH - TRUE NORWEGIAN BLACK METAL" of Neetzach (u said that it was a duplicate NEETZACH). Unfortunatelly it wasn't. NEETZACH was only a redirect to NEETZACH - TRUE NORWEGIAN BLACK METAL.

It's not my website, i found it on a list of new additions and since it was a bullshit i decided to completely rewrite it. Yet i like it. Is there anyway we can get it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxs (talk • contribs)

  • Done, but you don't deserve it. Sign you comments on talk pages. Please see above re putting links in talk page comments. I did not say that it was a duplicate NEETZACH, it was a duplicate of Neetzach - be aware of Wikipedia's querky case sensitivity. You caused the problem by creating this redirect. We do not double post articles, we do not put peacock terms in article titles and WE DO NOT USE ALL CAPITALS it is shouting. -- RHaworth 13:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for quick action on Neetzach. Sorry for the lack of the signature.
I know I don't have to, but please let me explain:
1) I didn't create the page NEETZACH - TRUE NORWEGIAN BLACK METAL, in fact I also consider using the CAPS rude, I've found it and since the page was almost like an add in the beginning (statements like Combines all the elements that makes Norwegian Black Metal the best in this shitty world), I corrected it.
2) Redirection was not wise, but that was the only way I knew to >avoid< peacock terms and CAPS.
all in all i tried to avoid all the issues you mentioned, however lame my attempts were.
I'm a new dude around - and that's not an excuse only a statement - and as such I take ur remarks seriously. Please consider in the future that people (especially newbies) might be offended by your harsh (however just) treatment.
--Jinxs 09:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Commons Images

From Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, under Images/Media:

  1. Redundant. An image that is a redundant copy, in the same image file format and same or lower resolution, of something else on Wikipedia. This does not apply to images duplicated on Wikimedia Commons, because of licence issues; these should be tagged with {{NowCommons|Image:newname.ext}} or {{NowCommonsThis}} instead. Dsmdgold 01:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you amend Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons to make that clear before people get to work on the backlog. -- RHaworth 01:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Need your help

Dear RHaworth,

Hi I intro myself as Ashvidia. I had initiated an article called Atmospheric water generator and if u remember u had edited the same. Please help me refine the article i.e formating the text and pictures postioning etc.

Awaiting your prompt action.

Regards,

Ashvidia 03:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As I have said in comments above: provide links when you write here and sign your contributions.
Try this version - well, you did ask! We know it is a veiled advert for your company so the less it looks like an advert the better. Remember that you are addressing the whole world not just India! Too much boldening is almost as bad as USING ALL CAPITALS. You can create: a few more outgoing wikilinks; incoming wikilinks (currently none at all!); one discrete external link to your company's website. -- RHaworth 09:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

French railway station names

Thanks for the heads up - fortunately, I'm fairly easy about what French railway stations are named on the English Wikipedia. My only concern was adding the one station that provided a link to the Folkestone Harbour article. Hammersfan 22/04/06, 11.45 BST

I acknowledged you effort concerning a link between French and British stations and updated the station template accordingly. Regards Captain scarlet 13:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Whose effort do you mean - RHaworth or Hammersfan? What template have you updated? According to your contributions you have not edited any templates in the last ten days. -- RHaworth 13:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hammersfan's efforts. At the bottom of many station article is a template used to show on which line stations are and which stations is next on the line. I'm not trying to do a shady job, but you can't go one communicating to others, undermining my or others' job for no other apparent than to antagonise people. I'm here to enjoy myself and add information to the ncyclopedia, all I see from you is someone bitter doing not much good. I suppose like me you have fields of interest and ought to participate in these fields rather than posting on users' talk pages with such messages. Regards, Captain scarlet 13:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, please be specific: users' talk pages with such messages. Which message/s on which user's talk page are you referring to? -- RHaworth 14:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You must be winding me up... The message you left on user:Hammersfan, are you actually inciting violence, asking for a fight? What are you trying to do? Honnestly. Regards, Captain scarlet 14:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Rawhide4u

I think I figured this "User talk" thing out. I hope this is correct, if not I'll delete it otherwise, Thanks for the help.

I hope you don't mind me "leaning" on you for a little help. How and why would I want to "archive" my usertalk page??

Before you think about archiving you need to think about signing your comments with ~~~~. This also timestamps them. You create an archive when your talk page is getting big. Warnings start when it gets to 32k bytes. You don't have to act immediately but this page (50k bytes), for example, will get archived shortly. -- RHaworth 19:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

CVR map

Permission is granted to use the map of the Churnet Valley line. I will let you use it as you see fit just in case you had a particular place you thought you would like to use it! (On Churnet Valley Railway) -- Aidan Croft

Ashutosh Saxena

I have just noticed that, strangely, user:Ashutosh also, and equally incorrectly, created User:Ashutosh Saxena way back in 2001! and the page managed to survive right through to 2006 April 16 - remarkable. -- RHaworth 11:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there were no stupid administrators like you in 2001, the times when I was adding content to Wikipedia. Atleast I could add some stuff without maniac people like you trying to delete pages within minutes of being created; leaving no time to edit/refine it. I am done with Wikipedia.Ashutoshsaxena 11:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that your depth perception software looks notable. Why don't you try writing about it in relevant robot-related pages instead of just making it look like vanity by putting it in an article about yourself. See WP:AUTO. -- RHaworth 11:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that Wikipedia has gained much more status now -- back in 2001 when I added a lot of articles about Electronics / Mathematics, it was much simple. I was planning to add some stuff under machine Learning and Robotics, but now I do not feel like it; with CIA like administrators monitoring in real time. What the heck, why am I bothering to even write this. Ashutoshsaxena 11:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one would accuse you of being modest. I see that Tawkerbot2 joined in as well - he did not exist back in 2001! -- RHaworth 11:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

cite.php

More about cite.php's poor rendering of reference arrows. If we look at the cite.php references in Tourette syndrome, they render as daggers and straight vertical lines, and they are all bold and well defined ... but they are at 80% font size. I changed them to 100% font size and then they looked exactly like the poorly defined vertical arrows I've been seeing on my IE browser. Look at these two screen shots of the Tourette references, one is using regular 100% font size and one is using 80% font size ==> image:Tourette references 100%.jpg and ==> image:Tourette references 80%.jpg

There is no question but that the font size changes the appearance entirely! Cite.php should abandon the arrows and go back to using the caret. - mbeychok 16:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

wiki-refcard.tex

Why don't you do the necessary links, so that everybody can benefit — THANKS Michael Janich 14:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I have no interest. Within the (Main) namespace, the article counted as trash and could have been deleted. I decided on a kinder option. -- RHaworth 17:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Thewoowoogrub

Boy, thanks for catching that. Mea culpa entirely, I hadn't noticed it was a User page. I appreciate the speedy revert. Gwernol 01:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Is wasn't a user page - it was nonsense. Userfying just makes my conscience a bit easier - all I delete is a redirect with me as the creator! -- RHaworth 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that would certainly explain why I didn't notice it was a user page :-). Thanks, Gwernol 01:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon vandal 203.49.175.90

Hello RHaworth. I was peacefully reverting vandalisms (using Lupin's anti-vandal tool) when I came accross User:203.49.175.90 (talk page, contributions). This user has been vandalising repeatedly (I couldn't see any edits that weren't vandalism) since April 2005. Page blanking, modifying information, etc., that's all I could see. The edit I reverted was a modification of the date of the invasion of Guam during WWII from July 21 to July 31 (see [3]). I really think something must be done. I'm bringing this to you because I saw that you were the last person to block this user on April 5. I think he should be blocked indefinitely, many other IPs have been blocked for lesser offences. Anyway, I leave the decision up to you, I'm sure you'll find the appropriate sanction. Thanks! IronChris | (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Given them a month block. -- RHaworth 03:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Great! Thanks a lot. IronChris | (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation / Trademark violation

movedto: Talk:Adidas

MCHUSA etc

At this point, I have a feeling that the editors of all of those pages (RGLE, MHCUSA, Ancient and Primitive Rite, and their page on regularity) are all socks. We see links in various places (on the Ancient and Primitive Rite webpage) to one Rui Gabirro, as well as a Robert H Lamarr, whom Ed King has shown to be the same person. At thise point, I think they are socking/tag teaming to avoid 3rr calls.--Vidkun 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw the suggestion that Rui Gabirro and Robert H Lamarr are the same person. I get a strong feeling of two people: one of them (L) uses IP addresses in Germany, has a good grasp of English and has written most of the massive RGLE website; the other (G) has used IP addresses in Dover and has a poor grasp of English. G was only able to copy and paste from the RGLE website to here. The few words of his own (in edit summaries and the like) were in poor English.
In case you did not know there is a strange connection with Cabinda. The first state of the RGLE website was hosted on http://cabinda.net/ (warning gruesome). Most of the Cabinda website was written by L but at one stage G added "SREKCUF REHTOM LIVE EHT NORVEHC KCUF DNA ALOGNA KCUF" (read from right to left). That vulgarity has now gone but this newswire report mentions it.
I see that the {{cite}}'s have been removed from the current state of Regular Grand Lodge of England. But I would like to add a cite against originally founded by members of the United Grand Lodge of England. Surely one of the points about it is that it was founded by "offcomers" cheekily trying to tell English masons now to behave?
I am glad someone else is taking an interest in RGLE. I am not of the craft and am not desperately interested - despite which I have delved quite a bit - see notes to myself and more notes. But I did feel that something need to be done. -- RHaworth 22:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ollie moukesh

Thanks! --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

shaking in my boots

Actually, I am working in an idependent studies class and there is a project called Itanium Lite http://www.itaniumlite.com/wiki/index.php/Itanium_Lite. I am helping put together a course which is CECS 440 - Computer Architecture. Soon the word will be out about the Itanium Lite. Using the MediaWiki, we hope to get through to students about the Itanium Lite and have enough explanation on how it works.

Thorntree

Calling another contributor's edits "malicious" borders on a personal attack. I'm certainly not perfect, and it is certainly within your perogative to remove speedy deletion tags from articles, but please be civil in the process, and have the decency to courteously explain your actions. --Hetar 07:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • OK. Sorry. I did implicitly explain my action: the speedy tag was removed because the article (although of extremely poor quality) did have ample context. -- RHaworth 07:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Robert M. Eggbeard

Hi, you prod'ed this guy as a hoax. I have no opinion on this, but the biography looks prima facie plausible, though unsourced of course. He's not the kind of guy you would easily verify by Google, but he might still be perfectly real and borderline notable in the context of the history of the Civil War. He's also recently been added as an alumnus to a list at Virginia Military Institute. If you feel strongly he's hoaxy, please check the contributions of 207.13.113.74, who has made several additions of names of military people to similar articles. By the way, the Anglo-Saxon kings are spelled Egbert and are notable too :-) Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The edits of 207.13.113.74 don't really reinforce the case for LtCol Eggbeard. They are mostly red links and note these edits being promptly reverted. I note a disagreement over Tazwell/Tazewell spelling so we might get better hits with a different spelling of Eggbeard. Let us leave the prod and see if refs arrive. -- RHaworth 17:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Rance power plant

You requested a translation - it's done, plus I put in some tidbits from a UK site on the subject. Still needs proofreading/copyediting AFAIK - I'm a very sloppy typist ;-). Bridesmill 01:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Many thanks. -- RHaworth 07:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Travel guides

Thanks for destroying my travel guide page without bothering with discussion, but what makes you think that a page listing historical places worth visiting in London isn't approproate in an encyclopedia? My friends were psyched to do them for a bunch of cities. Greg 16:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But this isn't *that* kind of travel guide, and I don't think it's a fork of the History of London. I'm surprised you are so sure you know enough to act so boldly, I'm not nearly as sure of myself as you are. Thanks for pointing out Wikitravel, I'll think of a more clever name other than "Travel Guide". Greg 19:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Project Suggestion

Since you seem to have excess time on your hands, how about figuring out the duplication betweeen Historical dance and History of dance... Greg 21:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks once again

Thanks for suggesting "Wikipedia may also have become more introspective, Greg. Please use internal links when they exist". If you look at the article you'll see I already added a bunch of internal links. Is it possible for you to impove the article without being a dickhead in your edit summary? Thanks. Greg 05:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The rules

Dear RHaworth, I hope I have now followed the rules to everyones satisfaction, especially concerning the odd image. I also do apologise for deleting that post by C mon: as it was a rather impersonal message, I thought I might as well. I stand corrected, on both counts, and hope to be a less cumbersome contributor in the future. (But just as critical: that image is nonsense!) With kind regards, Jacob 13:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, fine - except - sorry more rules. Your edit to Sufism was OK - it is known as being bold but you should have provided an edit summary, eg. a link to your IfD nomination, otherwise someone might mistake it for mindless vandalism. -- RHaworth 13:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Being a student of politics I am intrigued by political culture of this community. On the one hand, everyone can do what they want ("anyone can edit"); on the other, there seems to be an enormous amount of rules and norms to abide by, and a fatal accuracy in tracking down users who do not abide by those rules. However, the rules relate mainly to form and procedure. Technocratic-totalitarian anarchy seems a fair description. (Thanks for pointing out my lapses.)
It's called rule-cruft, and it's what happens when a bunch of anal petty tyrants get together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.254.38.126 (talk • contribs) probably in response my proddong Sequential time.
People like you should be made to work in paper-encylopedia editing - you would soon discover what real rules and house standards are like. -- RHaworth 07:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough—don't take it too seriously. Jacob 11:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Newfoundland and Labrador communities

Hi RHaworth, thanks for taking a look at the articles created by User:Llewelynpritchard. I prod'ed most of them as they were clearly copies of a blog. When he de-prod'ed them, I thought I would give it a few days to see if he transformed them into articles. There was some information that could have been made into articles with a lot of work. Unfortunately, this hasn't taken place so I am inclined to agree with your suspicions that the article space is being used as a blog. I was thinking of taking them to AfD but I like your approach better. Thanks again. Regards, Accurizer 19:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Accurizer and RHaworth re. intentions, deletions, moving pages and merger context Thank you for these comments. Firstly, I have tried to avoid copying my blog pages when I realized this was not permitted. Secondly, I would like to ask you whether or not Wikipedia's policy guidelines will permit my contributions to be merged wherever possible into the list of Newfoundland and Labrador communities? Thirdly, your editing practice, whilst undoubtably based on Wiki premises, is not at all helpful in the real world context of the small Labrador coastal communities. Sir Wilfred Thomas Grenfell a great legendary missionary worker along the coast many years ago, correctly forecast that the growth of tourism would be crucial in helping the communities to survive and prosper. Whilst I appreciate that Wikipedia and all that it stands for, most probably cannot concern itself with such matters as net outward population migration, I would ask you to take the above context into your merciless editing practices so that Wikipedia is accurately and effectively responding to the real world. It is not my intention to use Wikipedia as a blog nor for any other ulterior purpose other than for which it was intended. Regards, Llewelyn

Please sign your edits to talk pages with ~~~~. Contributing to existing articles is the preferred way - forks are usually policed off fairly quickly. Clearly the stuff currently at User:Llewelynpritchard should not be merged - you have described it as original research which is explicitly forbidden here - see WP:NOR. And even if other references were given, I doubt whether a couple of suspicious deaths from 1940 are sufficiently notable for Wikipedia.
Content should not be merged into list of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador but into the articles to which that list links (but that is probably what you meant anyway). Pay attention to wikification, it may cynical to say it but it is true that a properly wikified article stands more chance of survival than an unwikified one with the same content. But do not try to promote your vast number of blogs.
A strange comment of yours about nett outward population migration. This is an eminently Wikiworthy subject, if I have removed such info., it was probably because it was embeded in an otherwise unsuitable article. Do please reinstate population migration figures.
If you are interested in promoting tourism, may I point you to Wikitravel, there is probably vast scope there for more articles in addition to their: Newfoundland and Labrador and Labrador articles. -- RHaworth 08:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Eggbeard again

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert M. Eggbeard. You were right, it seems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Noted. Thanks for watching. -- RHaworth 18:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

All of the images recently placed on Nambassa have the following qualifier

  • "Terms of Use:
  • 1/ All users of this image are required to attribute this work to "Nambassa Trust and Peter Terry" and the url: " http://www.nambassa.com " is to acompany all use.
  • 2/ Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
  • 3/ For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
  • Statement by Nambassa Trust and Peter Terry''

I see you have been dealing with images quite a bit. What's your opinion on these? Moriori 21:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are essentially the Creative commons terms. Contcat the uploader and ask them to remove their terms - if the {{cc-by-2.5}} licence tag is insufficient, then they should withdraw the images. -- RHaworth 21:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Will do. Cheers. Moriori 21:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thamesbeat

Just to let you know I removed the prod based on the BBC Radio 1 article. Thought you might want to AfD it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

db-author

OK, thanks. I was just going by what was on Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. --Jamoche 19:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cite.php

RHaworth, please excuse my error. At your suggestion, I have moved the content of User:Mbeychok/How to use Cite.php references to Help:How to use Cite.php references. I might add that User:Francis Schonken also made the same suggestion as you did. I would very much appreciate it if you would delete User:Mbeychok/How to use Cite.php references which is now empty of any content. Thank you, - mbeychok 16:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Done. -- RHaworth 16:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The Drips

RHaworth, why did you feel it necessary to delete the article on the Drips? I admit, it may have been a bit of a stub, but The Drips are a really quite well known band - they are very regularly played on the radio (including radio 1), they have on album released which is available in virtually all record shops, like HMV etc, and the members who are in the band are from The Bronx, and The Distillers - these bands have literaly hundreds of thousands of fans and have sold millions of records between them!--213.122.107.67 21:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (sorry forgot to sign in)--Ed2288 21:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/Archive_to_2006_May&oldid=1143249524"