User talk:RHaworth/2011 Nov 19

Archives

Archives Edit list Up to: 2005 March 2005 June 2005 August 2005 Oct 2005 Nov 2006 Jan 2006 March 2006 May 2006 July 2006 Sept 2006 Nov 2007 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 April 2007 May 2007 July 2007 Oct 2007 Dec 2008 Jan 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 Sept 2008 Oct 2009 Jan 2009 Feb 2009 March 2009 April 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2010 March 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 Sept 2010 Oct 2010 Dec 2011 Jan 06 2011 Jan 14 2011 Jan 27 2011 Feb 09 2011 Feb 23 2011 Mar 06 2011 Mar 18 2011 Mar 30 2011 Apr 07 2011 May 02 2011 May 22 2011 Jun 08 2011 Jun 26 2011 Jul 26 2011 Aug 18 2011 Sep 06 2011 Sep 28 2011 Oct 17 2011 Nov 04 2011 Nov 19 2012 Jan 29 2012 Feb 26 2012 Mar 10 2012 Mar 31 2012 Apr 14 2012 May 07 2012 Jun 01 2012 Jun 23 2012 Jul 06 2012 Aug 31 2012 Oct 06 2012 Oct 30 JWJ 2012 Dec 05 2012 Dec 27 2013 Jan 22 2013 Feb 05 2013 Mar 06 2013 Mar 26 2013 Apr 15 2013 May 09 2013 Jun 07 2013 Jun 27 2013 Jul 22 2013 Aug 06 2013 Aug 20 2013 Sep 03 2013 Sep 19 2013 Oct 11 2013 Oct 23 2013 Nov 09 2013 Nov 22 2013 Dec 18 2014 Jan 11 2014 Jan 25 2014 Feb 18 2014 Mar 08 2014 Mar 29 2014 Apr 11 2014 Apr 23 2014 May 08 2014 May 22 2014 May 30 2014 Jun 07 2014 Jun 18 2014 Jul 17 2014 Aug 09 2014 Aug 27 2014 Sep 04 2014 Sep 16 2014 Sep 28 2014 Oct 11 2014 Oct 28 2014 Nov 18 2014 Dec 18 2015 Jan 10 2015 Jan 26 2015 Feb 11 2015 Feb 24 2015 Mar 11 2015 Mar 30 2015 Apr 20 2015 May 12 2015 Jun 12 2015 Jul 07 2015 Jul 25 2015 Aug 11 2015 Sep 03 2015 Sep 23 2015 Oct 25 2015 Nov 28 2015 Dec 21 2016 Jan 13 2016 Feb 10 2016 Mar 03 2016 Mar 30 2016 Apr 18 2016 May 16 2016 Jun 02 2016 Jul 09 2016 Aug 11 framework 2016 Sep 02 2016 Oct 05 2016 Nov 02 2016 Nov 27 2016 Dec 18 2017 Jan 10 2017 Jan 31 2017 Feb 23 2017 Mar 15 2017 Apr 20 2017 May 18 2017 Jun 21 2017 Jul 05 2017 Jul 25 2017 Aug 15 2017 Sep 07 2017 Sep 30 2017 Nov 14 2017 Dec 21 2018 Jan 12 2018 Jan 30 2018 Feb 25 2018 Mar 11 2018 Mar 28 2018 Apr 16 2018 May 03 2018 May 22 2018 Jun 14 2018 Jun 28 2018 Jul 19 2018 Aug 03 2018 Aug 20 2018 Sep 07 2018 Oct 01 2018 Oct 24 2018 Nov 16 2018 Dec 02 2018 Dec 26 2019 Jan 27 2019 Feb 18 2019 Mar 06 2019 Mar 17 2019 Mar 30 2019 Apr 14 2019 Apr 27 2019 May 16 2019 Jun 10 2019 Jul 07 2019 Jul 26 2019 Aug 16 2019 Sep 07 2019 Sep 17 2019 Oct 07 2019 Nov 04 2019 Nov 23 2019 Dec 09 2019 Dec 21 2021 Jan 21 2023 Apr 08

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, I went thru the entire discussion, I agree with you guys for not using Honorific, but here the matter is of identification, this is what he is known by more than 4 crore followers i.e. Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan and as sited by Vikas articles of some more Saints starting with word Guru or Saint, and He has given you the links of the certificates of Guinness World Record, aren't they enough, what else you want than? The matter here is not just of concusses, but also of what the reality is. Please come with your doubts, may be I can also help to solve this matter. Being a wiki user my purpose is to put the most accurate and the best possible information to the world. I will also suggest to please Move name to Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan or say you don't trust the certificate from Guinness World Record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prem.rakheja (talk • contribs) 19:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ekkehard Nuissl von Rein

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

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

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

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

WP:AFC

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

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

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

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

meh, G11, doesn't matter: still no hoax tagging. mabdul 17:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why should there be an hoax tag? It was not an hoax. Please get it into your head: all of the G series of speedy deletion criteria apply in every namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

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

the bombshellettes

Hi there, I wrote the page the bombshellettes and as you can probably tell, am totally new to this whole wikipedia thing! is there any chance you can send me the stuff I wrote as I don;t have a copy) and tell what I did wrong so I can edit and re-do? thanks so much, really appreciate it :) Rosie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennsylvania65000 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't need to send you anything - see the edit history of User:Pennsylvania65000! The article was deleted because of a total absence of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Atmosphir

I am requesting undeletion of Atmosphir. — (via e-mail)

• I have e-mailed you the states of the article at its two deletions. Feel free to submit a new draft via AfC. If the article is accepted, unprotection of the title will be uncontroversial. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving Pages

Why didn't you just mark them as stubs? — Curb Chain (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Presumably you are referring to your bibliography of … titles. Answer: because they are so derisorily short that they do not even qualify to called stubs. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Cough Syrup redirect

Hi there, I recently requested a move (G6: Cough Syrup (song) to Cough Syrup), with the intention of keeping the generic "Cough syrup" term as a redirect to Cough medicine, which itself would have a hatnote updated to reflect the move. My understanding is that this is acceptable per WP:CAPS, and that the move would create a situation similar to, say, "Morning glories"/"Morning Glories" - where the former redirects to the Morning glory species of plants, and the latter is an article on a comic book series.

I see that you redirected "Cough Syrup" to the "Cough syrup" redirect and so I am seeking your feedback as to whether my understanding of the naming conventions is incorrect, if my request was submitted in the wrong place/manner, if my communication was/is unclear or if there is some other factor I might have overlooked. Thank you for your help.  Gongshow ^Talk 23:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is my understanding that if you have some title then Some Title must redirect to it - we have {{R from other capitalisation}} specifically for that purpose. Or in this case Cough syrup and cough Syrup must both redirect in the same way. If nothing else, it is to save confusing Wikipedia clones which use non-case-sensitive titles. There is an hat note in cough medicine pointing to the song article - that is necessary and sufficient. We usually only create a disambiguation page when there are three or more things to disambiguate. And yes, I would prefer to see Morning Glories as a redirect to morning glory. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

question about deleted page

Hello Mr. Haworth, I would like to know why the page about Road of Hope in Color (Ruta de Esperanza en Color) was deleted. Thanks in advance for your response. Regards, 190.121.94.165 (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Milimar

• I do not talk to IP addresses and especially not to an IP address that is not capable of reading a move log entry. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

About Talk:Nootsara Tomkom

Hi RHaworth. The usual - I've re-started a talk page you deleted, without asking you first. Cue yet another Perennial proposal: "that trusted users should granted a permission to re-start deleted pages, because lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, blah blah blah." --Shirt58 (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)