User talk:RHaworth/2011 Oct 17

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

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

[Title width guide]

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

Redirection of cpow to complex.h

Hello, you have redirected the page of cpow to complex.h can I get reason? I want to create the page properly again, can I do that? Please reply. --Pankaj bagul (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Please reply" indeed! May I refer you to this message where I answered your first question above and asked a question to which you did not reply. Yes you could create the page properly again but there is a risk that it will be taken to AfD. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 21:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we can edit Wikipedia articles properly with help of campus ambassadors. The question is about functions in C programming language, many of which are already on Wikipedia and we want to add some more functions. If it is that Wikipedia is not manual, then where should we put these page's or articles of C functions? While creating the page of cpow again, I will take care about it that it matches with Wikipedia criteria .Pankaj bagul (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• I refer you again to my previous message. I will offer you another option: post your articles in Wikibooks. I will repeat my question: why must these articles be in Wikipedia? As to your argument that there are articles for other functions: if I bothered to send them to AfD, they would almost certainly suffer the same fate as the two examples I quoted. What on earth is the point of creating a link to C? Please answer both my questions. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 23:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

University of Rhode Island ROTC

Just letting you know I declined your CSD nom here. I got beat up at bit during my second RFA for not being aware that for some reason an infobox is considered sufficient to avoid speedy deletion as an empty page. I don't really agree with that, but apparently that is the policy we are expected to follow. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it though, it does qualify under A7, most ROTC programs arre not going to be individually notable. So is is now deleted, but for a different reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Clock and data recovery

I meant to create a new page in the Wikibook I am writing: Clock and data recovery. A few days back, you notified me of a mistake about the page "Clock and data recovery/Noise interacts with the PLL".

Thank you for saving it into my sandbox.

1. But what did I do wrong? I still believe the page would be a valuable addition to the book, even in its draft present state. Would you please give me a piece of advice?

1. BTW, would you please also help me understand "Note that wiki markup generally does not need <br/> tags all over the place." ?

Sorry if these two requests sounds stupid, but your help would be appreciated. I may also do good, that am accustomed to do evil, if I can get some assistance. Pierandrea Borgato 13:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BORGATO Pierandrea (talk • contribs)

• What did you do wrong? You posted it to Wikipedia! I have copied it to wikibooks:Clock and data recovery/Noise interacts with the PLL. Please take it from there. "Wiki markup generally does not need <br/>". Surely that is obvious: look at this page after my edits - how many <br/> tags are there? Is it still readable and well formatted? To start a new paragraph, leave a blank line in the wikimarkup. What do you need <br/> for? Look at any long article here - is it peppered with <br/>s? No, because we don't need them. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 18:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Reinhilde Veugelers

I found plenty of her citations at Google Scholar and Google books. She has been a visiting scholar at many prestigious academic institutions, and is a full professor in Belgium. She easily passes WP:PROF. So I removed your ProD tag. Please look at those sites before nominating scholars. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Person centered thinking

This has been redirected to person centered planning [no it hasn't! R], but I think they are separate. If you look at the previous PCT talk page, there was some discussion about this. Riverside2008 (I think) would know a lot more about this. Cheers Heywoodg ^talk 09:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Heywoodg, got here before me! They really are two different things, and person centred thinking is a much broader category than person centred planning, person centred planning is a specific, and highly refined application of person centred thinking. If person centred planning = house, Person centred thinking = building. Riversider (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• OK, if you both think that way, feel free to re-instate person centred thinking as an article. If I feel strongly, I shall seek consensus before re-redirecting. Please decide whether the word is centered or centred! — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 09:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks R. Person centred thinking is practiced in both the UK and the USA, the spelling will depend on which country's preferred spelling system the editor uses. I can see the spelling issue haunting this topic throughout its lifetime. Riversider (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Responsive Open Learning Environments

Hi, I would like to ask you to reusify the above standing article. I have created it in the best will without intending to present the facts with bias. However, it seems that this was not enough. I would like to improve the article so that it is appropriate for the Wikipedia. Thank you, best regards, Thomasova ZSI (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• What is it about the Seventh Framework that people seem to think that independent references are not needed? See this list. Or perhaps it is that most Seventh Framework projects are simply not notable! Yours in fact was better referenced than most. I have restored it to User:Thomasova ZSI/sandbox and blanked it because it does appear to be largely a copyright violation. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 12:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I see the confusion is present on both sides:) Notable they are, but not in line with wiki policies, that is my impression. However, what happened with ROLE wikipedia article is still buffling me a bit. Currently I am wondering if you say copyvio from ROLE website what do you mean? That the source was not attributed with the inline reference? I especially took care not to copy the text or sentences, yet to combine all different information in one text (or should I rewrite the whole text?). Any feedback with regards to this is appreciated. I am studying now anew the wiki policy and I understand it is wise to seek feedback in Wikipedia's village pump for idea incubation. Thank you for your reply, I guess this is a learning by doing process. -- Thomasova ZSI (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Notable they are, but not in line with wiki policies" is a pretty meaningless statement. "Notable" when used in a WIkipedia context implies "satisfying Wikipedia notability criteria". If they don't meet the criteria then they are not notable for Wikipedia. Attributing a source via inline references is simply not enough - if you are going to copy text then you must get proper permission. But the best solution is to re-write in your own words - the article is probably 4 times longer than it needs to be for a new article on this subject. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 22:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. Do you feel it is appropriate to keep all widgets and widget tools that were presented in the article or does this breach any policies? I can get the permission of the content creator, that is not a problem.--Thomasova ZSI (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• What on earth do you mean by widgets? It is just conceivable you are talking about the images. If so, the licence terms for File:ROLE logo 300x121.jpg must be changed to fair use. For all the other images you must: get permission, confirm it as explained here and tag each image description with {{OTRS pending}}. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear enough. I ment a Web widget. In particular, those ones that were developed within the project - http://www.role-showcase.eu/widget-bundles. Can I just include them in the article or I need to ask for permission as well? thanks for your patience! --Thomasova ZSI (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Déjà entendu (psychology)

Restarted... but wait, there's MOAR! Hi again RHaworth. Déjà entendu (psychology), an article you may have deleted as an expired WP:PROD is up and running again, but without recourse to WP:DRV. But wait, there's more - Deja Entendu appears to be a fine little stub. I'm frankly so perplexed about all this that I'm not sure whether I've spelled "perplexed" correctly or not. Your thoughts about this? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• I did not delete anything. I prodded déjà entendu then immediately changed my mind and converted it into a redirect. But in any case, it is perfectly OK to simply re-instate an article deleted as an expired prod. You could try an AfD for the new article but I think the best solution would be to make déjà entendu (psychology) into a redirect to déjà vu and encourage Jaldenpage (talk · contribs) to write up déjà entendu as a section within the déjà vu article. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 22:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Piston and crankshaft design

Hi. As per my knowledge, the article piston and crankshaft design is proposed for being deleted. Can you please elaborate on the reason for why it is being deleted? Also, I am editing this article as a part of a project under the Wikipedia India Education program and the editing that I do will be assessed for. Its too important, do reply soon. -- Umemabohari —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC).

• Surely the AfD discussion provides ample elaboration? Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that the idea of the Wikipedia India Education program was to teach you how to write Wikipedia articles! If you simply want to post your essays then do it elsewhere because Wikipedia is not a free host. In the case of this topic, please improve the existing articles on piston and crankshaft. Your supervisor will be able to see your edits in the edit histories and mark you appropriately. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 23:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll also point out that this article was a copyvio synthesis of several blogs and websites on the subject. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

D'Oyly Carte & the Infoboxes

Hi - I have a vague recollection that you may have mentioned in London back in July something about an ongoing tug of war between members of the classical music project and supporters of ubiquitous infoboxes. If you do happen to have any thoughts on this matter, would you perhaps care briefly to express them in conjunction with either a Keep or an Oppose here, in this section? Thanks.--MistyMorn (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Are you sure it was me? I have no feelings in this matter. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 22:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't sure... No matter, sorry for the disturbance.--MistyMorn (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hide Top Contribs available now

In response to your semi-aside request at the Village pump: The "show only edits that are not latest" option is available now with my HideTopContrib script. Mark Hurd (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)