User talk:David Haslam

• User:David Haslam/Sandbox
• User talk:David Haslam/Archive – contents archived 2005-09-16.
• User talk:David Haslam/Archive2 – contents archived 2007-06-20.

I have not been active in Wikipedia for the last few weeks, as I have been spending most of my spare time working on the Go Bible project. I have started a Go Bible Google Group and created nearly forty Go Bible collections for various translations and versions. DFH 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you added Parity code to Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Mathematics. Do you mean Syndrome decoding? Essentially, the linear code is checked by a Parity-check matrix. Unless you know of a specific difference between your meaning and the Syndrome, create a redirect to Decoding methods#Syndrome decoding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stolee (talk • contribs) 01:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was such a long time ago, I can't recall what prompted me to request such an article. Sorry. DFH 19:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!
This is to tell you that I just answered your 2006 enquiry about the correct pronounciation of Waloddi Weibull on its talk page.
Rgds / 213.64.31.72 13:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC) /sv:user Mkh[reply]

Thanks. DFH 16:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you throw in your two cents at Talk:John_Piper_(theologian)#Is_Piper_a_Reformed_Baptist? Thanks! --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a view on this matter. Even so, there are some aspects of Piper's theology that are a cause of concern, especially his so-called Christian Hedonism. DFH (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments there. I was wondering if you could take a quick look at the MTBF and its talk page.

${\displaystyle {\text{Mean time between failures}}={\text{MTBF}}={\frac {\Sigma {({\text{downtime}}-{\text{uptime}})}}{\text{number of failures}}}.\!}$

Shouldn't that be a plus not a minus there? There are many other issues. It's discussed in the talk pages. Thanks NYCDA (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly downtime and uptime represent points on the graph. So time between failure = downtime (a point of time on the graph) - uptime (an earlier point on the graph). The equation above is correct if looking at it from this prespective. The whole wiki is still confusing and could still use your help. It mentions MTBF=MTTF+MTTR. But doesn't MTTF=sum(uptime)/# of failures and MTTR=sum(downtime)/# of failures? So MTBF=sum(uptime+downtime)/# of failures?

NYCDA (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notepad++ supports encoding in UTF-8 (Unicode Transformation Format) without BOM, USC-2 Big Endian, USC-2 Little Endian, Windows format (end of line character return, line feed / Linux Format (end of line, line feed) / Mac format.--Adam1213 Talk 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - in fact, I've been using Notepad++ for several months. It's a very good editor. DFH (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a major contributor to this article, I wanted to make certain that you were aware of its GA Sweeps review, which can be found here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add sources showing significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this company? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be me that does this! Anyone capable of doing a Google search for Amarantunga+Gehan+CamSemi could supply such cited sources. Here's one [1]. DFH (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have gone the extra mile and added a brief description based on and citing this reference. DFH (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not quite sure that I understand the purpose of the long, unsigned bibiography on the Birtsmorton Court talk page. See: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. I would not have recognised the possible conflict of interest in the main article had I not seen this. The only other references I can find to this building are its numerous ads for its banqueting and conference facilities. --Kudpung (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject for the main article is notable enough. This English manor house was the birthplace of William Huskisson. As several other sources either mis-spell his birth-place or mis-locate it (in the wrong county), that was one of the reasons I created the stub four years ago. The bibliography in the talk page was added partly because of my own personal curiosity, the main article still being a stub, and the additions kept to the talk page with a view to others or myself finding time to learn whether this historic owner (the main restorer of the manor house and gardens) might be sufficiently notable in his own right. If so, then the material could be eventually moved to a new page for Francis Bradley Bradley-Birt himself. DFH (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I have no connection whatsoever with the current owners, though I have had an almost lifelong interest in William Huskisson. I don't even live in the same county, and I have never visited the place in person. So for my part, there is no conflict of interest. DFH (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David Haslam! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 378 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. David Willoughby Gooding - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. I will do some improvements later this month. DFH (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afternote: David W Gooding died on 30 August 2019. DFH (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David Haslam,
I hope you are enjoying your retirement! I am contacting you because you had (in the past anyway, 3 years ago!) an interest in the Exclusive Brethren article. See here. The 2 higher edit count users Gregsby (who you apparently know of) and Jarich, are no longer active on WP.

There was a news report re. Exclusive Brethren on Sydney TV Monday 8 March (Local), so I had a look at the article. I found a lot of text (≈40%) had been deleted, and I have now restored it. See Talk at Unexplained removal of Referenced text for more details.

It seems there are a lot of single purpose accounts (anon & registered) pushing their POV. Most of the deleted text was not flattering to the Brethren. This article may well need a complete proofread and revision. You seem the best person to approach about this. Hope it doesn’t disturb your post work life. Please let me know what you think if possible. Happy editing! Happy retirement! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - but it's not top of my list of topics to pursue. DFH (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post nonsense like this into Wikipedia articles: [2]. Not only is a nondescript 'birther' website completely non-WP:RS, but it didn't even claim that Monckton was an 'expert witness'. I'm sure you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that the material was entirely unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK - understood. DFH (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polydactyly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. DFH (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Semiconductor Test Consortium has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am now retired for almost 5 years, after a 36 year career in the semiconductor industry. I have no objections to the article being deleted. It's probably out of date. DFH (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - since you've previously edited the article. Bazj (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I have no objections. DFH (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Program database, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Protein database. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My edit was prompted by noticing that Google search for PDB mostly comes up with results for Protein database, rather than Program database related pages. DFH (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Klopsch Red Letter Edition of the Bible, Title Page, Scanned 2016-01-30.jpg, which you've attributed to DM Smith. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just emailed my colleague, DM Smith, to ask for his confirmation. He owns a copy of the 1769 Blayney Edition, and it was he that scanned the page for a project that we continue to work on day by day. DFH (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He replied straightaway, and I forwarded his permission email to Wikipedia the same day. DFH (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi David - I work on conflict of interest issues along with my regular editing. this edit seemed pretty clearly intended to give that charity more visibility; do you have some connection with it in the real world that you should declare? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connections with the charity. DFH (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Klopsch Red Letter Edition of the Bible, Title Page, Scanned 2016-01-30.jpg, which you've attributed to An OTRS notice was applied over 85 days ago, but no message at OTRS has been processed since this tag was applied.. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Add following to the[reply]

This was already dealt with on 2016-02-08 in the last but one section of this talk page. See above. Why are you pestering me with something that you should have closed? DFH (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Roxborogh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is an unsourced biography article about a biographer that fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Aspects (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Ethiopian broader canon the Ethiopian real canon? Because if so, why didn't they ever print it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:4E7:D8F0:5C00:252B:CECE:E62 (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Haslam, I allow myself to provide you with some context. Veverve (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not within my specialist subject area. I cannot add anything further. DFH (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Go Bible, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Waxworker (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to James Edward Seddon. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 23:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David Haslam. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:James Edward Seddon, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, {{lang}} and {{Lang}} are the same thing. So I don't understand your edit to Ligature (writing). What have I missed? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to fix an error, but that wasn't the root cause. Something else was, and I fixed it, IIRC. DFH (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jesus and the woman taken in adultery shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Jesus and the woman taken in adultery. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am on a learning curve in this respect, even though I've been a WP editor for almost 20 years. There was no explanation behind the first revert of my addition, so I merely thought it might've been vandalism. A bit later on, I did start a discussion section on the talk page for the article. DFH (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]