This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
[Title width guide. Delete above here if no further edits - already in archive. If further edits, move below here.]
Stubs
Just so you know I have about 15,000 sub stubs I'll be creating starting from tomorrow, all unsourced, and all with nothing but xxx is a... The British village stubs I'll particularly look forward to.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Utterly deplorable. Please do not do it. Have you checked whether each of these settlements is a civil parish? If a given settlement is not a civil parish, have you considered whether it might be better to deal with it in the civil parish article. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 19:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Ehh, unsourced stubs; ehh? Try to make them the level of my heinous crimes, heh! ⇒TAP 19:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I gather RHaworth you're not a fan of my work on wikipedia?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I have already told you that there is a school of thought that a red link is better than a blue link to an empty stub and I belong to that school. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 20:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
How do you define an empty stub though? The last villages I created were Hayscastle and Llanddewi Velfrey. Are these acceptable to you? What for you then sets the boundary between a useless stub and a useful stub?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Useless wouldn't even be a {{{1}}} is a village. as it contains some information, so hopefully nothing worse than that (impossible). ⇒TAP 20:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, of course the two you cite are acceptable. But you have told me that you are going to launch pages consisting of just "xxx is a...". Those are not acceptable to me. Slow down, create one decent article at a time. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 20:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
TAP, instead of cryptic comments, why don't you actually state whether you are for or against Dr. Blofeld's proposal. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 22:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
xxx is a village in Cumbria.ref =google maps. Sound good?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
So do you think my reason from refraining to create such stubs is because you find them "utterly deplorable", or perhaps do you think our outlook on wikipedia development might now be closer than you anticipate?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Bolton Low Houses is perhaps a more ideal way of creation, but don't you think a reference to the nearest settlement and coordinates are good enough as a start like Bleatarn?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Bolton Low Houses is at first sight an acceptable stub but given that the entire population of Boltons is only 585, I do not think we need separate articles for each settlement within that civil parish. Bleatarn as an article is unacceptably stubby and as a settlement, to judge from the map, is too small to justify its own article - merge into Warcop. If, as I suspect, these two are typical of your 15,000, I stick by my assertion that the civil parish level is the appropriate one for articles on rural England. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 21:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Soulby I think Bleatarn lies in.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, of course it would probably be more productive to get the civil parish stubs up to a B class. But in my experience I've managed to get some local settlements which are little more than farms into something decent like Goldsland and Clemenstone. And in those circumstances, wouldn't make sense to merge into Wenvoe which has a decent article of its own. Flemingston small village near St Athan also managed to write something considerable. I stick by my belief, also shared by DGG that it is possible to write decent articles about any hamlet in the UK with the right research. But it would probably be best starting off improving the civil parish it lies in with a brief summary mentioning it. Either way, I think you misunderstand my intentions on wikipedia and appear to have a low opinion of me which is not shared by many.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you or did you not state that you proposed to launch 15,000 articles consisting of simply "xxx is a village in yyy. ref =google maps"? It was that to which I objected. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 22:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree with RHaworth that a bit more than one line would be appreciated as a start to these articles. But I'm going to disagree with the idea that civil parishes are the logical article level for rural England. Many areas of rural England have gone through a dramatic population decline, and as a consequence there are many small settlements which have had little impact in the last couple of centuries, but which were previously thriving places. ϢereSpielChequers 22:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it is better to have the stub articles than to have red links. These are the sorts of articles that beginners can easily work on. If they see a redlink, they have to deal with the complexities of setting up a Wikipedia article, with infobox & categories and correct title and all the other overhead. If they have the stub articles constructed for them. all they need do is enter the information and the references. Even after years of experience writing articles here, I am always grateful when I have a stub to start with: I can quickly add what I have, and go on to the next. I do not know the current status of UK subdivisions, but in the US, although there is almost constant nation-wide level of county, \most people looking for material want the direct approach. The idea that it is better to find nothing than a bad article is only correct when the article is actually bad in a significant way, not when it is merely deficient. For everyone willing to add a new article, there are probbly 10 at least willing to add information to an existing one. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Well 15,000 was a bit of an exaggeration but I'll gradually be creating stubs on hamlets like Bolton Low Houses which I think are productive. Also, wouldn't my "proposal" contradict what i say here?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a fine line between a stub being useful and being a pain and poison to wikipedia I think. A completely empty unsourced substub which just says xxx is a village is not acceptable. I think one fact and source bare minimum, ideally two facts and two sources bare minimum. You can't argue RH that stubs like Stavros tis Psokas River and Mont Choungui are useless. Besides, a lot of book encyclopedia entries may be similar length. But they must be sourced with at least one fact. Personally I'd rather read clean sourced stubs than certain waffling full articles which are unsourced and badly in need of editing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It is mind boggling: 400,000 edits and you still do not know how to create wikilinks - as in here. Yes, your proposal would contradict - so why did you make it? If you did it as a wind-up, fine - just admit that. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 21:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I was pulling your leg, yes, as the thought had crossed my mind about stubbing as 4 million articles approach, and I knew the first person rapping on my doorstep with the yelling would be you if I drilled masses of short stubs on British villages to rid of the red links. But I think it was worth having a conversation about stubbing British settlements anyway. I also do know how to create wikilinks, please don't patronise me. I'm alternating between music on one browser and Firefox so I got lazy and simply copied the url. Does that really matter? Cardewlees, Cardew, Cumbria, Bullgill , Canal Foot are recent ones. One thing I find baffling though is that you don't appear to be much of a content contributor yourself but you seem very judgmental on the work of others and stubs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
True, my contribution of actual content is very low but why does that prevent me from being judgemental? I spend most of my time on speedy deletions. I am simply applying the same standards (as I perceive them) to articles which have potential to remain. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 16:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
CADprofi speedy deletion
Dear Roger,
First of all please forgive me I am not skilled in the Wikipedia (I hope that I will be one day!), so forgive me if I write something wrong here. On 28th of June you have deleted a page that I have created - the page was CADprofi. You have deleted it because of the "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" rule. I completely understand this rule but please keep in mind that hovewer the first version of this page was in fact badly written and it was marked as deleted (I completely understand that), the second version that was also made by me was voted in a discussion to stay!
There was about 8-9 months of a time gap between the first and the second version of this page. I think that you shouldn't delete pages like that because sometimes people may create pages that are written in a badly manner and they get deleted but then after some time someone may write a new version of this page that has got a lot of good information in it. Does it mean that people can't recreate pages that have once been deleted? I have recreated this page about 8-9 months after deletion of the first version and it this second version stayed for about half a year. This page is also available in other languages (German and Polish) and was also voted to stay.
If there was something wrong with the page, like bad citations please let me know so I could make futher changes. Thank you for your time Roger and have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klimbert (talk • contribs)
I had to laugh at someone who "unsigns" his message. Search this page for "decency". If you insist on trying to force an article in, go to deletion review. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 19:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Business Expo Center
What is appropriate for article Business Expo Center? Dumped my cache twice because what I see doesn't make sense. At [1] it looks like you speedy deleted Business expo center at 09:08 6 June 2012. The author's talk page for the current article with all words capitalized shows a WP:CSD notice for the deleted version but the author's contrib's show nothing related to the deleted version. Navigating was painful because putting "Business expo center' in the search box takes one to Business Expo Center. I don't know if the current version of the article is a good faith effort to make the article neutral (although it is still promotional and lacks WP:N and WP:RS) or an attempt to bypass the previous deletion. I came across the current article while patrolling new pages from the tail of the backlog, something I do when I get on as a contribution to WP (I don't consider myself a regular new page patroler.) Can you have a look and advise what action is most appropriate? Thanks, DocTree (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC) (I'll watch for reply here.)
The trick with search going straight to what you don't want is to add "flack" to the search argument, eg. search for "business expo center z". This will take you to a proper search page. Delete the z and search again. Of course the author's contribs show nothing for Business expo center - it has been deleted! They are visible in Special:DeletedContributions/Sgenevay which is only available to admins. "Good faith effort to make the article neutral" is the best interpretation. Author has blatant COI - see user:Business Expo Center (talk·contribs) as their first account. But we can put the present submission through the deletion mill without needing to refer to previous attempts. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 19:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll tag the new article and begin the WP:AfD process. Oops, never mind. I see you PRODed it already. Thanks, DocTree (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Please restore my user page
My user page was deleted by you today. Please restore it with "edit page" button. Thanks Plee223 (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Roger, I will create a short, non-promotional page describing my contributions as a Wikipedia editor in User:Plee223/about me. Please move it to my user page. Thanks Plee223 (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I re-created User/about me and can I keep my publications as I described? Advise me please. if you want me to make it shorter, I will revise it again. As to brief autobio-article, could you please create it for me as User/about me? Please also advise me. I really want to create an article about my literary career. I think you can understand me now. Thank you again! Plee223 (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Whaddya mean "could you please create it for me"? You have already created it and I have cut out the spam from it. Yes, I understood you right from the start: you are blatantly, unashamedly promoting yourself which is something we do not like on Wikipedia. I asked a question on your user_talk page. Please answer it. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 11:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Roger, I revised my article Paul Lee (author, poet, engineer) and User:Plee223/about me as you advised. Please review and post them. If I have to correct them, let me know. I will follow up. Thank you so much! Plee223 (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Roger! Plee223 (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Cubic Shogi
RHaworth is illiterate for many stupid shogi variants, he has deleted my article Cubic shogi - why not my Cubic chess too,
mad editor? Be happy! User: Prilin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prilin (talk • contribs) 16:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Kindly moderate your language. CubicShogi was deleted because you had blanked the page. This is normally taken as a request by the author to delete a page. Two hours elapsed before it was actually deleted which was ample time for you to change your mind about deletion. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 17:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Can I help? What seems to be the problem? I saw a decline for new article submission somewhere on basis of non-notability and lack of third part references. But Cubic Shogi is notable, there is an RS for it out of Pritchard's The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, ed. John Beasley, 2007, p. 260. User:Prilin may need help with his article, please allow him to add it to mainspace, I will help him there with his English presentation, etc. The high frustration on his end will cease if given this helping hand. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
If Prilin had calmly request restoration instead of being rude, I would have restored it. I have now done so to User:Prilin/sandbox. But given Prilin's attitude, especially the edit summary here, I do not think he deserves it. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 10:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he's prone to unwarranted outbursts. But I learned it's nothing personal; he's newbie re procedure, frustrated by it, and English not his first lang; me thinks it's just the tempermental, creative-type. Thx for restoring to his sandbox. I don't know about the Articles for Creation venue (he has account, can't he just put up the article in mainspace? can I create a stub for him?) Thx for advise. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Who said anything about AfC? Or indeed about creating a stub - the article is already too long if anything. Feel free to clean it up, add references and then move it straight into the (article) namespace. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 16:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a mess (prob since English isn't his first lang). Apparently went to AfC for help, he's green, and was confused by first-submit rejection. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can take it (the article!) for one evening. In much better shape than before, will still need to go over some points w/ Prilin (the inventor). I think it could go to mainspace now, but wouldn't want to add it w/o knowing Prilin will follow through w/ me (since as mentioned there's some guesswork in the "translation"/edit overhaul). Maybe it could also provide opportunity for him to put on cheerier disposition. Thank u. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I have only just worked out that user:Prilin is Vladimír Pribylinec. I detest self-promoters so you lose any support you might have expected from me. "Could go to mainspace now" - I hardly think so - do the words "links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" suggest anything to you? By all means cite David Pritchard and John Beasley but they simply do not constitute evidence of notability. A basic matter - you claim "more than a million players" - where is your evidence for that? I am minded to send cubic chess to AfD for the same reason. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 21:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
RHaworth, regarding "more than a million players", first, that is not my claim, it was part of Prilin's original text. But he is not referring to *his* game regarding that number of players (he is refering to shogi). (I really couldn't confirm the one million for shogi in time to edit it, but I think there are many more shogi players, somewhere I read at least 20 million, and that was some years ago.) Re self-promotion, though Prilin is inventor, I think he's done a good job to keep his articles neutral, NPOV (isn't that all that's required in the situation, to avoid COI and such?; at least that is my understanding re WP policy). Additionally, the inventor's "official site" offers free software download for both his games (so, there isn't any commercial interest possible to make a COI concern worse). Regarding notability, there are many chess variants included on WP already and many times their only source given is the Pritchard ECV/CECV. It is really all that can be expected from this type of area or endeavor (chess variants), and it's been accepted as sufficient for some time at ProjChess and by some admins, too. Regarding Prilin's incivilities, I'm sure they made you mad, he was very insulting to me as well early on, and to other ProjChess members too. I gave him some slack because he's green, and the "creative-type", notorious for tempermentalism, not cut out to be an editor. (He needed my help, and I gave it. Same this time, but I was late to see, he didn't ask my help, he should have!) Could you please lend your help & support to the whole endeavor, rather than take up opposition; at this point I don't even know if he'll be returning as editor (he was surprised & upset obviously, about the Delete from AfC; I'm sure he didn't understand what was going on, had a "panic attack"). He only has these two games in Pritchard's ECV, and, Cubic Chess is covered somewhat extensively in the ECV, more than the WP article reflects. It also has a second RS in Variant Chess magazine (the former BCVS publication). In effect too, CubicShogi is really an offshoot of CubicChess (since the one grew out of the other, it could arguably be considered a variation of its parent). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Why do you need my support? And what support do you expect? The most I will offer is to say that I will not take either article to AfD. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 23:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
By "support" I meant a general eval from you sympathetic toward approval, now that you'd inadvertently become acquainted w/ all the backstory details, as opposed to the other possibility -- a feeling or conlusion that you must oppose. (So, nothing re tech support.) Thanks for entertaining my contributions here, I do appreciate. (I see you are on "protectionist" side re WP philosophy, so, one 'neutral' from you is really worth *more* than its vote count.) Thank u. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
(Update: I heard from Prilin via Email, he's very pleased w/ my editing on his article. So I took liberty of adding to mainspace -- also as 'welcome back' when his block expires; I'm sure will help out his mood! upon return, to see his article up. Thank u again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC))
Looks like I *did* need tech support afterall. (Didn't know edit history needed retention from sandbox; or how to do it, so thank u again!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You could and should have used the move option. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 00:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok. (Didn't know. Am supposed to use Move after developing new article in my own sandbox as well?) Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Especially with someone like you who does five edits where others would do one, it is probably better to use a copy&paste from sandbox to new article. But this only applies if all the sandbox edits have your name on them. In this case some of the edits were by Prilin (mine don't matter) so a move was needed. I do recognise that you did acknowledge Prilin in an edit summary on the copy&paste version so your sin was very minor. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 01:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh! (<Facepalm.> I wasn't thinking & overlooked that thought.) Thx for explaining. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
why did you delete
The Galactic Empire Alliance was a perfectly legitimate page and shouldn't have been deleted. there was nothing wrong with it, all information was true and the members of my alliance are outraged that it was deleted. please return it as i see no reason why not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arc-170 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
You cannot be serious. The first problem was lack of context - where does this alliance exist? On some MMORPG? Even if you provided context it is unlikely ever to be notable in the real world. Ru away and create a facebook page. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 17:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Reloaded Games
Requesting userfication of deleted content Reloaded Games. The article was clearly significant, BUT clearly incomplete, as was supposed to be in my sandbox (since it didn't even contain the text body). Sadly now I don't have a copy of the info box and article any longer since I accidentally put it on prod (and I am unable to access the actual deleted content, since only admins can see the deleted page content). Would love that infobox and headers back so I don't have to recreate it. Especially since I didn't get this notice until I got back, and the page was already gone.
The subject is notable given Reloaded Games JUST merged with K2 Network this Thursday - and therefore now Reloaded Games owns the free2play trademark, and has inherited the assets of the creator of the free2play gaming trend in the US and Europe (for which there is a gazillion similar companies and articles that would be of less significance; Aeria Games etc. And no, none of this was in the article since it was not yet complete. Especially since the merger apparently just took place on Thursday.
Also notable that the free-to-play (and free2play) articles are also incorrect, since they are missing that K2 Network (and subsequently Reloaded Games, i.e. the disputed article) first announced its Western free2play launch December 2004, 4 years ahead of all the cited sources in the free2play article.
Therefore - please either restore the article (at least temporarily), or somehow put up the infobox data somewhere so I can access it again, so it can be completed in the Sandbox before republishing. And yes - next time I will ensure the content is complete before publishing. — Bb-miler (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
You could have made your request in 200 bytes instead of 2K bytes. Restored to User:Bb-miler/sandbox. I hope that in future you will know better than to start an article in the (article) namespace. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 23:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks RH for the move.
Bb-miler (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
You are being childish. I have tagged it because you have made no attempt to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 23:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
If you delete it, and you will be happy about it...well do it.
Ikinci Mahmud-Saliha Sultan-Ayse Siddika hanimsultan-Azize-Nurizade Ziya Songülen-Güzel Halit who was the Grandmother of Ersin...
So he is a Noble Person, a Prince...Prens in Turkish or Emir.
Dilek2 (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Dilek2 has responded to their block by making personal attacks. Edward321 (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm afraid I am not sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia processes to understand what is happening to an article I created recently on the above subject. I prepared it in draft in my sandbox, then moved it for review and almost immediately returned to it to my sandbox because it needed further work. Since then I have now finished it and submitted it for review again. For the past couple of days I've been able to find it by searching 'mapa scotland' in the Wikipedia internal search. Now nothing is being returned when I do that. By going to a link that I created to it on another page I am finding a message that it has been deleted and that I should contact yourself about it if I have any queries. Am I seeing the deletion of the re-submitted article? Is it possible to place a redirect on the page to take a browser to the article as it currently exists? Could you throw some light on the process for me please? Kim Traynor (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I find it mind boggling that someone with 4k edits to their credit apparently is not aware of the special:contributions/Kim Traynor report (available via the "my contributions" link at top right of your screen). Or that they cannot read the log entries visible at Mapa Scotland. Do you see the words "Gold Standard moved page Mapa Scotland to …"?
Hi. Thanks for your quick reply. Mind boggling though it may be, I have to conclude that I am mentally challenged when it comes to creating Wikipedia articles. Each one I have done seems to have gone through an entirely different process before acquiring article status. I'm not clear what you are telling me when you refer to special:contributions/Kim Traynor. Obviously I'm aware of that listing, but I'm not sure what you think I should have discovered by consulting it. I did see the message that Gold Standard had moved the page and I note that you are saying you restored the original draft to my sandbox, but again I don't understand the implications. *1* Is the page currently showing up as deleted the original page created after the move from the sandbox? And is its latest deletion a way of avoiding a clash when the draft currently existing as an "articles for creation" page returns with the same article name? *2* Kim Traynor (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably no need for that. You understand the processes involved. I don't, so I'm speaking layman's language. On top of that, I am undoubtedly the cause of any confusion regarding the page moves. I understood clearly that I had to create any article in my sandbox first, but I must have done something wrong when I moved the page initially to create the article. I thought I was slavishly following the instructions as I understood them, but I clearly didn't. The confusion probably arose when I 'pulled' the article back to my sandbox. I think I deleted the content on the article page, leaving behind a page with a title and no content. That, I think, is now the deleted page. I was really just asking if you could confirm that that is the case. It doesn't really matter if what you're now telling me is that the article is currently in the queue of articles waiting to be reviewed. if that is so, then all is well. I was just worried in case I had set up a potential conflict between the deleted page and the article returning under the same title. I take it that is not the case and that once accepted the article for creation will appear under the the old title Mapa Scotland. Kim Traynor (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
In fact I am surprised you are using the AfC process. I would have thought this article was good enough to move straight into the (article) namespace without bothering with AfC. You created Dean Bridge and Younger's successfully without AfC. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 16:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Undelete request
Hi Rhaworth, you recently deleted a page marked for speedy under G1. It was Big babol gum - the article wasn't intended to be promotional, it was created as part of an editor workshop in India. They wanted to work on it later and expand, and add references. If you don't mind, can you please restore it? I will remind them about the article and expand it if necessary. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I have restored the article to Big Babol gum. All the workshop edits can be recovered from the history. I am higly dubious as to whether this subject is worthy of an article in its own right. By all means conduct editor workshops but please do so in the user: namespace rather than the (article) namespace. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 10:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks RHaworth, I didn't conduct the workshop, I merely asked for restoration on someone's behalf. The choice was made by a new editor themselves. I believe that particular product is notable within India, and they said they will expand it in the article space, if they don't do it soon, I will tag it for speedy myself. Theo10011 (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
No need to tag it - it is perfectly OK as a redirect. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 16:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear RHaworth, I was recently involved in a workshop, sponsored by Nutricia, with a group of Mums who have children with Cow's Milk Allergy. Nutricia is helping these Mums to share their experiences on You Tube, so that new Mums can understand what this condition is.
At the meeting, the Mums and a small group of healthcare professionals told us that the first place they look for information is Wikipedia, and they were disappointed to see that we hadn't put any information on there about Neocate - one of the products that can be used by children with this allergy. Nutricia make Neocate, so there was enough knowledge in the team to put an article together.
We did our best to keep it totally neutral and objective, and avoid putting anything in there that seemed like we were trying to 'sell' the product - after all, it's a prescription product that should be delivered through a healthcare professional so it wouldn't be appropriate to 'push' it in anyway.
I see from the log that you have deleted the page due to 'unambiguous advertising or promotion'. I'd really like to adapt the article in however you see fit to make sure that it fits Wikipedia's criteria and we are able to give Mums helpful information, but I can't see what has led to the feeling that it contains advertising. Please could you help me to understand where the problematic bits of the article are, so I can adapt it? Or could you point me in the direction of a better article that I should use as a guide? Many thanks, EmmaEJarvis (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
First of all come clean: who are "we". If as I suspect, you are a representative of Nutrica then you get my stock reply: kindly have the decency to wait until somone with no COI thinks your product is notable and writes about it here. You are facing an uphill struggle to get an article in. Not only was there Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Neocate which I deleted but no less than three attempts at Neocate have been deleted. I have e-mailed you a selection of texts to show you how not to do it, eg. in one version I saw an whole section called "preparation and administration" which obviously we do not need in an encyclopedia article. For better articles, I suggest you work through category:dietary supplements and category:infant feeding. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 18:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Haplogroup of Oğuzhan
Because so many Turkish-people today claim to be a descendant of Oghuz Khan, male members of the Amucalar, descendants of Gündüz Gazi, the older brother of "Osman I, tested their Y-DNA. Genetic history of the Turkish people, shows that the common ancestor "Ertuğrul", belonged to haplogroup: R1a=6.9% - Typical of Central Asian, Caucasus, Eastern Europeans and Indo-Aryan people. This is not a selfmade claim. Here look it self:
I asked you why you deleted it in my article. — Dilek2 (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted what in which article. Get your act together man, start using links. And please read WP:OWN re my article. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 01:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Not in this way...Thanks... Dilek2 (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Get your phacts straight
Hello, you recently deleted Open PHACTS because you judged it to have 'No explanation of the subject's significance'. I had rewritten the original article from scratch (written by somebody else) including references to independent third-party sources in peer-reviewed scientific journals which explained the significance of the project. So my question is, what explanation of significance would be required to restore this article? Open PHACTS is a large Open Access project with many significant partners in industry and academia, and is the first of its kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan.Hull (talk • contribs)
What was the idea of dumping your message in the middle of this page? As far as I could see there was just one peer review reference. It was to a paper document, not to something that can be checked on the web. In any case peer review does not establish notability for Wikipedia puposes. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 09:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about my talk page blunder. There are lots of articles in wikipedia that have no peer-reviewed articles at all. So I'm just wondering what needs to be added to the article? I can't add more peer-reviewed articles as there are none yet but this is a significant project involving lots of people and since it involves large amounts of tax payers money, would be of interest to the general public on wikipedia IMHO. Duncan.Hull (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I confirm that Open PHACTS is a genuine large-scale project, funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative. You can read more at http://www.openphacts.org/. If this is not worth a page in Wikipedia, half the content must be deleted. This is very very weird. I never encountered that situation before. Please restore the page. And then the community can improve it, adding reference and documenting the subject's significance. Thank-you Nicolas Le Novere (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Roger,
Our post was deleted due copyright infringement, now if we add a reference to the article crediting with an ISBN number or authors name, will that be acceptable to Wikipedia? kind regards. the post in question was 01:32, 6 July 2012 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Vorajinesh/sandbox (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of this page) — (Vorajinesh (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)).
What is happening today? You are the second person to dump their message somewhere in the middle of this page. If it had not been deleted as a copyvio, it would have been deleted for no context or advertising. What was the article actually about? — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 13:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The article was about Ego (spirituality), in one paragraph I quoted from a book, the rest was self written by me. I think it was deleted to copyvio. Now if I referenced the paragraph by crediting the Author or ISBN number of the book, will that be acceptable to Wikipedia? Sorry for posting in the middle of page as this is my first experience of writing in Wikipedia. Kind regards (Vorajinesh (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)).
It was hopelessly unencyclopedic. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 01:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness sake, do we have to handle every editor however crude their submissions with kid gloves? — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 13:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, RHaworth. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
{{you've got an anecdote via email}} --Shirt58 (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Tradin Organic Delete
Roger, I just noticed that you deleted the Tradin Organic Agriculture (TOA) wiki [he means article]. I had previously read through the G11 and the text with in the TOA wiki, is clear, objective and unbiased. I am not using wiki as a promotional tool. TOA is part of the public company SunOpta, and just as the many other public listed companies in the Toronto Stock Exchange, I believe that there is not problem in documenting this information, about their subsidiaries, into Wikipedia. An example of this would be Kraft Food, listed in NASDAQ, with their wiki of their subsidiary of Green & Black's, why don't you delete this one?
Please let me know what I have to change in the text to make it acceptable to Wikipedia standards. I would have appreciated a message, with at least a warming or an edit on the wiki, rather than a deletion. —
MD (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Third person today to misplace their message - at least you gave it a proper section heading. Total absence of evidence of notability and not even an assertion of it. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI has found evidence of notability and writes about your company. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 21:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Article on Gregory Green
Hello RHaworth,
I recently came across the artist Gregory Green and was surprised to see that he did not have a Wikipedia page. I was hoping you could tell me why you deleted his page.
Thank you -- FifthCrow (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
So what does the deletion log say? We get quite a few of these: an article which has been about for years (in this case four years) but to which no-one has seen fit to add any proper references. The article contained one external link which is now broken. I will happily let you see the text - read this. If you can preoduce a properly referenced article, it will probably stick. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 21:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I just got my email set up and would really appreciate seeing the original text. Thanks -- FifthCrow 20:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FifthCrow (talk • contribs)
Please set up your signature so that as a minimum, it creates link to your user talk page. Text e-mailed. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 02:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, User:David1217 had asked for a rename request of File:GetAttachmentd.jpg which was appropriate, but the image appears to be a copyvio of some website and the file_name confirms my doubt, I am not an expert in the Copyright policies so I left the rename tag, Can you please take a look at it and do the needful. thanks Cheers. --DBigXray 08:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Prem Raj Pushpakaran
You recently moved an article from a user draft page to live space. the article had been previously deleted by AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prem Raj Pushpakaran. Is there a reason you moved it before there were any third party sources added? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I've deleted the page in the project namespace. Userspace Sandbox is a bit better I guess. Though if the user continues to waste our time like this, we may need to go for a block. Lynch7 04:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
i think the users talk page got deleted somewhere in the process-can that be restored as User talk:Drpremrajpushpakaran/archive to maintain the history of the communication attempts with the user? -- The Red Pen of Doom 08:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Also looking at the notoriety of this user i need some info from some Admin. I am not sure, but i guess that the original article that was deleted after AFD was not created by this particular user. So there are chances that he is using other accounts. Can someone let me know who the original creator was? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Its a minor mess really; the User talk page was redirected by him to Wikipedia:Profpremrajpushpakaran and the history was transferred to it. I've restored it now. AK, you are right, it was a different user: Vikas4326lb (talk·contribs). I don't think its a sock; its probably a student of the professor or something like that. Lynch7 09:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
RHaworth, can you have a look at the revisions that I have restored (i.e. Have I done it correctly?). I'm not very used to how this restoration works on En WP. Lynch7 09:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Mike! Just wanted to check that. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that Vikas4326lb (talk·contribs) and Drpremrajpushpakaran (talk·contribs) are the same person and that he is not Prem himself. I cannot believe that an academic who has worked at Harvard would be so hopelessly clumsy in his actions. The deleted edits to User talk:Drpremrajpushpakaran are merely yet more copies of the bio and should not be restored. All proper talk edits have been restored. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 12:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you please BLP semi Maryam Nawaz Sharif. I've put a request at WP:RPP but as you will see from the edit history it's pretty crazy. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Sir i am new of wikipedia - please guide me and i want to know the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadiq Khan.M (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Learn to edit tidily! Just check the history of this page to see what a mess you made. I deleted your user page because you had put a {{db-userreq}} tag on it - why? Please keep your user page as information about yourself. You created a link to Ghajini (2008 film) - you did not need to add a large chunk of text from the article. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 15:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Saliha Sultana
No Problem you can deletet it, in Turkish Vikipedia she is written wellknown...
OK?...,delete it...
Mr. Super Knowledge...I do not need thats she stay's longer here.
— Dilek2 (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Dilek2
I believe these [2], [3] types of nonsense should be dealt with in an expedient fashion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like what we've been telling Dilek is nothing new. [4][5] Worst case of IDHT I've seen. Edward321 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
One week--RHaworth, you're getting softer by the day. Guess you're not at the Buffalo Billiards. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I am currently learning American by immersion so it would help my learning if you explained wtf are Buffalo Billiards. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 02:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It's where the "dance" is at. DGG was going to go, so I assume other old folk, including me, were welcome. Immersion--I guess I'm currently learning Belgian that way: cheers! (I saw you in passing today but didn't have the opportunity to introduce myself.) Drmies (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikimania 2012
My apologies to Drmies (talk·contribs) and anyone else who was at Wikimania and did not meet me. This being my first time in the US and my wife having planned a tight schedule that gave us only three days here, I wanted to see something of DC. And indeed we did, most interesting being the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and Union Station. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 13:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Collège d'enseignement en immobilier
You recently deleted an article named "Collège d'enseignement en immobilier" which was created after seeing several red links about that institutions in other articles on Wikipedia. Even if the education facility does not seem to be worth enough to be included in Wikipedia, the incomplete article still permitted users to gather some information by clicking on the blue link when reading another article. --BScMScMD (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
