User talk:RHaworth/2012 Jul 06

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is an Online Ambassador on the English Wikipedia
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

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

Linh Nga Nguyen‎

Where in the world does it say no consensus to move? When one party doesn't talk it is hard to have a consensus. Why are you going against Wikipedia policy per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)? Her Vietnamese name is Nguyen Linh Nga. As ALL Vietnamese people never go by their surname. — Bgwhite (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Helmy Bahgat Badawi

Dear Roger, Yesterday I created a page titled Dr. Helmy Bahgat Badawi that was deleted a few hours ago. I would appreciate your guidance on how I can have it edited and re-instated. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, Hani Badawi Hanibadawi Hani Badawi 15:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanibadawi (talk • contribs)

— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed guidance. I will work on the improvements in the User:Hanibadawi subpage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanibadawi (talk • contribs) 05:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I completed my contribution for this subject/person and the article still resides in my sandbox. Is it possible for you to have a look at it in my sandbox before I submit it to the main section? If not, please advise as to what is the best approach to follow. Thanks. Hani Badawi 00:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanibadawi (talk • contribs)

  • Is it too difficult for you to link to your sandbox? I appreciate that this guy flourished before the internet age but surely there are some online references to him that you could cite. Probably OK to publish but to avoid disappointment, I suggest you do so via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance. I submitted my Sandbox draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hanibadawi/sandbox to the AfC link that appeared in the box at the top of the article. The article now cites 10 references and is in queue for review. Hani Badawi 14:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanibadawi (talk • contribs)

World Class Manufacturing

Dear Wikipedian, I was about to write an article on an improvement method called World Class Manufacturing. Before I could have some friends joining in, you speedily deleted the article. The reason mentioned (A7) is right. However I claim to have one week before any decision is made.

Here are the first elements of 'notability' I may mention. There is a system of certification by the World Class Manufacturing Association which groups 6 companies involved in the process: Fiat, ArcelorMittal, Placoplatre (Saint Gobain Gypsum), Volvo, Danfoss, Ugitech and Kyoto University (Professor Hajime Yamashina). — Francoisperlade (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • You are simply asking for trouble if you launch an article consisting of just one sentence into the (article) namespace. A week? You may have as long as you like but you must work in draft space. I suggest you launch your article via AfC: go to this page and select "create new article draft". Also, I recommend no capitals in the title - it should be world class manufacturing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge Mercantile

Curious as to why you deleted my page [Cambridge Mercantile Group, sandbox versions, etc]. I was waiting for a specific administrator to look at the page. I know that it has been flagged, but I was told what to fix by a user named ItsZippy and I was waiting for him to overlook it until you deleted the draft page. The page was a violation of G11 before however it was completely rewritten in an unbiased perspective and isn't a violation any more. Before "speedy deleting" my page, you should actually read the content of it even though it has been previously flagged, because it is completely re-written accordingly. Please give me some guidance if it isn't up to a standard so I can fix it instead of telling me to "kindly go away". Thanks Dcapland (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • ItsZippy (talk · contribs) is an admin so they can still view your text even though it has been deleted. (If asked, you may tell ItsZippy that they have my blessing to restore the piece if they see fit.) But from my point of view, I can only repeat my advice to leave it someone with no COI. If you insist on trying to force an article in, read this advice. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Genius Collective

Hi Mr. Haworth, I contacted you in regard to this site last week, but heard nothing, so I though this maybe a better route.

Please can you send me the deleted text for the article Genius Collective. I will copy this into my sandpit and develop it properly, and inform you before i make the article live for you to review. I have an email address attached to my account, which you stated on your profile is the best way for you to be able to transfer deleted text.

I'd really appreciate your help and thank you in advance, Kerry Scott aka Happy In Red --Happyinred (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyinred (talk • contribs) 12:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I never saw your previous message, because as you should have realised from this message you had left yours in a totally improbable place. Text e-mailed. Probably best to submit a new version via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:COI and {{uw-coi}} and give yourself an honest answer to the question "should I be submitting this article"? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Confused

Re this edit to file:Bedtime.jpg. Why wasn't this simply deleted (if not F2, why not G6)? It seems to have been created by a bot and serves no purpose, and if a bot is saying it's on the restricted use list, then maybe it ought to be removed from restricted use too? No file exists on commons (at the moment). I'll leave it for now, but I'm just curious about it. — [stwalkerster|talk] 00:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I am confused to. But even if it is not a bad title in the potential porn sense, it as a bad title in the sense of far too vague and generic so I see no harm in leaving it "blocked". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Marinaccio

After developing the article Joseph Marinaccio in my userspace for some time, I submitted it to be moved into the mainspace through AfC after I sourced it to meet WP:ANYBIO and it was approved [by an AfC clerk], but speedily deleted. I am aware the article had been posted before, however it was not sourced or written properly and I believe I had fixed that. It was approved, though, so I thought it should stay in the mainspace because it was comprehensive enough, and could continue to be developed. If that's not the case, can I have the text so it can be moved back into my userspace? Thank you. Cards1477 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I had time today to review the new version, and it doesn't fix any of the problems found at the AfD--still no independent, reliable sources. I've explained that to the editor, and will MfD the draft page at some point (since it has no hope of becoming an article--the problem is that this person just isn't notable at this point). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Appreciation Insurance & Financial Services

Hello, You Deleted a article Appreciation Insurance & Financial Services. Then I hadn't more information and references on that article. Now I collected all and ready to present a resourceful article. Would you please do something to give me chance to create that article in new format and new information? Thanks. Shelley123 (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I saw your ridiculous statement "the company allowed me to create this page". We do not need a company's permission to write about them here. But of course when you say "allowed" you actually mean "requested" to which I say: kindly have the decency to wait until somone with no COI thinks the company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the article . I appreciate your future support on this article. Again Thanks. Shelley123 (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Do you seriously mean that? Don't you realise that if you try to publish, I shall propose deletion immediately? Thank you for confirming your COI. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Modesto Marathon?

Can u give some reasons why did u delete the page Modesto Marathon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raskarnsingh (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Custom House FC

Hello. I created a page for a football club yesterday and it was deleted. This being my first article submitted to Wikipedia I have obviously broken some rules as it was moved and then later deleted by your good self. I don't think it is a notability issue as there are plenty of smaller clubs than us listed on your site. Would you be so kind as to tell me where I went wrong so I can make the required edits? Thank you. Deansaliba (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Epixtrust

Hi RHaworth, the post I made, Epixtrust, was flagged and deleted under G11 for being an unambiguous promo/ad and I wanted to discuss that decision. The post was detailing the description of a new technological process, not a promotion for products and was written as a series of factual statements from a neutral point of view about what this new tech process does. I read a number of other posts for various other technological processes that were already up on wiki and a host of articles about what constitutes a good post before writing our entry, in order to make sure that it fit the criteria. Would I please be able to get the post re-instated if I added reference links to the US Patents that protect this new unique technical process for securing mobile media? Please advise. Many thanks for all the work you do. EvidencePix (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Linking to the USPTO website and peppering the article with ™ symbols are classic assertions of non-notability. They scream "I have got a patent but I have not sold the product/idea yet". Kindly have the decency to wait until somone with no COI thinks your idea is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Samoo

Hello, I am curious as to why you deleted the projects and other information I added to the Samoo Architects & Engineers page? I sourced the information from different design websites and awards organizations. I don’t regard a list of projects nor a brief description of a company as fluff. I modeled the page after ARUP’s, which has had no such heavy editing. Could you please inform me what I need to do in order to make this page acceptable to you? Vtlarstudent (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  • A significant difference is that virtually every project in the Arup article (why do you shout their name?) is a blue link. I suggest you restrict your list in the same way, ie. only list projects which have an article here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There were over ten projects that had a blue link and the ones that had a red link are pages I am currently working on. Also why was the company history deleted? Is this not pertinent information? When I was a design student this information would have saved me hours when I was assigned reports on designers or firms. The brief description of the company was also deleted. What I have added is quite conservative when compared to other design firms on here. Could you please review the information before deleting it? Vtlarstudent (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  • OK, so put the history back with a reference. Put back the blue-linked projects straight away and the others a week after each new article has been created. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RHaworth. You have new messages at JohnnyMrNinja's talk page.
Message added 11:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your Experienced advice on the discussion would be much appreciated. regards DBigXray 11:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Purolator

Hi Roger, You deleted the page that I created yesterday regarding Purolator Filters, and I was wondering how I could change it so that it doesn't go against any guidelines. I know you said there was a copyright infringement problem, but I double checked and I sourced everything and put it in my own words. I also just rewrote it to make sure that there are no copyright problems. Apparently there is advertisement problem as well. I am trying to inform people about the brand, and my text is made up of objective facts. What can I do to make sure my page doesn't get deleted? Bobby1379 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • The main problem was the ridiculous set of "references". Don't you realise that references should be links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources? The very first sentence was ugly and spammy: "Purolator has positioned itself as a leading brand for automotive filtration". Try "Purolator is a manufacturer of automotive filtration products". If it is the leading brand, provide independent evidence to that effect. I suggest you omit the Products section altogether and re-submit via AfC. You might also like to consider finding a sponsor. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So, to be clear, do I need to use different references for this article? Bobby1379 (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason I ask is because you said that the references needed to be links to reliable, independent secondary sources, and I didn't know if my references qualified in that regard. — Bobby1379 (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  • My words that you quote are a link. Have you followed that link and read? Does the word "independent" suggest anything to you? The article should, of course, contain one or two links to the Purolator website but it must also contain independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Have you looked at any of the articles in category:auto parts suppliers? Please reply. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have. Bobby1379 (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Pocket Planes

I note your comment on the related page, and do not understand it. When userfying a page it is usual to place it on the user's talk page, and if the article in question has been tagged for deletion then retaining the {{speedy}} tag in the userfied move helps the editor in improving the article. If the editor then wishes to move the draft to his sandbox he is free to do so. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I think we must be reading completely different rule books. In my view, we do not clutter up a user_talk page with non-talk material. When userfying a page it goes in [[user:username/anything]] and we remove any speedy tag otherwise the article will immediately re-appear in CAT:CSD. Please point me to other examples of userfication by your method. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not recall ever being shown a rule book. But although I have been here for pretty much the same time as you, I am always happy to learn. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  • For this particular operation it is a metaphorical rule book. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Down Home Music Archives

The Down Home Music Archives is a research project in its 23rd year, documenting musicians primarily in the field of blues, primarily in the Midwestern United States, through the collection of oral histories, photographs, videos and physical materials (contracts, promotional items, correspondence, musical instruments, other memorabilia). In this music genre such documentation is important, historically underperformed, and relevant to music history, black history, U.S. regional history and pop culture history.

Most of DHMA's archive materials are unpublished. DHMA materials have been utilized for educational and promotional purposes (credited and uncredited) by radio stations (WIDR, WRKR), newspapers, blues societies (KVBA, WMBS, more), the Chicago Dept. of Cultural Affairs and Special Events, the Kalamazoo Blues History Project, subject musicians and various unaffiliated web sites. DHMA photographs reside in the Chicago Public Library Blues Archives.

My general position is that any entity performing a music research project deserves its own page in Wikipedia. Such projects are typically small and/or regional - by listing them Wikipedia will contribute to these entities' ultimate survival (documenting the documenters' existence). Interested parties need to be able to find us.

I wrote the Wikipedia page that was deleted and as DHMA Project Director am the most authoritative source for this topic. However, since Wikipedia states that it requires objective third-party authorship for articles, I have never expanded beyond the bare descriptive minimum and no one else has contributed to the page. (Again, documentation of this music genre is historically underperformed...) I am very willing to expand the page information if allowed.

I'm requesting that Wikipedia please consider reinstating and protecting the Down Home Music Archives page. If proof of DHMA's viability is in question, please consider visiting @DHMAhistory on Twitter or Twitpic, or our website (points to a Weebly micro-archive of older material currently) or just search the web to find unaffiliated sites that have listed us and/or republished a few of our interviews.

By the way, links to online relevant visual materials such as videos, especially when rare/historical, should be allowed by Wikipedia at the end of articles. I have tried to supply such a link to another contributor's page but it was disallowed. Audio links seem to be allowed, and video typically does include audio.

Thanks for your consideration of my page reinstatement request. I do not perform much editing on Wikipedia because, due to my own work, I lack time to learn the numerous rules and regs but I do reference the site frequently - so thanks, Wikipedia, for existing and thanks, editors/contributors, for making it a great online resource. — DHMA (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Instead of producing your load of waffle above, your time would have been better spent actually improving the article. It is significant that in the four years of the article's existence no-one had seen fit to expand it significantly or add evidence of notability. Kindly have the decency to wait until somone with no COI thinks the archive is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Roger. I am here as a result of a request for admin help by DHMA. The user clearly did not like either the deletion or the block, and I have explained to him/her why both are fully justified. However, I am less happy about another aspect of your actions which the user raised. It would really have taken little if any more trouble to have briefly explained why the article was unacceptable, instead of your blunt dismissal of the user's concerns. I see from your user page that you pride yourself in what you call your "blunt speaking". However, it is not at all helpful to a user who clearly does not understand Wikipedia's standards to just dismiss their concerns, rather than responding to them. Even if you are unwilling to spend a minute writing a brief note, a link to WP:Notability and perhaps one to WP:SPAM would have conveyed more useful information than the message you wrote. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but given my attitude that this user should not be contributing to Wikipedia on this topic, I consider my comment above together with the deletion log entry was a necessary and sufficient explanation of why the article was deleted. But as a gesture of conciliation I have offered (via the "contact DHMA" page on their website) to go to Chicago and discuss the matter face-to-face. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A question about Special:BrokenRedirects

Thanks for helping with the G8s. BTW, how does a repaired redirect get struck through on this special page? BusterD (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Simply that - it is stuck because it has been repaired or deleted - that is why the unstruck ones have (edit | delete) links after them! How? Because the report checks each redirect every time you run it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd seen the page before but never really used it. I'm not a fan of watching recent changes, so I was wondering how I was going to get CSD tagging experiences. This page will help me get some tagging confidence. BusterD (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Oncolex

Hello Roger, I created a page about Oncolex.org that was deleted. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate your input on the reason/s for deletion. They were quoted as A7 and G11, both of which I attempted to dispute seeing as Oncolex is a non profit, free service (G11), and created by a renowned research hospital (A7). Thanks. HildeErling (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

How would you like it?

How would you like it if I deleted your page because some Wikipedia blowhard decided that it was an inappropriate use of a talk page? It's my talk page, it belongs to me, yet you don't seem to realize that. -- 38.109.25.246 (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Please read WP:OWN. Even logged in users cannot be considered to fully "own" their user and user_talk pages. Still less for an IP address - how long is that IP address going to be yours? But stop moaning, create an account then you can create lots of user pages and probably no-one will complain. That is providing you don't do pointless, childish edits such as this one

That was on public territory, a sandbox, you have no right to complain until and unless the government of Wikipedia decides to privatize that area. --38.109.25.246 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I have every right to complain about edits which are utterly pointless. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, perhaps I should have only added a little to that sandbox instead of wiping it out and flooding it with my intellectual acumen. --38.109.25.246 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I mean clearly, the intellectual substance that poured out through my fingers was too much for anyone to mentally process. Thanks for the suggestion. --38.109.25.246 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Kool Kid Kreyola

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia so I may have made a lot of mistakes with my first page. I see that a previous page for Kool Kid Kreyola has been created, but since 2010 (I admit I hadn't heard of him then) he's grown a lot in popularity through various projects and has grown to match the notoriety of almost every young contemporary in the SF art scene, including Henry Gunderson (artist) . I am not sure what I can do to get the page back up, but I'd like to try.

I provided a list of notable shows and galleries the artist has had along with publications, but to further prove my point I can just show you the amount of important SF gallery shows this artist has done, along with credible publications since 2010. Thanks a lot for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markasabb (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  • No, I can see no list of notable shows in the article and I certainly do not need it on this page. Indeed it should not be in the article but on an external site to which you link. The article was deleted because we are not satisfied with the reliability, notability and independence of the sources you quote. If you can actually provide links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, then feel free to re-submit via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks for the chance to try this again. I am pretty much ready to try again and I have some solid sources, however I was wondering if it was possible if I could receive the code used for the page so I don't have to start it all over? I have enabled my email and stuff I think.

I looked at the Afc page and I think I understand it, but just to make sure I do this properly, is it sufficient to submit it as a draft? Thanks a lot for your helpfulness and speedy, direct answers. -- Markasabb (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I have e-mailed you your text. I am staggered that anyone in the US should use the initials KKK - has the Ku Klux Klan been forgotten already? What on earth do you mean by a draft? Of course you should submit a properly formatted article with, above all, the indelendent references already in place. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Greytrix India speedy deletion

Hi Sir, My article Greytrix India was deleted saying that its promotional. I would like to know what content seemed to be so as I had already removed all kind of promotional content on it when it was deleted for the first time. I am trying hard to understand the in and out of Wikipedia (I am new to it) while at work and trying to get the article up. But it just does not seem to be successful. I do not have a lot of secondary sources to mention and that is why I deleted all the awards and other contents that needed some secondary reference. Kindly help me with getting my work up. I will really appreciate that. Thanks, Sonal Singh 05:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSGTSG (talk • contribs)

The RIDE Page Deletion

This is in reference to the deleted stub The Ride (bus tour).

Hi, I'm Jillian, and just wanted to let you know I'm working with the company and also with the Paid_Editors_Help/Wikiproject:Cooperation to improve the page. I understand it was a stub, then was expanded, after which you completely deleted it. I'd love for you to offer your thoughts on improving the information added in the latest rejected edit, but I'd also like to suggest rolling back the edit would have been better than removing the entire page. Creation of the stub was by one or more non-company representatives, and updating the information therein is only natural.

Though the edits might have seemed overly promotional to you, the item itself is a relevant inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm going about the directions in the project & article pages, so please forgive me if I've over-communicated. -- Jilliance (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  • If you actually hope to receive payment for your work, you will actually start by learning some very basic thing about Wikipedia, like how to create wikilinks and that articles need links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Unfortunately for you, I consider paid editors as a life forms somewhat lower than IP addresses. I am getting fed up with my own parrot fashion repetition so I will just say: scan this page for the word "decency" and you may get a clue. If you insist on trying to force an article in, I suggest you try deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I do insist on being civil. I'd suggest you consider that too. I'm not interested in forcing anything, only in helping, so insulting me is your negative choice, not mine. I'd also like to point out that I did exactly what wikipedia asks - follow directions that were crafted for company representatives like me, in starting to sort through the situation. I do think the article is relevant. So I'll ask for Editor assistance from people you do like, as you have requested. --Jilliance (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Cape Hill" soap opera hoaxes

...are continuing. FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackspindee2001. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Patient Protection

Disagree quite strongly with your deletion of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provisions with WP:A10:

  • excludes split pages, which this was
  • excludes articles that include referenced, mergeable material, which this was
  • excludes articles where the the title is a plausible search term (and which wouldn't be speedily deletable as a redirect under other criteria), which this was.

I haven't been involved in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article, but from looking at the size of it and the ongoing discussion at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Fork? I'd imagine there'll be a consensus to split it at some point, as evidenced by another editor having boldly done so. A good solution might be to undelete it with its history, in keeping with what I think's the relative likelihood it'll be split again, then turn it into a redirect. Thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The problem was that you had created the new page and left all the text in the original article. Do the job properly, create the new article and then cut the section in the original article down to no more than 4k bytes. But you must obtain consensus on the talk page first. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't create it. The user who created it did what you describe here. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Fares Fares

Hello, it seems that you have deleted my article Fares Fares for copyright infringement; however, no specific details on that infringement has been given. 2 people reviewed it before and no one pointed out the problem, all they said is that I needed to insert more external sources. Which I did but then you deleted it. I even logged into the Wikipedia live chat to ask for help and all they told me was to add external sources. Please let me know what could be done in order to approve the article. Rchamaa (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  • It was a copyvio, I was the declining reviewer on AfC. avs5221(talk|contrib) 05:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I do not think it was a duplication. Does Fares Fares, a trustee of Tufts University and the subject of the AfC submission sound like the same person as Fares Fares, a Swedish film actor? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What should I do in order to have it reinstated? Please let me know. Rchamaa (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Whoops...seems like I might want to practice my reading comprehension skills. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Should I provide links in the external links part or in the content of the article? Rchamaa (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  • How many existing bio articles have you looked at? They are your best guide. In fact your draft had the layout right - it was just a question of whether any of the links were to proper independent sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at his bio that is on the Tufts University website, as well as articles on Business Week and Business Wire. There aren't a lot of online biographies written about him; however, he contributed a lot to the society and is the founder and chairman of many charities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchamaa (talk • contribs) 08:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry, when I said "existing bio articles", I meant look at bios of other people on Wikipedia for style since you had asked a remarkably naïve question. Business Week is probably a reliable source and indeed the Tufts University site can be considered fairly independent. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have resubmitted the article after editing it properly. Let me know if I should change anything else. Rchamaa (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

photos flagged on my talk page

I have started a thread on the medicine page to try to resolve those photo issues. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Can_I_get_a_little_help.3F ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Radisson Blu Hotel Pudong Century Park

Re: Radisson Blu Hotel Pudong Century Park Shanghai. Dear Mr. Haworth, After reading the previous complains on this page, I understand the reason for the deletion of my article. The COI suspicion is actually justified, but it would not be reasonable to wait until someone with no COI finds it notable. Here is why: Who could actually write about the demolition of Morganshan Lu's graffiti wall, and the new place for these artits to meet and create? The graffiti artists themselves, who would be suceptible to go to jail for exposing their illegal art? The companies rebuilding Morganshan Lu into a shopping district? The pedestrians, who have no idea about what happened to Shanghai's graffiti district? The hotel guests, who see the graffitis across the hotel, but have no background knowledge about their creation? Only the hotel can publish this with no risk of sanction, with accuracy and background knowledge. As for the other contemporary Asia Pacific artists and oeuvres, I do believe that these artists deserve to have a western spokesperson. I do believe, that artists across the world would be interested to see these wonderfull creations, to be inspired and to learn from one another. Isn't that the idea of Wikipedia, to share knowledge and to break down unnecessary fronteers? Mr. Haworth, your committment to valuable Wikipedia content is honorable. The deletion of our article was indeed justified, I shouldn't have mentionned the awards or CSR we are involved in, but kept it strictly and verifiably about art. For that, I do appologize. I would like to ask you for this one favour, to let me republish this article with the same title, but with a more encyclopedic approach.

Best Regards from Shanghai, s9crmeye — Preceding unsigned comment added by s9crmeye (talk • contribs)

  • I completely disagree with your claim "only the hotel can publish this with no risk of sanction". Have you never heard of art critics who would write about it in the world-outside-Wikipedia? And as to Wikipedia, there are no doubt many editors with no COI who know about the hotel and would write about it and the graffiti if they considered it notable. You don't need my permission to republish but I strongly recommend you not to do so. Incidentally why on earth did you put it in the Wikipedia: namespace? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Haworth, Would you be so kind as to explain where the right place would have been to publish it? Please consider the fact that this hotel is not located in Europe, North America or Australia. Now with this in mind, I would like you to make the connection between "art critics" and FOI in this country. I hope you understand your fallacy. As I said before, I have a lot of respect for what you and other Wikipedia benevolants are doing here. Without you guys, Wikipedia would never have become such an inherent part of our daily lifes. That being said, I do not agree with your assumptions. There is one major factor that you seem to be ignoring completely. While Wikipedia is the most frequented encyclopedia in most parts of the world, it is not in this country. The only westerners (to use the local term), who are capable of producing Wikipedia content are the artists themselves and their judgement would a priori imply a COI (not to mention the danger). On a related note, how can anyone not have a conflict of interest, in an intrinsically conflictuous topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S9crmeye (talk • contribs) 09:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The right place to publish would be you own website. Of course someone can have no COI: if I walk past, decide is notable and write it up, where would my COI be? Incidentally, did it cross your mind that providing some photographs of the graffiti might be a good idea? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Haworth, I would be very glad if you could clarify this for me: "Why did you put it in the Wikipedia: namespace?". Is the place I am writing in right now a namespace? How can an article be posted in the encyclopedy? As you know, I did not say that nobody can write articles without a COI. I said that some topics are all about conflict, and no party refering to them can actually be neutral. Your statement "if I walk past, decide is notable and write it up, where would my COI be?" is true to a certain extend, but how would the person passing by know anything about the background, history and context? Those who have knowledge about this topic are necessarily involved, those who are involved necessarily have biased opinions. Regarding the pictures: no it did not just "cross my mind". As you must have realized by now, I am very inexperienced with Wikipedia and still trying to figure it out. The plan is of course to publish pictures for which I have the publishing rights, for expample the drafts for the "dragons playing with a pearl". — Preceding unsigned comment added by S9crmeye (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  • This discussion is in the user_talk: namespace. You moved your article from the user: namespace into the Wikipedia: namespace. The latter is for internal discussions about Wikipedia. Articles go in the (article) namespace which has no prefix, eg. Shanghai. The person who walked past would find out the info., preferably from reliable sources but also from the hotel themselves. But that does not make them an interested party. How long will it be before you learn to sign edits in the user_talk namespace with ~~~~? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

inline-twin

Did you just delete the inline-twin engine page? I just writing a reply to the deletion request. Thank you. Ah, yes, I see you did. Can you give me time to respond? I have only just logged on. --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessary to gain consensus before creating a new topic. It that was true, the Wikipedia would never have become the success it is. It is an area and topic that I have been working on for sometime, from before recent discussion arose.

I am relatively new to the Wikipedia, I don't remember the page to be up for "speedy deleting". It was well referenced and constructed. Where are these pages for deletion flagged up for discussion before they are deleted? Thank you. -- Bridge Boy (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • WP:CSD#A10 - recently created article that duplicates an existing topic - is a speedy deletion criterion. It does not need discussion. Speak to Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) if you can persuade him that the article should be re-instated, I will willingly do so. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you please restore this. It was undiscussed, probably unnecessary (there is potential scope for several articles here - if consensus can be reached, we might resolve this through definition and renaming). Mostly though, this sort of instant deletion looks high-handed and is only going to inflame an already difficult situation. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you please restore it. Talk page too. It would also have been appreciated if you'd removed the redirect and speedy notice, as a gesture of good faith. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I did restore it. Sorry about the talk page - now restored. Whaddya mean "remove the speedy notice" - in the state as I restored it the speedy tag was not visible. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Cricklade Rugby Club

Hi Roger, Can you give me suggestions on bits i need to change within the recently deleted page in order to publish it again? I couldn't see how it was any different from other pages like it. Thanks. Wombleno6 (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Wait until the club becomes fully professional. Amateur clubs are generally rejected. Your article was in any case utterly slovenly - it looked like it was cribbed for your website: use of first person (we), etc.. Even if it been about a notable club, it would have been deleted on stylistic grounds and for total lack of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. You could try re-submitting via AfC but don't expect much joy.
You have used the same, hopelessly unencyclopedic text in Cricklade. If you actually go to the trouble of composing 500 or so bytes in proper language, it may well stick in that article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback, ironically I think you could argue the same about the other links under the sports section of Cricklade however given that you seem to be deleting all of the pages i make reference too maybe I should bite my tongue.Wombleno6 —Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Inline-twin engine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inline-twin engine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inline-twin engine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Another Swedish article

Hi RHaworth -- you userfied a Swedish article last night. The same author made a substantially identical article with almost the same name, OER-Open possibilities for learning. A Swedish OER project OER-öppna möjligheter för lärande -- could this also be userfied or deleted as substantially identical? Thanks! Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

Dorchester International Brotherhood Camp

You deleted this article after a speedy request stating it was a report of a 2009 article that was deleted at AfD. I have no strong views on the article, but I did clean it up a bit. The 2009 article was one sentence. The latest version was much longer and did assert notability in a small way due to its size. Were you aware of that? I think it should have been sent back to AfD. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree, G4 was not a valid deletion reason and 5000 participants is certainly an assertion of notability. So restored, stripped of trivia and prodded. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Bluford Series deletion

Dear Roger, I am not (yet) skilled in the arts of Wiki, so forgive me if I misstep here. However, on June 22, you appear to have deleted a page that I have spent considerable time building. The page contained information about a series of contemporary novels called The Bluford Series. Many useful links were on the Wiki page, and the information available there was provided because tens of thousands of people have asked for it.

Can you restore the page OR can you at least send me the information so that all the time invested in gathering that content is not wasted? I have defended that page from countless (ok, they could be counted if you had enough time) vandals--mostly American teens--and such. And in one swoop, you have managed to do far more damage than they ever could.

Perhaps I angered you somehow with my poor citations or improper Wiki protocol. If that is the case, please let me know, so I can make whatever changes are required to appease the Wiki gods and regain my page's right to exist. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mctator (talk • contribs)

  • Restored. Having survived for six years, it deserved a bit more than speedy deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:16, 6 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)

About Talk:Shraddha Sharma

Hi RHaworth.
I've re-started a talk page you deleted:

  • 01:28, 29 January 2012 Jac16888 (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Shraddha Sharma (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
  • 10:05, 29 November 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Shraddha Sharma (A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Article seems OK. Well, sort of. Apologies if this was unnecessary.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/2012_Jul_06&oldid=1174214079"