User talk:RHaworth/2013 Jul 22

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

Hi, RHaworth. I am planning on creating a new Dr. Brenda Wade page that will have similar content, but will no longer be promotional. Let me know if you have any suggestions.

  • Suggestions? Move this message to the bottom of the page. Give it a proper == heading. Sign it with ~~~~. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
wikify!

Slovenly is a word I find myself using quite a bit at the moment. Slovenly is what I think of anybody who leaves a message here about an article and fails to provide a wikilink to the article. How do you expect me to read the article if you don't link to it?
I reserve the right to ignore any message which does not provide links where appropriate or has not been signed with ~~~~. Even if the article has been deleted, you should still link to it.
And if that sounds like a grumpy old man, it's because I am ...

The Knowledge Centre for Agriculture Deletion

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

Problems with gun articles

Hi, RHaworth. It appears Special:Contributions/Skrunyak has returned as Special:Contributions/Uayoa and a few other WP:SPA accounts. I prodded the most problematic of his contribs, but someone mass reverted that after a discussion at WT:MILHIST. The [incorrect] inference of a manufacturer's citizenship based on his name is a tell-tale sign this is the same editor—compare Union Automatic Revolver with Storle machine gun, as is his creation of articles based solely on patents. He keeps doing that despite your warning to him [1] years ago. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

An account with interest in that area (automatic revolvers) was blocked by check-user User:AGK [2]. The same article was then edited by Special:Contributions/Uoayo; note name similarity with Uayoa. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • In general, I do not talk to IP addresses. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Since when has it been acceptable for administrators not to talk to unregistered users? If you are not prepared to comply with WP:ADMIN#Accountability then you should resign from your admin position. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • As they say in diplomatic circles, I am still considering my response to the last comment. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You seem to have the matter fully covered. I will leave it to a sockpuppet investigations specialist to do the necessary. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir Edward Peel

How is a knighthood not an indication of importance/significance? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • It just is not! Has anyone ever proposed a Wikipedia policy that knighthoods confer automatic notability. Even at the level of knighthoods, the Crown does not hand them out for notability but usually for "services to …" and these are in many cases in quite obscure areas. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
well done! Thank you for the help to delete Programming with Big Data in R (pbdR), but please keep Programming with Big Data in R alive. Wccsnow (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind to check the new version again? If this is still no evidence of notability, please let me know. I will do my best to edit this page. Wccsnow (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I like high quality works and you did help. Currently, there are [1], [3], [14], and [27] in Programming with Big Data in R directly derived from the subject, and all others are either second or third sources in order to explain this subject in deep. This is not a novel idea in computer science, but is a different concept to current R and is confused to statistician and computer scientists due to different mechanism where I want to distinguish it and address that it is a better idea in future. I added, and please let me know where is insufficient. Wccsnow (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Fort meade school house.jpg

File:Maddoxhouse.jpg

I saw you deleted this photo for copy-vio, and I vaguely remember seeing it prior to deletion. Was that the same photo as file:Old School house Muesum circa1885.JPG. If so, that one also needs to be deleted and the uploader has many other files that are similarly edited (Special:ListFiles/Indietop20) if this one is older than the copy vio source, this may be the original location. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  • File:Fort meade school house.jpg was a low res (500×375) version of file:Old School house Muesum circa1885.JPG allegedly copied from this page. But the image on that page is only 610×458 and File:Old School house Muesum circa1885.JPG is much bigger and still has the EXIF metadata still in place. So I would say that unless you can find copies of these images at their original resolution out on the web, don't bother to take any action. The uploader Indietop20 (talk · contribs) seems to be inactive but an e-mail might get some explanation, eg. that visitcentralflorida.org have ripped off the image from here - it has been up for more than five years. But I would have no objection to you nominating for deletion Indietop20's images such as the one on the right with its watermark and ridiculous shadowing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Finally got around to nominating the ridiculously edited ones. If you are interested: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 June 30‎. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted my sandbox

10:56, 25 June 2013 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Jprogers21/sandbox (G3: Blatant hoax) Hey, I put an article about Paul Ritter Day up for submission and it got deleted. It was not a hoax. What happens to my article after it's deleted? I'd like to resubmit or appeal or something, but I don't want to have to start from scratch. Thanks, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprogers21 (talk • contribs)

Hello Mister R Haworth

Hello I have question for you why you deleted the pages Light for the Nations International Ministries and Light For The Nations Please give us reason. Appreciate our time. Rodrigo Silva Media Director LFTN Florida — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.143.209 (talk • contribs) who is presumably Medialftn (talk · contribs)

  • Normally I would refuse to talk to an IP address that cannot even manage to link to the articles in question but I will relax my rule to try and avoid Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) (see above) moaning at me again. Light for the Nations Church was deleted because there were absolutely no independent references. But please do not attempt to resubmit. Kindly have the humility to wait until someone with no COI thinks your church is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mister RHaworth first let know the Light For The Nations International Ministries is church thank you for your comments I make my possible when create page make everything under Wikipedia guideline. Thank You once again. Rodrigo Silva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medialftn (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Some advice

Hi. Just let me say you're generally a good admin and do thankless tasks that are very much appreciated. I know what it's like to be in customer support on a Friday afternoon when the same people ask the same questions again and again, and have to restrain myself from telling them to all to get stuffed, so I can see how you feel.

That said, please don't make this personal. Don't bring up Phil and DRV in every other discussion on your talk page just because lots of long-standing editors disagreed with you. It ends in tears. (Example 1) (Example 2) I'm not calling for your resignation and I'm not planning to post on the dramaboard. But you need to forget about other people seeing fault in what you do - just accept it happens, and if they chastise you for it, don't respond in kind. As Marcus Aurelius put it, "For with what art thou discontented? With the badness of men? Recall to thy mind this conclusion, that rational animals exist for one another, and that to endure is a part of justice, and that men do wrong involuntarily" ([3]) Happy editing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I am trying hard not to make it personal and I am puzzled as to why Phil seems to be making it personal. As to "every other discussion" - you are exaggerating hopelessly: I have mentioned Phil just once. As it happens, I have, so far on this "month" of this page, mentioned DRV just once but a quick search of the archives will show that I do direct people to it quite often. If you seriously think I use it too often, please suggest alternative replies that I might make. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Jackdaw (e-learning software)

Hello, I noted you deleted my page and that of my software product Jackdaw. We are a small UK software company which produce a really great rapid e-learning software product which I wrote about objectively, not stating anything but what it factually does - you are more than welcome to download and look at it yourself. The software has won global awards and was recently reviewed as the best rapid e-learning development software available. For this reason I felt the need to add it to wikipedia so it could be a reference within the rapid e-learning page in Wikipedia. I value the contribution editors make to Wikipedia but in this case I think you got it wrong. If there was something specific about the posting I am more than happy to review it but I do not want to waste my time if you are going to delete it again. Yours sincerely Emil Reisser-Weston MSc MEng — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emil Reisser-Weston (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Short answer: do not waste your time. It is likely to be deleted again. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your company and its product are notable and writes about them here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Jac16888

Please block Jac16888 (talk · contribs) from editing since he deleted the following pages I have created: List of birds of Louisiana, List of birds of Alabama, List of birds of Arkansas, and List of birds of Mississippi. Koolboy2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolboy2001 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Your request to have Jac 16888 blocked is just a silly joke. Three of the lists you cited were quite properly deleted as totally empty lists. And list of birds of Arkansas has never existed! I have restored list of birds of Louisiana to User:Koolboy2001/sandbox. Do not even think of moving it back into mainspace until it actually lists at least fifty species. When you have done that, come back to me and I will restore another one. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Spark Productions

Spark Productions has just had a #84 hit with a cover of Avicii's Wake Me Up!. Normally I wouldn't bother creating articles for cover artists (and especially ones who haven't made the top 75 because the Official Chart Archive terminates at that point); on this occasion, however, could I see the deleted content?--Launchballer 19:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The text was just 276 bytes. Normally I would just post a titchy thing like that here but it was such blatant first person spam, I have e-mailed it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Good grief, horrible! Redirected. Just one very small thing, though; I tend to write my posts so that the header and the post reads as part of the same sentence for purposes of efficiency because I don't like repeating myself.--Launchballer 23:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Funny should say the latter, I was going to tell you that the MOSs of most magazines will tell you firmly that any text in section headings should always be repeated in the paragraph body text. Hence I did not take kindly to this edit. Look at some newspapers, I think the Sun is one, you will find that section headings are just key words picked from the article body. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems utterly pointless to me but I'll bear it in mind.--Launchballer 00:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sock

Considering your last comment here, I thought it was the other way around.  Yintan  11:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I cannot be bothered to check and since I have blocked both of them, what does it matter? Until possibly they pop up with another account. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Norris Production Solutions

Can you please explain to me what language was seen as promotional in my Norris Production Solutions article? Just trying to learn and get it right. Thanks ReichNPS (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Nothing special about the language, just the whole article. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Real Pharm/a

Hey, I have a bit of a problem with a page move request. The issue is that User:Alex95-Ukraine wants to move FC Real Pharm Ovidiopol to FC Real Pharma Ovidiopol. I declined the request for two reasons: the official English logo for Real Pharm has its title as Pharm rather than Pharma and the previous attempts to move the page was reverted by another user because it didn't match the official logo spelling. Alex's reasoning is that the translations in another language come across as "Pharma" and that other Wikipedias use that title. I've tried to explain that naming conventions mean that we go by the official English translations and that what other Wikipedias use doesn't mean much here, but it's not really going so well- he keeps reverting my edit to the Pharma title. I've asked him to open up a move request on the page for FC Real Pharm Ovidiopol, since another user (not me, but another user) has objected to the earlier attempt to move, making this invalid as far as non-controversial moves go. Can you step in here? I feel that right now we're just butting heads. I've put in a request for assistance on the naming conventions page, but I wanted to get you to help as well since you're a little more used to intervening than I am and I think that a third person coming in would help a lot. I don't have any true objection to a move, just that there are several reasons as to why this should take place as a move proposal on the original article rather than a speedy move. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Currently the club does not have a website even in russian or ukrainian. The website is under construction (by the way there is a screenshot of it where it is written Pharma) and expected to be opened at the end of this month. So as the website currently does not exist, we should look at the website of PFL (which organizes the competition). It is written there (in official documents too) that the club is called "Real Pharma". Logo, where it is written "Pharm", is expected to be changed in 2-3 weeks. Alex (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Slovenliness (see above) - give me a link to the website of PFL and to the screenshot (if it is on the web)! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot (on the top of the page in the right it is written "ФК РЕАЛ ФАРМА"): [4]. PFL Website (english version of website does not exist): [5]. Links to some articles where it is written Pharma ("Фарма"): [6], [7], [8]. Link to document from this website: [9]. Other websites also write Pharma: [10] (here it is also written that club changed name). Alex (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Text from deleted article 'Meytal Cohen'

Hi, Would it be possible to get the text from the deleted article: Meytal Cohen? The article should conform to "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" but talking to the user that flagged it in the first place I have come to realize it actually didn't. Was very sure I added sourced and references regarding "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." But come to realize that text was most likely not added at all. I apologize. (also misinterpreted the text regarding speedy removal (remove tag it if you intend to fix it) that's why i did that. also got that explained to me ) I would like access to the text if possible as I then will recreate the article, using a Wizard WP:Articles for creation and place in User space first, before I put it to the Article space. Then i can also have someone look at it before I move it and fix any errors I have double checked and my e-mail address is added under preferences, and allow e-mail from other users. JudaZuk (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

  • You had better triple check your preferences because I cannot see an email this user link. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
"This user has not specified a valid email address."--Launchballer 23:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed (one again, confusing text. I get e-mails from Wikipedia, the check box for 'allow e-mail from other users' was checked, and you get the text "Change e-mail address", not Add e-mail address, indicating there already is one entered, just not shown in clear text for security reasons) My mistake, but added address now :) JudaZuk (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Text e-mailed. Please note: a) the equipment list was trivia - it goes on her website not here, b) we do not pipe links unnecessarily, eg. Meytal Cohen not Meytal Cohen. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for confirming your COI. Please search this page for decency. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Minor planets

Recreating page list of minor planets: 255001–256000. Dear administrator, this page was empty before because the network of my prime source of data (www.minorplanetcenter.com) was broken and I had to looking for another source of data. I want to recreate this page with the same tittle. Would you help me? Thank's anyway :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilvon (talk • contribs)

  • What help do you need? You have re-created it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Churches in the County of Swansea

Hello, noticed you deleted my page list of Active Churches in the County of Swansea. It was deleted for being a "non-article". Just curious what I did wrong? What would I need to correct to have that information put back up? I put a lot of time into finding that information. — Rhymano (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Fabrizio Paolucci

Many thanks! The original move was bizarre. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of user page

I note that you have deleted my user page citing that I have requested such a deletion. I believe that you may have done so in error as I have made no such request. Panic not as I have created a replacement. I B Wright (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

How to Wish deletion

Hey, regarding the deletion of How to Wish. They are my first posted articles so I have no doubt I had many errors and problems. Do you think this re-write User:Sergej.p1986/sandbox is ok, and if not what are your suggestions? — Sergej.p1986 (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Of course it is not OK - total absence of evidence of notability. Suggestions? Wait until someone with no COI thinks these books are notable and writes about them here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ortec

Why did you delete my page [Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ORTEC]? What copywrite information was present? Can you please explain?

  • Please read the box headed wikify! at the top of this page. You are the archetypal spammer. You have been contributing for nearly six months but you have made no attempt to learn wiki markup. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Jess Michaels

[Double posting. Thread now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jess Michaels. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)]

Articles deleted for copyright reasons

Dear RHaworth: This morning I have two messages from editors whose articles I nominated for deletion last evening. Neither of them have signed their posts and the signbot hasn't signed for them (see my talk page at User talk:Anne Delong). I also don't find any trace of these deletion nominations in my contributions. How can I find out who these people are to reply to them? Is it possible to get copies of the deleted text so that I will know what I am talking about when I reply? At least they both mentioned the name of the article, which is more than happens sometimes. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Never mind - I managed to find the names of the editors in my talk page history. I should have thought of that earlier. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Legobot and image redirects

FYI, this message won't get action — Legobot is a bot following its instructions properly. The target did get deleted; this is an IAR situation, not a bot-is-broken situation. Bot came back and retagged them, so I reverted it and added {{bots|deny=Legobot}} to all of them. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Abhay Kumar Dubey

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have PRODed an an article you once deleted and restored. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

UNISIM-VP deletion

Hi Sir, I am disapointed and I don't understand your decision to delete my article about UNISIM-VP [and this AfC version] where in the same time we can find in Wikipedia many articles about equivalent technologies and products ? e.g. Simics, CPU Sim, QEMU, GXemul, and so on ... The article has been just submitted to review and perhaps it requires more refinement. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reda cosi (talk • contribs)

  • Please read other stuff exists and kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your software is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Common Admission Test

My apologies for the edit overwrite at Common Admission Test today. I didn't see your two changes at the end (which pulled a lot of the material that was objectionable) of the long string of commercial site adds from other users. No offense intended, and I'm glad you went back in and reinstated your alterations. Cheers! Transmissionelement (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Skatong

Re Roller skating at the 1987 Pan American Games. Hi, I hate to bother you, but I noticed you just speedily deleted what appears to be a NN page with possibly notable material. I was going to merge it, but there was an edit conflict. Because the newbie didn't do what he probably intended, I cut and pasted the content from the now-deleted onto the article linked above. Please comment here if what I did was incorrect, and Trout me, or share the WikiLove on my talk page, if it was appropirately bold. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your deletion of the page for First Nations Seeker. I believe I have made the necessary edits to have the page remain. Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia! ggatin (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

BioLumix System

Just in case you haven't noticed, I've put a salt template on the page, as a recreation, under a different title and by the same editor, of a page which has been create-protected by DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) yesterday. I admit I should have made that template more proninent, though. --- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Musashigawa stable

Please let me see the deleted text that you left me no access to after deleting it while ignoring my contesting explanation I wrote as per instructions in the Speedy Deletion tag
Did you read my contesting of speedy deletion that I was asked to write and put time and effort into writing? If you did read it, could I hear what you have to say? If you did not read it, then why did you delete it so quickly? I would think someone (perhaps yourself?) could have at least written a reply/rebuttal of my defence of the article, which I am sure no one did, because I went back to check on it not long before I got the notice of it's deletion. I put effort into that article and into the contesting of it's deletion. A search tells me an administrator can access deleted article material. That's what I want, if you could be so kind. I linked the article so as not be described in your ambassadorial language as slovenly, but wait, the article has already been speedily deleted, what use was that? Certainly it looks like it still links somewhere, but that is because you didn't bother to notice the redirect article that goes to it. I suspect a redirect to an article was deleted for not being notable enough is decidedly less notable than the article to which it was redirecting. Come to think of it, I will have to go back and put in the redirect to the first incarnation of Fujishima stable so that it will lead somewhere, though people who are looking for the new Musashigawa stable that is making the news will likely be confused. FourTildes (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Update - I have already gone and found the place to ask for deleted material back. Just above where I had to make the request it read: "To contest deletions that have have already been discussed (in particular, at Articles for deletion), or that are likely to be controversial, please make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review instead." The part that read "already discussed" was quite laughable, as if a discussion had taken place. If I don't get the material back that way, I kindly ask that you have it sent to me as you offered on your User page. Regards. FourTildes (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Instead of writing a long "do not delete rationale" and the above message, your time would have been better spent adding better references to the article. I have restored it to User:FourTildes/sandbox 6. I have also deleted Musashigawa stable - all edits were just redirects. This makes it possible for you to move the new article on to that title, which I think would be the best thing to do. It's very important that you learn the difference between its and it's. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you and please be more careful and less condescending next time.
Thank you for giving me access to the deleted material and my defence of it. The reason I wrote the "do not delete rationale" was because that is what the speedy deletion tag advised me to do. It did not advise me to add more references to the article or in any way change the article. Just in case I didn't remember the advice correctly, I looked it up. The criteria for speedy deletion reads,"Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the Click here to contest this speedy deletion button which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the discussion page with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted." I did not expect at this time that it would be completely ignored or of course I wouldn't have spent the time on it that you have now informed me was wasted. If you had read my explanation (which I highly doubt you did) you could have at least replied with the requisite advice of what I needed to do to improve the article before the fact (the deletion) and not after (your helpful little blurb above). The second part of your "advice" (for lack of a better word) suggests I should have spent more time adding references than writing the "above message". I wrote the above message AFTER you deleted it, as I no longer had any recourse to go back to the now non-existent article, which I thought I had properly defended as per the advice in the tag.
I appreciate your edits to the material I wrote. I missed the bolding of the stable name at the beginning. This was careless of me. It was a nice stylistic choice on your part adding "the" before the name of the stable, though the other 42 sumo stable articles written over the years by various editors do not use this convention, I will bear your "improvement" in mind. Yes, I see I misused *it's* in the article, thanks for that. Contrary to your summation of my knowledge of the difference, I did indeed learn long ago, and do indeed know the difference between *its* and *it's* but I accidentally misused it this time around. I will be more careful in future. At the very least, it gave you another chance to be condescending as you have done all through this talk page.FourTildes (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your "advice" after the fact, said my time would have been better spent adding "more" references. Needing "more" references, or any references for that matter, is not criteria for speedy deletion and though I admit there are no notable wrestlers besides the founder at this point in time (not criteria that you yourself actually stated), I gave a very detailed defence of why it should be kept on the Talk page of the deleted article, which you ignored, and likely never read. I think you should revise your protocol. — FourTildes (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Klemens Murańka

Hi! Thanks for cleaning up after me on Klemens Murańka. I made a complete hash out of trying to move that out of the userspace draft into article space and left a litter of useless redirects. I should have been more careful. I must really pour more caffeine into myself before doing things like that in the morning. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Cecep Supriatna

Hi, I just saw that from a request from another author, Cecep Supriatna was deleted. He is actually a well-known and established Indonesian professional football player, playing since 1994 as seen here. He is also still active in 2013 with Persib Bandung in the Indonesia Super League. What was the reason for deletion? MbahGondrong (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ebadur Rahman

Hi. You deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ebadur Rahman for copyright issues, I would like to rewrite the whole stuff with the same ' name', is it ok?— Khondokar kalachand (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khondokar kalachand (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  • You have answered your own question. Note that the new version stands no chance of survival in its present state with a total absence of references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Mack Warranty

Hey RHaworth, can you please let me know why Mack Worldwide Warranty was deleted so I can know how to fix it. I'm new and have to do a project maybe you can help me. 13nike95 (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC) oh god I hope I'm doing this right.

  • Why - the deletion log gives two links - I suggest you follow them. How fix - you do not need to do anything. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Young & Rubicam

This was a descriptive article about an advertising agency, not advertising it at all. Please restore it and any others that you may have deleted in response to a disruptive editor's speedy deletion tagging of articles about some of the world's most notable advertising agencies. Any competent admin would block that editor rather that aid and abet him. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  • How is it that after 250 edits the article is still short on independent evidence of notability? But I shall watch Fcefalu (talk · contribs). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm in no better position than you to answer that question - as far as I know the first time I saw that article was a few seconds before you deleted it. I could however see that it's far outside the speedy deletion criteria. You seem to be making a habit of this. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  • The edits made to the page are by the company itself, and it is self advertising. These are grounds for deletion. — Fcefalu (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Fcefalu has a disturbing history of promotion. Two admins, including me, deleted Animus Interactive. Although on its face, it was not promotional, he also made spam edits to another article here. Note the edit summary: "WE are a active game development shop in NY, and active member of DMW". Because of the combination of their contributions, I warned them here. They removed my warning. They then made a series of what I consider retaliatory taggings to five different articles. I'm tempted to block them on this history alone as I don't see anything constructive about what they're doing here, but I'll hold off for the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
      • While you think I am just going for revenge Bbb23, I can't say that is what I am doing. But I am pointing out things others are doing incorrectly.And I think its wrong for me to try and fit into this community in some other fashion for my mistakes, than to hold a cloud forever on me. Look below at my response to Rhaworth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcefalu (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Phil, "making a habit" - of what? Please give specific examples. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Of speedy deleting articles that don't match the speedy deletion criteria. I can't give specific examples, apart from Sir Edward Peel, because I can't see deleted articles, but I know that when I contest a speedy deletion and then see that the article is deleted despite that your name is almost invariably the one that I see against it in the deletion log. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Phil Bridger you are missing the point I think. This is clearly self advertised material. The company updates its own pages when it has new additions to itself, and has administrators update it for itself. They are a PR company. Look at the pattern posted below of how they are doing it. I think the objectiveness of the article itself is in question as well as being frankly self loathing. And the references the posted on the bottom, if you notice, two are to companies they own, Brava for instance. The NY Times blog piece is a press article. I wouldn't be surprised if it was PR material from themselves. So without speculating we can conclude two of the links outside of the NY Times reference can be pushed away as self advertising. Leaving it with just one Reference and a whole bunch of self pat backing material. Any company would love to do this, so why do we let this one? Because they are big? Size doesn't matter. They should follow the same guidelines like the rest of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcefalu (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I am not missing any point. My comment was simply a direct reply to the direct question asked by RHaworth. It's not the point that you wish to discuss, but is a valid point that he and I are discussing. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Fcefalu, apart from the only contribution to Wikipedia by Pomonr (talk · contribs), please specify which edits in the past year were made by the company itself and explain why you think so. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • RHaworth, if you look at Y&R imparticular and any of their related properties. You'd notice a pattern. The same user doesn't update the page more than 4 times. Look at this users page that has updated their page Thayerss. Every single edit, is regarding a WPP property. Now, isn't this evidence that WPP is immorally inputting information, and self advertising themselves? And , basis for removal based on the Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcefalu (talk • contribs)
  • Hey, it's not permitted here, and it shouldn't be permitted, and I've personally deleted many thousand of them here just like you have, but that doesn't make it immoral. Advertising and even the composition of press releases are not criminal activities. We don't permit it here, and we're doing a good thing by removing it, but out of place is not immoral. Even under siege as Wikipedia is, we who are defending it need to keep perspective. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Arya (ancient Indian people)

Recently you have deleted Arya (ancient Indian people), terming it as content fork of Indo-Aryan peoples. I like to point out that Arya is an ancient tribe, while Indo Aryan peoples is an ethno linguistic group, which includes modern Australoid tribes like Bhils too. There is nothing common in terms of geography, language, culture in between ancient Arya tribe and modern Indo Aryan peoples. Consider restoring it. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Distance eLearning or DeL

This is in reference to the deletion of our sandbox. I have already removed referenced material from seniornet.org and provided a link to the site instead. Materials from eurodl.org was also removed. I also tried to contest the deletion giving the same reason. Why was it still deleted? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMS130-20131T (talk • contribs) 02:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

We are students from University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU) and this is a requirement by our prof. I will try to resubmit using my own user name, and will try to do it piece by piece. We have researched this and it has articles to back it up. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMS130-20131T (talk • contribs) 11:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I suggest you tell your prof to become more familiar with Wikipedia policies in particular the one about original research. If you insist on trying to re-submit, please let me know where you have put it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe she is aware, but I am not. I apologize for my ignorance. :) I have tried to resubmit and here's the new link: Distance e-Learning

Death of Chung-Chiu Hong

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chung-Chiu Hong Sudden Death Event. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Mailer Diablo 08:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to apologise in advance for any grief and hassle you may receive from this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • No need to apologise - it will not be you creating the grief. Do you have evidence that it is a paid editor? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed I do - "Disclosure: I have been paid to write the article (no surprise)." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of file:BDA airport logo.png

Hello RHaworth, were you aware that this was contested for the reasons given on File talk:BDA airport logo.png when you deleted it?  JGHowes  talk 13:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That really is not a very satisfactory answer, and does not explain why you ignored (or were you even aware of?) this was being contested. Four hours (the time interval between my creation of the Talk page contesting this matter and your deletion of it) is hardly enough time to "sort this matter out". When a Speedy is being contested, I'd suggest waiting at least 24 hours before deleting, to allow for the process to work. Otherwise, by the time others might wish to respond, it's already gone and Non-admins like Gold Wiz113 can't even view the deleted Talk page, much less discuss.  JGHowes  talk 19:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Please stop fussing. I have restored the version you uploaded under the current version of File:Bermuda International Airport Logo.png. If the image description "provides no ownership information", then add the information. Image names are simply not important but if you really prefer a different name, request me to move the image. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

deletions

I've removed the deletion tag from a few G13s because I think I can save them, and you've deleted them nonetheless after that. Since G13s can in fact be restored on request, my removal should be non-controversial. Since the times are close, I assume it was some sort of edit conflict, tho I do not see how that could happen. I will restore them as I work on them. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • It is my habit to open an whole lot of CSD candidates in separate tabs and then go through actually doing the deletions. So an article may be as much as 15 minutes old when I delete it. If I delete anything where you have removed the speedy tag, just restore it - don't bother to tell me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
considering that most speedies are nowadays there for less than an hour, you're probably ignoring other people's also. At least I know enough to do something about it and have the ability to restore them. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (after edit conflict) Then maybe you need to change your habit. It just might be the reason why you get so many people complaining that you don't take contestation or removal into account when you speedy delete pages. It's no good in many cases saying "just restore it", because non-admins have just as much right to contest speedy deletion as admins. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

NOT SO MUCH OF WHY YOU DELETED ME

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_rwirangira

Hello RHaworth,

My email is not so much of why you deleted my article, but it's more about how can I make it better... I am from East Africa and we don't have that many artists on Wikipedia so I am trying to start updating the world with what we have going on in East Africa. If you can still pull up my article and help me do it right or let me know what I should and should not do, I will greatly appreciate it sir.

I also have another article waiting for review, but I think I might have also wrote it the same way... Again, I am only here to learn and f you're willing to help me, I will send a pray your way and if not, i will still send a prayer your way, because I will eventually have to get it right one way or another.

Stay blessed

--Hemdee Kiwanuka (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)--Hemdee Kiwanuka (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrestlezone

As you were the last admin to delete this article, just a note to say that I have nominated the current version for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestlezone. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Open pop star

I've removed the proposed deletion from Open pop star, since as it was previously undeleted it is ineligible for prod. Of course, the article can certainly be sent to AFD. CitiCat ♫ 00:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Samuel Kirkland Lothrop may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {for| the New England clergyman (1804–1886|Samuel Kirkland Lothrop (clergyman)}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Slovenly speedy deletion / wheel warring

Didn't you notice that another admin had just reversed the speedy deletion of Cheveley Park Stud before you deleted it again? Does your incompetence have no bounds? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It was with both of you. Aren't you supposed to check before deleting things? And please now sort out your further disruption that now makes it look as though I created the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

And now you're continuing with the disruption. Of course it's fucking ready for mainspace. Once I've calmed down a bit I'll think about starting an RFC about your adminship, because your actions have progressed from the merely grossly incompetent to the positively disruptive. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Hi both of you. Phil, I've done a history merge so that the attribution is preserved now. RHaworth, I see you userfied the page again, but I'm not sure what the problem is now that the stub is referenced. Could you let me know why you don't think the article is ready for mainspace? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, admins are not supposed to get any special treatment here, so please do what you would do to any other editor when it is necessary to prevent such disruption. I erroneously moved User:Horseprev/sandbox to User:Cheveley Park Stud, forgetting to change the namespace, but then when I tried to move it to article space I found that he's even protected the title from creation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • If I recall correctly, notability criteria say multiple references. Also while the purists say that refs to paper are of equal value to online refs, I feel that online refs could be easy to find for this subject so I say it is not ready. However if Mr S thinks it is ready, I have no objection to his moving it to the proper title. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That is total bollocks. How many references do you expect to be added in the minute or two that you leave between your disruptive actions? And a book published by a university press is a far better source than anything you'll find by a web search. And notability criteria require that sources exist, something that would only take you a second or two to check. And perceived lack of notability is not a reason to remove articles from mainspace. You are very keen on admonishing brand new editors for not knowing the ins and outs of Wikipedia markup, but seem yourself, as an admin of many years standing, to be completely ignorant of the important thing here, i.e. building an encyclopedia rather than disrupting others' efforts to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "In a minute or two" - but why was there any urgency to add references? Would it hurt for the article to reside 48 hours in userspace while references were found? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that another reference or two wouldn't hurt. I had a look at the current source, and the passage about Cheveley Park Stud was quite short, so by itself it may not be enough to prove that the subject passes WP:CORP. (Although on Google Books the page numbers had been removed, so I can't be sure it was the right page.) About the online vs. offline thing, though, the source is published by Johns Hopkins University Press, a well-respected university press, so I don't think there can be any question of its general reliability. And we don't penalise offline sources (see WP:V#Offline sources). I have to go now - work is calling - but I'll have a look at this later on when I get back. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/2013_Jul_22&oldid=1172213950"