User talk:RHaworth/2014 Jan 25

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

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? Even if the article has been deleted, you should still link to it.
I reserve the right to ignore any message which does not provide links where appropriate, has no heading, is in the wrong place on this page, has not been signed with ~~~~, is anonymous, etc.
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.]

Deleted article Blockchain.info

Hello RHaworth, I was surprised to learn that no Wikipedia article exists for Blockchain.info. Turns out it was recently speedily deleted. Could you please restore the article? I'm sure the fact that it satisfied Wikipedia:CSD#A7 in your estimation means that it was rather stubby and poorly written. Nevertheless, I'd like to start from whatever was there. Thanks, Chris Arnesen 01:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I was tempted to say "send me 0.1 bitcoins to my wallet at Blockchain and I will restore it"! As a Blockchain user, I agree it is probably notable. If you had actually read beyond my name on the deletion log, you would have found your way to User:Tow/Blockchain where I have preserved the text. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! BTW deletion log says User:TOW/sandbox. – Chris Arnesen 15:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I can see why you deleted it :) Chris Arnesen 16:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, indeed. Sorry and thanks again. I hope this passes muster now Blockchain.info. Cheers, Chris Arnesen 21:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  • It was very naughty of you to start your new version by copy&paste instead of moving Tow's draft. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry sir, it won't happen again. I was looking at some of the other articles in Category:Bitcoin_exchanges. I think that unlike Blockchain.info, Asia_Nexgen actually satisfies Wikipedia:CSD#A7. As you know, I'm still learning the ropes on all this article deletion and resurrection stuff, so I was hoping you might just do the needful. Cheers, Chris Arnesen 10:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Decade of darkness

Decade of darkness was a newly created page tagged for deletion review then deleted less than three hours later with no chance for discussion or feedback. This is hardly reaching a consensus; it was one person who thought the term was politically biased and another who performed the delete. The term is an important part of history and background in the federal government's treatment of the Canadian Forces and Department of National Defence. If the page's talk page needs to be utilized to hash out the details of making the article more 'neutral' then that can be done, but the page deserves to stand. Request the page be restored and marked for improvements to be discussed and agreed upon through the talk page. ARMY101 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review has been posted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 January 18. — ARMY101 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I can forgive you for not understanding what <XFD PAGE NAME> meant. But failing to provide a wikilink to the discussion and failing to sign it are simply sloppiness. Your statement "usually by the same user who speedily deleted this page" is totally ridiculous - neither of the deleters has touched the Rick Hillier article. Even if you mean "the person who proposed its deletion", your statement is still incorrect - both deletions were proposed by Ahunt (talk · contribs) who has never touched the Rick Hillier article. So, correct your wording and name the person you have in mind - if your statement is true, the evidence is there in the edit histories but you should save us having to hunt for it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for deleting my user requests, I realise there were quite a few! Matty.007 19:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for QMobile

An editor has asked for a deletion review of QMobile. 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. UBStalk 22:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleting links to free Language learning

Please do a little research before you delete these links. This is not a business. The only pleasure I get is knowing that I am providing Free Learning for everyone,,, where is the crime in that? Ignorance does not serve Humanity. Do the right thing and champion education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clowningar (talk • contribs) 01:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • And will you please do the right thing and stop editing where you have a blatant COI. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the COI. There is no conflict, the only Conflict I have is with this power well meaning non-researchers swing without looking. Have you looked? Is it a business? Do I have something to gain $, Prestige? No! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clowningar (talk • contribs) 01:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Charlotte's Web (Cannabis)

I don't know what happened, but Charlotte's Web (cannabis) (an old redirect) was supposed to be deleted (including talk page), and only leave one article, Charlotte's Web (Cannabis), in existence. What happened? I didn't ask for this. Please restore Charlotte's Web (Cannabis), and delete only the redirect at Charlotte's Web (cannabis), because it had no links to it anymore. I had been waiting for that to happen before asking for it to be deleted.-- Brangifer (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Now a bot has fixed about four double redirects, so they are screwed up too, but I'll fix them manually when this is restored. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • There was absolutely no need to e-mail me and the matter is not the slightest bit urgent. If you don't know what has happened, I suggest you learn to read edit histories and logs. In the Rosales article there is a sentence: "well-known members of Rosales include: roses, strawberries … hops and cannabis". Not one of the items in the list has a capital letter. Please explain why "cannabis" in Charlotte's Web (cannabis) should have a capital letter. Preferably point me to a discussion where it is agreed that it should have a capital. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I used a capital because most of the other cannabis articles I noticed did so. (Now that I've done a more thorough check, it's just over half which use a capital, so they should be fixed.) I'm well aware that it would be a tu quoque fallacy to use their example to justify my action if they are wrong. Are they? If the MoS says using a capital in this situation isn't proper, just say so and that will resolve it for me. I do want to follow the MOS (it's pretty large!), and I assumed that the others had done the right thing. My bad. It will be a pain, but I can deal with the real world issues and contact several people to fix that side of it. I don't think anything's gone to press yet because of the weekend.

I've been around here for about 12 years. I could see what happened in the history and logs. What I didn't understand was why a simple request for only a deletion suddenly turned into a move, with no explanation. That's not typical procedure. Usually courtesy prevails and there is some sort of discussion or explanation. I'm easy to deal with and have no desire to make a big deal of this. I just want to understand. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • What on earth are these alleged real world issues and several people needing to be contacted? It is tricky - see this in the MoS. Certainly if we are talking about a specific species, we must use a capital as in Cannabis sativa but I would claim that the word is a common name in its own right and if we are using it without a species name, then it takes a lower case 'c' as in the Rosales article I quoted. And in the Charlotte's Web article title it is the common name being used. But clearly the mix of upper and lower case that we see in category:Cannabis strains is unsatisfactory - it would be a good idea to seek consensus - talk:Cannabis strains would seem to be the appropriate place. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

From what I can gather from the MoS (and I'm still not certain), the same basic rule applies as to titles themselves, IOW only the first word is capitalized, so this should probably remain as "cannabis". I have fixed wikilinks to the article to reflect that change, so I guess we're done here. Thanks for your patience. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

About E. Newton Harvey

Hi RHaworth, and apologies for bothering you yet again. To be quite honest, I was fixin' to report myself for possible misuse of WP:REVDEL on WP:AN about that article when you deleted it. (It's no secret I like writing and improving articles about zoologists and other life scientists, probably because as a bairn I wanted to be one. As conflicts of interest go, that's not such a bad one to have.) I thought I did a fairly good job on the article, cutting out the copyvio and adding references from other reliable sources. Whatevs. As per WP:DELREVD, "Before listing a review request, please: (1) discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first." So here we are. Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I did look at this as I deleted it and thought "that is a bit short to justify a copyvio tag". You removed the copyvio so why did you leave the speedy delete tag in place? You hid the revision of 2014-01-12 09:01:59 because it contained the copyvio. Why did you not also hide the revision of 2014-01-12 09:03:00 which also contained the copyvio? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for undeleting the article. "Why did you leave the speedy delete tag in place?" Because I wanted another admin to assess it - I was WP:INVOLVED. As for the hidden revisions: I'm at a loss to explain what went on there. Barbie 1971's edits seem to have disappeared down some kind of memory hole, and I'm now attributed as starting the article. I can only explain my one WP:REVDEL here. I guess I'm not really as smart as I would like to think I am. Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I think you were totally justified in removing the copyvio tag. If you were unhappy about the article for other reasons you could have added a {{prod}} or {{nn-bio}} tag. What on earth is this "disappeared down some kind of memory hole" rubbish? You are an admin: you know perfectly well where they went. But it is an interesting question: should the original creator be credited in the edit history even though they posted a copyvio or should you appear to be the creator? I leave you to decide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

SVG

Can I vectorize raster images from websites (other than Wikimedia projects) to upload them on Commons? For example, there are some raster images in .gif format at this web page. Would it copyright violation or not? -- Warraich Sahib 13:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FSCEM45212 (talk • contribs)

  • Your signature should contain a link to your user page, your user talk page or your contributions history, preferably all three. If you vectorize a copyright image, it will still be a copyvio. In fact for medal ribbons, because the image reproduces the texture of the ribbon, GIF or PNG may be more efficient than SVG. Suggestions: recreate the ribbons yourself as SVGs using untextured areas, see for example, this or this; contact Lukasz Gaszewski (email at the bottom of the page you quote) and ask if he is willing to release his images under a CC licence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. TY! --Warraich Sahib (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Dear RHaworth, can I vectorize following images which are on wikipedia:
  1. PSO Logo
  2. PGC Logo --♚ ωárrãiÇ♄ šÁhiß (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) FSCEM45212 As a matter of fact you can but remember to replace them in their articles, tag for deletion and at the end add the template {{SVG-Logo}} below their respective license sections. Soham 10:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Soham, link to my SVG file is this. Please add sufficient information (a valid and suitable tag) on this media's copyright status.. Thank you! --♚ ωárrãiÇ♄ šÁhiß (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Toward a Science of Consciousness

RHaworth, I created a page about the Toward a Science of Consciousness conferences. It was rejected by the admins on 6 January 2014 on the grounds that I had not provided sufficient evidence of notability, or enough non-primary sources: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Toward a Science of Consciousness. My intention is to improve this page in order to meet these objections and then resubmit it. In order to do this, I moved the content from the Talk page to the corresponding Project page and began making amendments. You have moved the content back to the Talk page (thankfully keeping my amendments). Is it okay/correct_procedure for me to continue editing the content on this Talk page before re-submitting, or should I be doing something else? Thanks, (Peter Ells (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC))

  • I am sorry, I merged Wikipedia: and Wikipedia_talk: before I realised that they were meant to be separate pages. I have moved it to draft:Toward a Science of Consciousness and, I hope, correctly separated out the stuff for draft_talk. No one seems to have written up the rules for the draft: namespace, eg. do reviewers still put decline reasons in the article itself? But if, when you are ready, you put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft proper, it should get reviewed in due course. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. The admins who rejected my page put everything (notice, reasons for rejection, and article itself) here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Toward a Science of Consciousness. (Peter Ells (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC))

  • Erm, I think the draft namespace is to be sent to mainspace by the creator. AfCs are not supposed to have talk pages.--Launchballer 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Crypt of the NecroDancer

I would like to ask for the deleted information of the page Crypt of the Necrodancer, I am very new to Wikipedia and I did not expect the page to be gone before I could actually work on it. I have so far only worked on Wikia pages to familiarize myself with some of the coding necessary, so I am very inexperienced in wikipedia customs, the page was gone before I was able to contest the deletion.

I chose the subject as my first Wikipedia entry because it was relatively unimportant (so noone is offended when I make mistakes), but I was convinced it would pass the notability test. I also assume that, since A7 states, that it is not applicable to software, and the subject in question is software, the deletion request was faulty, but I guess the actual issue is notability. The game has received a lot of coverage by notable critics and is highly anticipated, when the article is finished it should visibly qualify for notability. If it does not live up to the present press opinions in the future I will not object deletion. -- Luveluen (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I ended up un-deleting it at first because it didn't seem to fit A7 since it wasn't an online game. I started to put it up for AfD, but a bit of a search brought up multiple early reviews from various RS. In any case, this has already been resolved is what I came here to say. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

My problem has been solved. Thank you very much for your help. -- Luveluen (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Please learn wikilinks and to not use <br>. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted images

Transferred to other party.

Question about Google earth

Hello RHaworth, there was a file called File:NRSJPS on Google Earth.jpg aka "file#10" which I'm discussing with the person that uploaded it. I presume this was a computer-screenshot of some page of google's mapping-software. Or possibly it was physical-camera-used-to-take-a-picture-of-the-computer-screen, variety of "screen shot". But either way, the content of file#10, because it is a derivative work of the copyrighted mapping-data used by google-earth, is a problem for WP:COPYVIO. Thus, the "screen shot" with a physical camera, or the computer-screenshot, produced an output-file which, while the photographer/screenshotter actually pressed the button themselves, is not really theirs to upload to wikipedia. Is this explanation correct enough for teaching-purposes?

p.s. I realize that the mapping-data is likely copyrighted to some third-party-supplier, rather than google itself, and that google's software-app-menu-bar-and-toolbar-and-such are prolly not copyright-infringements in a screenshot. But there is a language barrier here, and the situation is complex enough as it is.  :-)

p.p.s. I laughed at your grumpy-old-man talkpage introduction.  :-)   You should link to an appropriate imagefile from commons.[1] My suggestion is File:Old man of Mow - geograph.org.uk - 604974.jpg which is truly ancient. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Problem, what problem? It was a blatant, unambiguous copyvio. Surely nobody would dare to claim otherwise. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

European Company Lawyers Association

Hello RHaworth. I tried to submit an article for creation for the European Company Lawyers Association. It is a European Association, well known in its domain. I saw that you deleted it and the reason you pointed out was "insufficiently known". However, even though you might not have heard about it, it is well known in its area (geographical and professional). I have multiple newspaper articles to support that. I did use a lot of information from their website, but only facts such as the list of their members and their history ; hence it is not biased, merely factual. Please help or explain. EstelleCat (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Reinstate BASCAP page

Dear RHaworth, Little more than 2 hours I was notified of the impending deletion of the BASCAP page due to it being flagged as containing advertising material.

Before I had a chance to review the page for any potentially offending content, which the red notice had informed me was my right, I found that the page had been deleted. Please reinstate this page so that I can ensure it meets the wikipedia guidelines. Thank you Arbourman (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice try. Posts are supposed to be signed with ~~~~ not ----. If you had looked at your post after you had posted it you'd've known that. Please learn wikilinks, too. You have never had a red notice on your talk page and I am interested to know how you know about those.--Launchballer 16:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Launchballer, I know that you and I find it difficult to conceive of people who come to Wikipedia only rarely. I am assuming that Arbourman's distinctly unclear description of a "red notice" arises from an e-mail he received because he has turned on "email me when an article on my watchlist is edited".
Arbourman, please tell me the actual wording that informed you it was your right - is it for example something in the {{db-spam}} tag? Sure you have every right to object but there are no time limits laid down! The article looked like it was cribbed from the organisation's website and was totally lacking in independent references. I can let you see the text (read this) but it would be better to start again from scratch. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of {{db-spam-notice}}. Given Wiki-PR, I had suspected it was one of their employees operating more than one account because that account had not previously edited in a number of months... I should probably have another read of WP:AGF.--Launchballer 22:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear RHaworth and Launchballer, it's fine for you both to sit their and mock the efforts of Wikipedia users less technically endowed than yourselves. What I do take issue with is when you delete the work of other people at the strike of a button without leaving sufficient period for the supposedly offending articles to be rectified. That RHaworth should then boast on a personal website about this dubious record for deleting pages adds further grist to the mill. Given the number of posts made on this page by other users just in recent days regarding similar deletions, perhaps you might consider giving us AGF users more of a chance. Respectfully yours, ----, sorry, Arbourman (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Article on European Dairy Association

Dear RHaworth, The article I wrote on the European Dairy Association has been deleted because of 'unambiguous promotion'. The European Dairy Association is a Brussels-based trade association along the same lines as CEFIC. The latter has a page on Wikipedia with more or less the same content as the article I wrote on the European Dairy Association... Could you give me some additional insights on how I could write this article on the European Dairy Association without the immediate risk that it gets deleted again. I can rewrite the article following the same sections/headings and tone of voice as the CEFIC article. Would that be the way to go? Thanks. ChrisDecroix - sorry, brand new on Wikipedia --ChrisDecroix (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Other stuff exists is never an argument and CEFIC is a bad example to follow since the article is totally lacking in independent references. You almost certainly have a COI and should not be trying to re-insert the article but if you insist, follow this advice and get the support of an established editor - Tony May (talk · contribs) seems an obvious choice since he created the CEFIC article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Gulf Agency Company

Hi RHaworth. Re Gulf Agency Company: I understand that some phrases has been used from the webpage you detailed and it is infringing on copyright. There are more information provided on the topic compared to that on the webpage, please let me know if this can be resolved by rephrasing those certain phrases. If the issue is bigger than that, please do advise. Thanks. Gracelim14 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Have you actually looked at any Wikipedia articles? Can you not see how unsuitable your text was? For example, it was bad enough that you gave us your trite mission statement but you had to add equally trite "vision" and "corporate ethics and compliance" statements. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Lodge Kohinoor

Hi, You have deleted the page I created. Now can you please let me know what is required from my end for the article to be resubmitted and accepted. — Arainajai (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Notability is not inherited. Having some blue-linked men as members of the lodge does not make it notable. In any case the article was totally devoid of references. Even if you supply references, I doubt very much whether a DRV discussion would re-instate it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

List of Pomodoro Technique software

Can you please restore List of Pomodoro Technique software to Draft:List of Pomodoro Technique software, per WP:PRESERVE? Draft space didn't exist during the first deletion discussion, but it's an option now. Diego (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • The draft: namespace makes no earthly difference - the possibility of userfying has always existed. The objections to the page I deleted are exactly the same as in the first AfD discussion: the list consisted entirely of external links. I have emailed you the text but do not expect to have much success if you re-submit it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you userfy it then? Someone at the discussion mentions that there was an earlier, longer version. Diego (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I only userfy if I think the article stands a chance of surviving. I have emailed you two longer states. If you wish to see the full edit histories: start a discussion at deletion review then let me know and I will restore the text and apply the {{Tempundelete}} template. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

As I'm not planning to move the list to mainspace anytime soon, a DRV is not adequate. I've requested a refund instead. Diego (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Smsarmad's Clevery

Hello, its Yasir72.multan (talk · contribs). First time, I "un-answered" Smsarmad. Can you believe? *Smsarmad* creat same "festivals of pakistan" articles (copy&paste) on *Simple English Wikipedia*. He also request it for Semi-Protection when i want to delete them. Watch [2] When I asked him that "You were going against of my articles in this wiki. But why you going on creating on SE Wikipedia? (it is stoled article) and when I request to delete them, then you request for S-protection of it" He had not yet give me the answer of "Why?" In his User talk History, He leaved this notice that "I am not going to tell you". You can watch its History page.

Anyhow, the pages on SE wikipedia has been deleted because I request them for speedy deletion I am only want to telling you that it is a not good phenomenon that the articles creat by those who were against of them. Smsarmad's un-answering is the proof of his mistake. You can further discuss this issue with me and Smsarmad here. Please ask him "why?" because He is not ready to tell me. Thanks. 119.160.118.225 (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of article: Mark P. Becker

The article for Georgia State Univesity's president Mark P. Becker was created and deleted before additional information could be included. Please restore the article to allow the students to modify and aggrandize the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescannon2 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:AUS fb states sm

T3 should only apply if the template is unused and redundant. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Count yourself lucky I am talking to an IP address that cannot link to the page it is talking about. Apologies - restored. You should complain bitterly to 2nyte (talk · contribs) for applying the speedy tag to it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel the equality

Hello RHawoth, I was not wanted to come back to english wikipedia. But your magnetic irritation attract me back to your talk pagem.
Not Understand? RHaworth! now I am not irritating You, Launchballer, Smsarmad, Deb, Nawlinwiki, Darkens Shines or any other user (soham, nehapant19 etc). My only point is that, so why you request to block me on global wikipedia. I think you really want that I continue to irritate you. Dont forget that you are an admin and I am an ordinary user of this wiki. But in Global wiki, we both are equal. So you cannot block me. - 119.160.118.221 (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Correct me if I am wrong but you vandalised simple:User:Mar4d/2013 and simple:User:Mar4d/2014. Smsarmad requested their deletion then you accused Smsarmad (talk · contribs) of ripping off your article. We call this sort of activity trolling and it confirms that we are right to block you indefinitely. I have not requested a global block for you but please point me to where the request has been made. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

article for creation: Abanda Shake

Hi, RHaworth, Josve05a (talk · contribs) has recently informed me that while I've been trying to edit the article about the music project Abanda Shake, you deleted it.

I'm asking to restore the article, because there has been a misunderstanding which you took for copyright infringement: the web-page you've referred to has been created and administrated by me, Natali Dali. I am the co-author and co-producer of Abanda Shake. I create all of the materials for Abanda Shake in general, and for this page in particular, and I write all of the texts.

I have the proof of this - the email shown in the text at that page is <redacted> which is precisely the email of me as the Wiki user talking to you herein. Please, give me back my right to submit the article. Thank you in advance. Regards, Natali Dali of Abanda Shake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abandashake (talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  • So what? We don't need proof that you are Natali Dali. What we would need, as you have already been told, is for the current "all rights reserved" at the bottom of the page to be changed. But don't bother: kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your project is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

AFC purge 2014 Jan 02

The reason why the list of eligible submissions went up that day is because I added a new collection of potentially eligible categories to the Notify side of the process and we had been running the bot at quarter speed to give all interested parties a vacation of sorts. Hasteur (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of laser diode lamp

Hello, you sited G5 as one of the reasons for deleting the article, which is "Creations by banned or blocked users". I am not a banned or blocker user and I do have other substantial edits. Thanks,--Wyn.junior (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Will you please read above and answer me? 119.160.118.195 (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Randall Casper - Deleted Page

This page is not an autobiography. It is a biography created about a notable figure in politics, writing and research in the United States in the later half of the 20th Century. It incorporates a connection to notable figures in North Carolina politics as well as published research articles with notable and well-respected Universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall Casper (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User has recreated User:Randall Casper Jonathanfu (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Magnetic core drilling machine

Hello! The website http://www.magneticdrillingmachine.com is owned by me. The article on the website is also written by me. What should I do now? Should I remove the material from the website? or How can I donate the article to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohan von Indien (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

  • What should you do now? Learn to sign talk page submissions. Learn to create a link if you are talking about a web page. Any page which you use as a source must carry a clear {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} licence. When you use the text here, you must point out that the source has a CC licence. Do this as an HTML comment in the text, in the first edit summary and in the article's talk page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
Thank you for making me realize my mistakes in editing: Andrew Eugene 01:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

Thanks for deleting a redirect for me, but can u please remove a category from User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26? I found that a sock category was placed there erroneously (see the bottom), can't seem to find it in the archive though. Reply on your talk page please, as I'm watching it. 98.254.108.228 (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Strange userpage

Hi Roger. Can you take a look at User:AlhambraSchoolAlert? Not sure on this one, but looks concerning. INeverCry 22:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The user's contribs might be a problem too. INeverCry 22:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It looks to me that it's a member of Alhambra School updating its Wikipedia page. I don't mind because it is fully sourced, but what disconcerts me is that the user shows fantastic Wiki knowledge despite being created today. I recommend chatting with the user before blocking.--Launchballer 22:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, AlhambraSchoolAlert (talk · contribs) is almost certainly a second account of an experienced wiki editor. I don't even call it sock puppetry because sock puppetry has malicious intent, eg. to circumvent a block. The addition is well sourced and the school page has 29 watchers. Let us leave it 48hrs to see what happens - I suspect the addition will not be deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

VideoDonor.com

Hi there, videodonor.com page should have stayed under articles for creation until it was ready, why was it deleted. Did someone change its status? I think you should give article more time to be developed under articles for creation. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.233.203 (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

You recently deleted User:BartSimpsonshow as spam. The user is in the process of re-creating it. I would classify this user as NOTHERE. It might be best to just delete/block. Werieth (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Geez, how do you not know that redlinks work the same way as bluelinks after almost four years of service and over 40,000 edits? I wouldn't bother blocking as yet, I'd protect the userpage and work from there.--Launchballer 21:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Uh, Not sure what your point is, but do not edit others comments. I used a non-wikilink for a reason, wiki-linking to user pages has a side effect now, User:Launchballer, see what I mean? Werieth (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  • That comment was directed at Launchballer, for which they received an Echo notification. Hyperlinking does not cause a notification, while wikilinking to a user page does. Werieth (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Disco Cuttlefish deletion

Hi, I see you deleted the page I created, Disco Cuttlefish. Could you please advise on how I might retrieve the content I produced for it, and which parts of the page specifically qualified as 'unambiguous promotion'? I'm quite new to wikipedia and would appreciate your help with these matters. Best, Dan. Danimations (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You're not new. Your account is a week short of existing for 80 months.--Launchballer 00:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Launchballer, seriously take a step back. The account might be that old but the user has only really been editing since November of 2013, ~3 months. Werieth (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I make the first edit as 2013 Aug 04. Despite your contribs history, I suspect you have a COI over this matter. I am very dubious about whether it will justify anything more than a sentence or two in the Adelaide Fringe Festival article and that should not happen until the animal has actually appeared on the "bitumen dancefloor" (that was the sort of thing that got it called spammy) and received critical acclaim. Text emailed to you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Noor Inayat Khan

You recently deleted Creating Enemy of the Reich: The Noor Inayat Khan Story This article was marked for deletion for the reason "This is basically G11, unambiguous advertising. It's for a kickstarter campaign to fund a film not yet produced". I contested the deletion, added more links and edited the article to show it's an actual film releasing this year. The film is on IMDB, has official website. And is even talked about on another article Noor Inayat Khan. Yet the article was still deleted. Why ? I had added more links and details. Thanks, Edge262 (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IMDb is not a reliable source, its official website is a primary source and of course it would be mentioned on Noor Inayat Khan - it's his life story! Having said that, Creating Enemy of the Reich: The Noor Inayat Khan Story has never been created.--Launchballer 08:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Noor was female. OK, so the [[ was applied at the wrong edge. Enemy of the Reich: The Noor Inayat Khan Story lacked decent references and, worse, was about a not yet released movie. You must wait until the film has actually been released and received critical acclaim. And even then, it may not justify more than a mention in the Noor Inayat Khan article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Blumhouse Productions

Dear Roger: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blumhouse Productions and Blumhouse Productions. I see that you have done one historymerge on this article already, but can you put the history back together again? Or is it too much of a mess? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Edits in 2013 April on two different pages are now irretrievably jumbled but that is what you asked for. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - At least the editor who created the article and those who made major contributions have proper attribution. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Promo user

Hi Roger, User talk:DJ PRANAV is back up. INeverCry 21:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Charlotte

Some of us are new here, and haven't found are way around yet. Perhaps you might give new editors a clue as to why you're reverting next time. The manual states not to always provide a reason for reverting unless it's vandalism, which is what I had to go on. A courtesy wikilink or simple note would be sufficient next time in your edit summary. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Block of User:Wikieditor5656

I've been discussing this block with the user in the unblock IRC channel, and am not entirely convinced that this editor and User:Peileppe are one and the same. Although the return to editing on Peileppe's part is unusual, Wikieditor maintains that Peileppe is a friend who knows more about Wikipedia editing, and who agreed to return and help with the article. I also don't really see why Peileppe would bother to create this sock account, as there's really no benefit here. Would you mind me unblocking? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Why do I think this editor is female? I accept that she is not a sock and have, for the moment at least, unblocked her. Clearly a block for being a single purpose, spam-only account may be needed soon. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I have left a note on the user's talk page just to inform them of the unblock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the page you deleted

I have fixed the page, Deering Estate Plane Crash. It now has the information relative to the article title. Thank You — Cameronhclark (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

CFDCalc

It seems that my explanation as well as the references about CFDCalc is ignored. CFDCalc is NOT a website or provider of web content. It is an innovative, special-purpose software of Computational Fluid Dynamics that interacts with mechanical engineers through webpages. Please provide the text for my own record. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chenyiaero (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It might not be fair to call the article spam, although its subject is a commercial tool for CFD. The article merely uses neutral word to describe the mechanism and functionality of that tool, which can provide knowledge of CAE and CFD process. The initial reason for the deletion is that the subject is not notable, while I would like to improve the article to prove the notability. I also would like to remove any words that admins determine as promotional. I just hope the door is not closed to me and you can send me the original text of the article so that I can improve it. Thanks. --Chenyiaero (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Bare URLs

Is it worth mentioning Reflinks in User:RHaworth/moans#links? I use it all the time to fill in references.--Launchballer 17:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I had not encountered it. I was not impressed on a quick test but I will investigate further. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Japanese phrases AfD

Good afternoon! Earlier today I PRODded the article Japanese phrases for being an instruction guide. The author objected, and in his reasoning he indicated that you had reviewed the article while it was in his sandbox. I have started an AfD, and I'm posting a notice for you here in case you would like to comment on it. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Structural Disorder

You've deleted Structural Disorder as A7. I don't doubt that you're right. What confuses me is the appearance of an automatic Twinkle notice on my user talk page, because I don't believe that I've ever written anything about a band before. Can you go back and figure out whether that had some non-band content and/or appropriate, medicine-related redirect back when it was located at Structural disorder, and if so, restore that content? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Erikarko (talk · contribs) posted his spam for his nn-band by vandalising the Structural disorder page. PamD, not realising that there was a valid redirect beneath the spam moved the page to Structural Disorder and then applied a speedy tag. Twinkle in its innocence noted that you had created the page (as recently as 2012 July 17) and sent you the db-notability-notice. Simples! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for figuring it out and fixing it. I've put the redirect on my watchlist, in the hope that I might notice any future "adjustments" to the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Un-archiving (is that a word?)

Hi RHaworth,

I noticed that you recently deleted Talk:2024 Formula One season/Archive 3, as it was blank. However, a particular editor took it upon himself to blank that page and restore all of its content (some 220,000kB) to the active talk page on the grounds that there was a bot patrolling that page that would automatically archive old content.

I have been an editor on Wikipedia for several years now, but I have never had a need to restore a page that had been deleted before. Can you please tell me the process I need to go through to do that? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean Talk:2014 Formula One season/Archive 3? RHaworth deleted that, not because it was blank, but because it was a talk page of a deleted page (which to my knowledge doesn't apply to archives because they automatically go in talkspace). "I have been an editor on Wikipedia for several years now" A bit too long to not know that only admins can restore deleted content for my liking! If you want to do so yourself, set up an RfA for yourself where I will oppose based on lack of experience. -- Launchballer 13:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Launchballer, I am shocked! 2014 Formula One season is not a deleted page - talk archives inevitably have no corresponding article pages. However …
Prisonermonkeys, your message is distinctly disingenuous. I agree with Sport and politics: manual archiving is wholly unnecessary. But the page is much too big. Instead of trying to do the job yourself, work out the best settings for {{User:MiszaBot/config}} to get the job done properly. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Alpha Financial Markets Consulting

Hi Roger, I see you deleted the article I posted for Alpha Financial Markets Consulting. Would you mind explaining why? I tried my best to keep it factually based and provided numerous references to ensure that the information was an unbiased as possible. I am a bit of a newbie so my apologies if I still got this wrong. I would be happy to alter the wording if this is needed? Please do get back to me when you have a moment, it would be great to publish my first article and contribute to a website that has given me so much.

Thanks, Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markthomas1988 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've done some more reading around the G11 issue - I'm happy to have another go at removing any slightly promotional language if you think this can be published? I do believe that the company in question fits the criteria of notable however I can see some elements that can certainly be changed. Let me know what you think. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markthomas1988 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  • My day for disingenuity! If you really want me to believe that you want to "contribute to a website that has given me so much" rather than simply promoting you company, you will build up a solid record (actually >50 edits will do) of Wikipedia edits which demonstrate a lack of COI, eg. improving the articles (if there are any) about rival companies to yours. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Blurred Lines/vector.js

Could you undelete the page that I nominated back in November, please? Blurred Lines 15:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  • It would have been easier for you to simply re-create it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't remember the content that I inserted, that's why I asked for it to be restored. If your not busy, do you mind undeleting this one too, please? Blurred Lines 17:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

MD5 Central

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

deleted bitcoin embassy page

well, this page was posted and deleted promptly, reason posted was that this page is promotion, i would like to resent this quick determination. bitcoin emBassy non-profit institute and a decentralised entity. it is a community centre, this place is aspiring to be a new function in the cityscape it is a new term, for a new social function capable of duplicating itself and it already exists in Montreal, Tel Aviv and soon in Miami and Greece. i realise that in it's current version the page still does not hold all of this data, but i inter to edit it further and create a valuable source of knowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superyona (talk • contribs) 15:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Superyona: Hi, I've been working on the Wikipedia articles about Bitcoin and the companies and organizations that have sprung up around the technology. The Bitcoin emBassy sounds like a pretty cool place. I agree with RHaworth though that it's not yet sufficiently notable (as described here Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)) to warrant its own article. Here's the basic requirement "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I see a few mentions of the Bitcoin emBassy in secondary sources but in those news articles the primary subject is the ATM that was installed there, not the emBassy itself. Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes like this :~~~~. Also please feel free to write on my talk page if you have any questions about notability or suggestions about Wikipedia's coverage of Bitcoin. Cheers, Chris Arnesen 15:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/2014_Jan_25&oldid=1172210230"