This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

Hello Mr. Haworth. I see that you have speedy-deleted the June 2 Lisa Lavie article that I posted, based on G4, "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." However, G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" and my June 2 submission was more concise, about a fourth as long, and more consistently well-referenced than the 2009-2013 article that was deleted on April 1. Because of the differences between the two versions, deletion review also doesn't seem appropriate. So I need your advice on how to get the new article fair consideration: my notability arguments are here: "Establishing notability...". Can you reconsider your speedy deletion or give some practical advice? Thanks. RCraig09 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Deletion review seems completely appropriate. I have restored your last version. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I found the previous version in the revision history. I'll look into the deletion review process. RCraig09 (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Supplemental: preliminary to considering DRV, I consulted with the 1 April closing admin Spinningspark, who indicated (here) that if the new article that you speedy-deleted on 2 June is substantially different from the deleted original, I should take up the matter with you. In fact they are very different (new 16KB vs original 65KB plus other differences listed at "Changes" here). Question: There is an ambiguity in your above comment, which of the 1 April deletion or the 2 June speedy deletion you implied I should take to to DRV. If you meant the 2 June (improved) version, then can you simply reverse your own speedy delete decision? Please clarify and advise. Thanks. RCraig09 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to become a Wikipedia editor, you will learn how to create wikilinks. You clearly did not read the comment by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz here. Stop fussing about and raise the DRV request. You tell us which version you want considered for re-instatement. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lisa Lavie. 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. RCraig09 (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This is regarding deletion/removal of: File:Judan Ali Interview Sky Sports News.JPG as copyvio of this image. The owner of the image has completely given over his rights of the image to me. The image was provided to the website you refer to by him: http://fridrikkjartansson.com/judan-ali-as-a-coach-to-iceland He (Gavin Williamson) has since wholly parted with all rights to myself. How can I prove this so you will re-instate the image? I believe I should have placed the image under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license? Any guidance much appreciated. — Sxu02msg (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please read this. In this case we will need to see two e-mails: from Fridrikk Jartansson confirming that Gavin Williamson is the copyright holder and from Gavin Williamson confirming that he releases the image under an appropriate CC licence. (I certainly hope he has not actually been so foolish as to transfer all rights to you.) You may anticipate these emails by uploading the image to commons:commons:upload and applying an ((OTRS pending)) tag plus proper source and licence details instead of the (quite frankly, dishonest) ((self|cc-by-3.0)) tag that you applied originally. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth. could you check up on this potential Yunnanxane article? I'm hoping there now is enough relevant info in place to qualify for a page. Thanks Jatlas (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• How long is it going to be before you learn about wikilinks? Sadly, it will probably be accepted if you move it to mainspace. But you have actually done nothing to address the advice I gave you at User talk:Jatlas#Stubs. It is still an hopelessly short article. Further, I suspect that there is probably not a lot more worth saying about it. In which case I say: do we actually need an article. This is an encyclopedia not the BNF. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I do appreciate it. I do not believe the article is "needed", but considering yew isolates/derivatives taxol and docetaxel are a cornerstone in medicine, related chemicals found in the plant are of interest. I realize it looks like I ignored your advice, but I couldn't build that much data as I am limited to research abstracts. (also you have probably realized this already, but your previous comments "first synthesised; by whom; how is it synthesised" overlook the fact this is a compound found in nature). Going forward, I would very much appreciate it if you helped me put the page back up. As for the similar pages you sent back to the drawing board on, I agree with you about wiki not being a formulary, and will abandon them (with the exception of the Hongdoushans, which could possibly be combined unto one page, data permitting).Jatlas (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why do you need my help? Why can you not move the page? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Roger. I appreciate you reviewing my article and have a question. I noted you deleted the article that was at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Silver Pen Writers' Association for G12-Unambiguous copyright infringement. I do want to try recreating this page and am striving to meet Wikipedia's requirements. I am contacting you, as per the message "If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below."

Can you tell me what part of the page violated copyright laws (I'm guessing it is the part about the business of writing and/or standard of profession conduct, but am not sure)? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Abqsue (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your association is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you please restore the description page for this image? It has been undeleted on Commons. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Done. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I am requesting the speedy delete of Accurate Technologies Inc be removed, so I can make your requested changes. "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." This article does stand a chance, because:

• G11 states "Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." This article was neutral.
• Stated in A7 The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, which I was not given a chance to do so. There are sources in this article, thus a claim of importance has been made. The proper 7 day debate should have taken effect, not a speedy deletion.

I understand notability needs work, but there is evidence that an attempt has been made, therefore enough to qualify for debate. If the speedy delete is removed, requested improvements will be made as the 7 day debate takes place.

One other argument that was brought up was potential copy write infringement to this page This was proven false by doing a side to side comparison of content on website and in article. The format and the 5 terms were the only thing that had similarities, thus not a violation. Please consider this article for reinsertion into Wiki, with promise of improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowebot86 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• I see that you have already made a request for undeletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dont i deseave at least this after everything im not going to hurt you i love you you know this ale you are my life but i will walk away if you talk to me just you and me it can be in a public place but just us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.181.194 (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• By all means let us talk but unless you identify who you are and say what you want to talk about there is nothing I can do. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we talk please. Dont i deseave at least this after everything im not going to hurt you i love you you know this ale you are my life but i will walk away if you talk to me just you and me it can be in a public place but just us alejandro patino im your wife you married me you can try to hide from me bi but you cant now stop all this nonsence and lets work this out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.237.35.15 (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Roger Just interested to know why you deleted the Gizmo prog-rock (1970's progressive rock) article. All information was accurate and true. I guess you must know something we don't. You contact us through the Gizmo.uk.com website. All the best, Prog1977 (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why on earth should I want to contact you? If you want a reply to your message, you come here to read it. And that reply is my ususal one: kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your band is notable and writes about it here. But I will tell you for free to note the word slovenly at the top of this page. Your submission looked as though it was a copy&paste from some advertising material and absolutely no attempt had been made to create a Wikipedia article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Roger, sorry to disturb, but I wanted to ask you about the deletion of the Argument (restaurant) page that we have created. Sorry, but "unambiguous advertising"? We tried to keep content neutral, but if you'd disagree with some formulation and would alter them, I could understand. But please tell me how page like this Café Coco or Hungry Horse or Výtopna have a right to exist, while one of the top Czech restaurants cannot? Or this DW Agentura which is a fairly unknown agency in Prague - that's not advertising? If the article needs to be shorter or whatever, I'll appreciate your advice. But there are dozens of more marginal establishments that have a Wiki page, and I would appreciate for my joint to have the same opportunity, especially as it's one of the better ones. Thanks a lot, Josef — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curridabat1 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is an hallmark of spammers that they resent learning anything about wiki markup - witness your use of external link format four times above whilst failing entirely to link to the article in question. Other stuff exists is never an argument. I can only repeat myself parrot fashion: kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your restaurant is notable and writes about it here. But I will acknowledge that compared with Gizmo (see above), you had made a little more effort to create an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir, first let me apologize for not using wiki markup, I have not been previously using this feedback tool and have only created a dozen of pages in my life so far. Regarding your text, let me add a few notes. Hallmark of spammers - I beg your pardon? Before registration, I have created a few pages of musicians I like and all was okay; now I've added one restaurant page for a similar reason, does that make me a spammer? Where is my COI?! Sure, the owner is my friend, I like the place and that's why I wrote about it. But that's the main reason why you write articles - because you like the subject you're writing about. If I know a member of a band personally, should I be prohibited from editing their profile? Your text basically says that the problem isn't the article itself, but its author, even though you don't know anything about me, and if "someone" else writes about the place it'll be okay. That's absurd. Regarding Other stuff exists - of course it is an argument, because you easily let similar articles be, advertising and often biased as they are, then deliberately delete this one just because you personally don't like it. Anyway, inconsistency I can live with, but what surprises me is the arrogance with which one is called spammer, accused of COI, indecency and told not to stick his nose into why one page can exist and other cannot. I did not expect this tone of conversation used here, and if such quasi-fascist behaviour of 'editors' and utter lack of respect is what 'the free encyclopaedia' is now about, then it's a shame. Curridabat1 (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• You have zero edits to your credit and since only logged in users can create articles, I view your claim to "have created a few pages of musicians" with extreme scepticism. In fact you did not even create this restaurant article - that was done by Adcass (talk · contribs). So we need an explanation of your relationship to Adcass. If you can actually manage to put together an article in encyclopedic tone and, above all, supported by references to reliable sources in English, then raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As incredible as it may sound to you, I have created a few articles in 2007 - 2011, with a password and login that worked then but doesn't now for a reason I don't know, therefore probably anonymous - I really don't spend my days solving the way how Wikipedia works. My major concern was the way how Wikipedia is being ruled by people like you, and that was not commented at all. Adcass is my colleague at work, whom I asked to do the page as we both go to the restaurant and we promised to do a Wiki page for them. I don't give a sh.t anymore for an article here, but I do care about the way how people are treated, and if this is the way how Wally and Mr. Wales wanted this to work, I would be most surprised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curridabat1 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think the founders are delighted with the way Wikipedia is working. I have pointed you to the democratic route for getting my opinion overridden and the article restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You were a bit hasty on Fort Grahame Waterdrome. I've never heard of a redirect being deleted so rapidly, nor with any rationale given; it's gone now, and I only just got the speedy deletion notice. Fort Grahame Waterdrome is an alternate name for Fort Grahame Airport, and if you go to this googlemap link and zoom in so the airstrip is maybe 1/2 the size of the top-bottom frame, you will see "Fort Grahame Waterdrome" there, placed by Googlemap staff, who must have got it from somewhere, I'd think Transport Canada. I created it because I'm in the process of researching Fort Grahame aka Bear Lake Outpost, and old HBC post the area of which is also the (relocated) home of the Tsay Keh Dene Nation (Sekani) whose Indian Reserves are located in the area. If you've never heard of a waterdrome, it's where floatplanes can land; yes, there's an airstrip, but also a small bit of protected water suitable for floatplane yes. I indicated in my article-creation edit-comment about finding it on googlemaps. I've been an editor since 2005, as you would have seen had you looked up my edit count, I know what I'm diong. So.....what's with the hasty?Skookum1 (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)`

• If I was hasty, then you were clumsy - as you can see in the history, you had created the page as a redirect to itself. I was not going to waste my time trying to think what you might mean, so I zapped it. If you zoom in two stages from the map link you gave me you will see this map which also marks Fort Graham Airport. If you look more closely at the map, you will see that the word is actually "dome" not "drome". I also note that you have added an "e" to the end of Graham. Interestingly, Google search gives zero hits for "Fort Grahame Waterdrome", "Fort Graham Waterdrome" or "Fort Grahame Waterdome" but it does give a few hits (all to "mechanically generated" pages on yellowpages.ca) on "Fort Graham Waterdome". However after some vacillation, I have now decided that drome is probably correct.

I would also suggest that you beef up Fort Graham Airport into something nearer to being an article rather than a stub crying out for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Telling me about your edit history is pointless padding. You have made your point with a sound reference - why do you think I am going to have any interest in your credentials? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

		The Deletion Barnstar
		In appreciation of all your deletion work. INeverCry 03:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sneakbo had a #48 hit with "The Wave" and somewhat dubiously was featured on the song Oliver Twist. Could you restore it to User:Launchballer/Sneakbo?--Launchballer 06:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Restored. I note that the guy's catchphrase is "I'm on a Jetski wave" and the article was created by Jetskiwaved (talk · contribs). So your version will have to work hard to counteract our dislike of self-promoters. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If worst comes to worst, I just remove the spun content and reference the remains. Thank you.--Launchballer 09:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Taunus International Montessori School. Mr Haworth. Your remark about the notability is right. We're trying hard to fill out the 'infobox school' which doesn't work like in the sandbox, as there is also an internal discussion about releasing our logo on Wikipedia. The factual info in the article will be expanded. Give us 3 weeks please. --Felix dubois (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC).

• No, you may not have three weeks in mainspace! However, now the article is in User:Felix dubois/sandbox you may have as long as you like to expand it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Roger. I noticed you recently deleted File:The Guardian front page 10 June 2013.jpg. However, after discussions at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Edward_Snowden_newspaper_cover and Talk:Edward_Snowden#Image, I'm fairly sure it does not violate fair use policy in this instance. It is not replaceable with a free equivalent, was low resolution, and directly contextual to the text of the article. The IP user that nominated it for speedy deletion replaced the image with a definitely non-free portrait, that has since been deleted, so I question their judgement. What are the next steps? --— Pretzels ^Hii! 15:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Re-instated. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  Many thanks. — Pretzels ^Hii! 21:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

[Message transferred to User talk:Guideline & Policy Wonk#Cronut. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)]

[Message transferred to User talk:Drswik#Pointless. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)]

I am looking into creating a page for the Rochester Dragons, a professional men's ultimate team in the American Ultimate Disc League (AUDL). In the process of creating the page, I saw that you have previously deleted a page similar to this description with the same name. I am currently working on developing multiple pages for the AUDL, so I would like to ensure that the work I am doing does not violate any rules of Wikipedia and meets the standards set by it. It seems that the problem you had with the previous article is that it did not indicate the importance of the subject. While I do not know if the previous article was about the same team, I can assure you that the Rochester Dragons are quite significant. They are one of twelve current teams in the American Ultimate Disc League, the first professional ultimate league in America. The team functions as any other professional sports team would, fully formed with players, management, and sponsors. While the team and the league are still young in terms of professional sports, the fact that it is one of the first should contribute somewhat to its importance. I look forward to hearing back from you and I hope that I can resolve any qualms you would have with the creation of this page. Redfox1294 (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Redfox1294

• The entire content of the page I deleted was:

The Rochester Dragons is a professional ultimate frisbee franchise based in Rochester, New York USA. The team is a member of the American Ultimate Disc League.

If you create an article with proper references, it will probably stick. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I see you deleted my sandbox page, User:KXF/sandbox, on which I had several draft articles taken from a publication produced by my office that is in the public domain. Can we talk about this? Was I doing something wrong? Could they be reinstated? These are not cut-and-paste entries from copyrighted material. KXF (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Whaddya mean "several draft articles"? It contained just one draft, the text of which you will find at User:KXF/sandbox/Rex M. Ball. You certainly should complain to Technical 13 (talk · contribs) for failing to notify you of their action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! I misunderstood what I was reading and what page I was on. Thanks for the clarification. KXF (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

User was notified and acknowledged notification. He has also been making awesome use of my creation on the top of his user page. Technical 13 (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Martini: A Memoir, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Rangasyd (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your solution, I can live with it. A further question: should I do anything about this, or just ignore it? -- Hype supper (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ignore. IP address editors are generally treated as a lower form of life and the matter is one strictly for the ro: Wikipedia. Admins here are simply not interested. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you please delete the pages Time in Thailand, Template:Media Prima‎ and Template:TV in Thailand‎? They were formed by improper cut&paste moves, and another editor who seems to have problem understanding the situation is trying to remove the csd templates. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry, I thought you had already gone offline so I also asked Legoktm. Thanks for the assistance. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Haworth, As you might know Henning Larsen Architects won the Mies van der Rohe award, and the leading architect and partner in charge was Peer Teglgaard Jeppesen, hence i think it would make sense to create a page about him since he had a great role in winning the most prestigious architectural award in Europe, and the award is among the worlds most prestigious architectural awards. Mies van der Rohe award information page on Harpa. Mies van der Rohe press release of the winner of the award 2013 Dezeen's article on the winning project (Mies) Archdaily's article on the winning project (Mies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troelshr (talk • contribs) 07:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• No, I did not know that Henning Larsen Architects won the Mies van der Rohe award but I have seen the Copenhagen Opera House - see my photos. I think that you, Josefine vesterbrogade (talk · contribs) and Fafe vester (talk · contribs) all have a COI - do you all work for Henning Larsen? So my standard advice applies that you should wait for someone with no COI to write article/s. Why aren't you asking me about Jacob Kurek as well? Both Jacob Kurek (AfD) and Peer Teglgaard Jeppesen (AfD) were rather stubby articles lacking in independent references and both were deleted after AfD discussions. I suggest that the best solution may be to add a paragraph for each guy to the Henning Larsen article and create redirects from the guy's names. If you really insist on trying to get articles in, you will need to create much better proposed versions and I also recommend you to find a "sponsor" to insert the new articles or start a deletion review discussion. Texts have been e-mailed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth. User:Borgew had emailed me with an inquiry about his article. I understand you deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Social Price because of copyright infringement. Is it possible for you to provide me a copy of this article so I can look into it? Can you explain why you deleted it? I'm still waiting for a reply from Borgew and I'm assuming good faith in him. Thank you. ~~JHUbal27 18:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Strange: why did Borgew come to you? Have you ever interacted with him? The article was deleted for allegedly being a copyvio from http://www.slideshare.net/ebok/the-marketing-of-ideas . I am not sure whether that is true but it certainly looks like a copyvio from somewhere and I hope that Borgew is not actually claiming that it is his work. Text e-mailed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• From the clumsy way that Borgew was going about things, I had assumed he was a young student. But since he claims on his user talk page to be Seymour H. Fine and since Seymour H. Fine published The Marketing of Ideas and Social Issues, from which lots of his article is copied, in 1981 we are dealing with something rather different. I suggest: drop any copyvio issues and concentrate on the original research aspect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Latest e-mail confirms: "Seymour H. Fine, Ph.D. Columbia University, Rutgers professor emeritus of marketing". His website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know Borgew. The name sounds faintly familiar. I suppose he looked up some random user. I tried to email him about original research before I saw your message here and his email came up as spam on my spam filter. I guess he is acting strange. I'm not going to bother with him anymore. How do you know he is not lying about his identity? Very suspicious. He sent me a letter claiming he owns the copyright and a picture with "proof". I have his (business?) address and phone number. Frankly, I'm confused. I may be overreacting, but what do you think? ~~JHUbal27 01:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• You are overreacting. The e-mail address given by Borgew (talk · contribs) in this edit is the same as the e-mail given by Seymour H. Fine in his resumé. The reason your spam filter is flagging it may well be connected with the facts that he contacted you apparently out of the blue and you say it is "faintly familiar". Have you interracted before, possibly in a different forum? I see you aspire to go to Johns Hopkins but have you ever enquired about courses at Rutgers? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sir, I'm not even in high school yet. I'm not sure how he knows me. However, people know me probably because of Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) This is the end of the discussion and I'm not going to help Dr. Fine anymore. ~~JHUbal27 16:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Respected sir, Bagri and Bawri are totally seperate and unique language. Redirect made to Bawri language as Bagri language is totally wrong. Once user pointed out Bawri language is not recognised by govt. of India. It does not make sense since india is nation of many major and minor languages. Bawri language is also one of those minor language. The speakers of this language are mostly marginalised in terms of education etc. So I request to respected wikipedian allow me to write article as Bawri language and put light on this hidden language. It is totally different with Bagri in terms of vocabulary and grammar. It is spoken by Sikhs where as Bagri is spoken by Rajsthani Hindus. — Shemaroo (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am not going to allow you to write anything if you are going to shout at me. But why are you asking me anyway? Have I protected the title? Despite the AfD discussion if you can actually create a properly referenced article, it may stick. But your own admission that "this language has no official status and recognition in India" is not a good prognostication. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth, you recently cleaned up the FNG syndrome article after it was moved to a different title. User:Piotr Grochowski‎‎ has now moved it again and screwed it up big time (see his contribs). I guess we need your help again, if you don't mind... ;-) Thanks and greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think you needed my help. Because FNG syndrome was still just a redirect, you could probably have moved it back yourself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought that as well, but somehow it didn't work. I got an error message. Thanks for cleaning up. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth. Thanks for handling the deletion of User:Rehan33/Rehan allahwala. You might consider accelerating the proposed deletion of the related Allahwala article as a borderline case of blatant promotion. I wasn't sure if the commercial web addresses buried in the redlinks were blatant enough for a "speedy".

I stumbled upon these when dealing with new promotional pages for this person at Wikiquote, and I thought it might be good to quash this cross-wiki promotional activity. Regards, Ningauble (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think Rehan33 has gone away. If the prod gets removed from Allahwala, it is likely to be done by someone with no COI so I am happy to let the prod run its course. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Could you tell me why these articles have not ever been subjected to deletion or deletion discussion? I am trying to gain perspective on how some articles are quickly deleted and others seem to remain when reliable, independent sources and notability appear similar to articles that are deleted. Thanks!

I am trying to understand are articles in Wikipedia that appear to have less support and are for similar persons, yet the article that I wrote is the only one being subjected to a deletion discussion. See V. M. Johnson, Guy Baldwin, Desmond Ravenstone, Steve Maidhof, Susan Wright and Hardy Haberman. Thank you for your input. — IntlWriter (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by IntlWriter (talk • contribs) 05:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why did you wait so long before contacting me? You have an indirect approach that some might call sneaky. So before you write anything else we need from you an honest declaration of interest - which are you: Thomas Smith or someone very close to him? You have already been given the simple answer to your question: other stuff exists is never a valid argument here. Of other replies to your question, I would add that perhaps none of the creators of the articles you list brought themselves to the attention of the wikipolice by doing edits such as this vandalism. It is an hallmark of spammer or self-promoter that they consider learning wikimarkup unnecessary - witness the tidying up I have had to do your message. If you really want to force an article in about Thomas Smith, I suggest you follow this advice and find an established Wikipedia editor who thinks Thomas is notable. In any approach you make, be completely up-front about your motives - no crap such as "I am reporter who is working on a series of articles …". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated previously there is no conflict of interest to disclose according to Wikipedia standards. As you know there was no "vandalism", the picture that I uploaded to the article that was being created was named the same as the picture in the article you are referring. When it was uploaded since there was the same name it caused the new picture to replace a picture in the link you reference and it was corrected. It was caused simply by the names of the pictures being the same, nothing else, and it was not malicious or intentional. I asked you THIS question in the same 'spirit' as your link and I waited to be able to let a week pass so that I would be able to gain insight without it being fresh from the article deletion. I had hoped that you would respond in a constructive manner without innuendo or name calling. There was no "crap" intended. I do find your suggestion as a new editor to learn wikimarkup meaningful. Thank you for your time.IntlWriter (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it, but any chance of deleting it?--Launchballer 17:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I notice you also reviewed RaVen Quartet; there is currently a massive AfD regarding one of its members, Natalie Holt, who was responsible for Egggate, and with the creation of that it too comes under it. Your comments at the AfD regarding the two subjects are welcome.--Launchballer 22:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please block (expiry set of indefinite) and delete User:100loves (including all entirely the user's page). Because the user changed unsourced genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.164.131.28 (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't talk to IP addresses and certainly not to one who cannot provide a link to the alleged objectionable edit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Roger, I would like to know what stands to your expertise onto philosophical paradigms in relation to carbon-X interference systems as an outcome of political/scientific/economic/physiological undetermined life objectives via determined subjective. Or you are one of those proponents accepting information without relevance to time? Best, Rado S Bozov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbonrado (talk • contribs) 14:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but your message above is just as much gobbledegook as your submission at Template:Theory of Carbon Signaling. Your submission was deleted simply because it was in the wrong namespace. If you had submitted it in the proper place, it would have been speedily deleted as patent nonsense. Please post this on your own website until some independent person: a) manages to understand it, b) translates it into English, c) gets it promulgated and d) finally when it is notable, writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note to let you know I have unblocked User talk:Journalistic INC. in order to allow them to change their username. They made a convincing and compelling appeal via UTRS and I trust that they have addressed the promotional concerns that led to the original block. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I shall believe it when they start to do non-COI edits. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be keeping my eye on their new account for a bit. I'm hoping that they'll prove you wrong ;) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete my edit to list of multi channel networks. There editor has personal interest on the list of those currently listed companies, or alternatively how can we add these on the list:

• Bent Pixels
• Global World Entertainment
• Nirvana Digital
• Kudos Records
• Collective

-- Lovepeopleworld (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Before you do any more edits, please learn a bit of wiki markup - specifically: wikilinks and <ul> formatting. Your edit to list of multi channel networks was just vandalism: you added a pointless comment, in the process destroying the markup for a section heading, and you added an unneeded signature. It is a principle of list articles that they only list entities that already have Wikipedia articles - hence the pointlessness of your comment - it is implicit that there may be other networks that do not yet have articles. Adding the ones you have listed above is perfectly simple: create a proper Wikipedia article for each network. Leave it, say, a week to see if the article is nominated for deletion. If it sticks, then adding it to the list article will be completely non-controversial. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you send me a copy of this, please? --TKK ^{bark !} 11:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I disturb you, Sir, but I'm desperately searching for the meaning of "Ouokl". One bit of information was the Wikipedia page deleted recently by you on June 19, 2013 → Ouokl.

May I politely ask you wether you could supply me with what this article contained before it was deleted, please? Any information about the meaning of this word (?), acronym (?) or else would be highly appreciated. Thank you! Günter Kroll 86.199.19.204 (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

An independent observation: "Ouokl" turns up 432 results, of which the top one is that article just before it got deleted. It is probably not worth your time.--Launchballer 01:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• The entire text of the article was: A new phrase newly emerged after recent Gezi protests in Turkey. This phrase has been posted on Twitter by Turkey's Minister For EU Affairs. It started to be used to refer to gibberish speech or meaningless words. Pronouncation: aʊkl̩

As a dictionary definition it should go in Wiktionary in the first instance. I see that Ouokl is apparently a Turkish surname so the word should be used with care since it is probably meant as an insult to a specific person called Ouokl. However since that person is probably another politician, insults such as that are fair game. See //t.co/nPsM0hDt1A this interesting image in this gallery on Twitter. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply! It helps me already a lot to understand the actual use of the word. Actually, I'm researching it myself since two days now after having seen it the first time in a Facebook message by a friend in Turkey. I've seen also the Bing results as well as the Google ones (about 107,000). But why do you think it to be a surname? I rather got the impression that a lot of Turkish people join it to their name like they joined "çapulcu" (marauder) before. That's why I don't think that there is a specific person called Ouokl but that it's rather a Turkish insult like "çapulcu". Yet, it doesn't appear in Turkish dictionaries which I checked. I've also seen several images, for example on the Facebook site "Ouokl" → https://www.facebook.com/Ouokl?ref=ts&fref=ts Not speaking Turkish myself I've started also to translate some Twitter and Facebook contributions into my own language German, but that takes much time which I'm lacking at the moment. Anyways, I stick to it and will keep you informed if you like. Sorry, I'm no Wikipedia contributor myself, yet, lacking also the time for it but I'm a regular user. Thanks again! 86.199.19.204 (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• A google search for Ouokl site:twitter.com throws up several hits beginning: The latest from Gülşan Ouokl, Çapulcu Ouokl, Furkan Ouokl, Özge Ouokl, Gizem Ouokl, etc. These look like names to me. Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of: for somebody who isn't acquainted with the ongoing habits in the communication of Turkish protesters this might well look like normal names. Yet, in my understanding (I'm following the Turkish protests closely since their beginning), it's just another way of protest like I indicated already: when prime minister Erdogan called them "çapulcus", many answered by changing their social network pseudonyms adding this insult like a "title" to them. Likewise, I suppose that now they're adding the EU ministers insult "ouokl" to their names, the best example being "Çapulcu Ouokl" quoted by you. Yet, their true names are still given on Twitter in brackets behind, as far as they want to: "Gülşan Ouokl (gulsanulgen = Gülşan Ulgen), Çapulcu Ouokl (hasanoben = Hasan Oben), Furkan Ouokl (boythathastail = his "real" pseudonym), Özge Ouokl (masacini), Gizem Ouokl (belgizemi), and so on. Anyways, my question has been answered, thanks again for your patience! 86.199.145.169 (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, noticed you reverted the new link I posted on list of multi channel networks. Just wondering why, considering that WP:RED doesn't advise this. Roguebluejay (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:RED is not very specific. It does say "red links to notable topics are permitted". But first you must establish that the topic is notable which you most certainly did not do in the case of Hipset Network. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What is your opinion of this source?--Launchballer 17:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Spooky, I call it. Probably the same hack at the New York Daily Sun has picked up not one but three Surrey stories: Bearded Lady of Guildford, Wizard Man of Sutton (Pugsley) and Jesus Man of Sutton (a six year old story). The hack obviously found them in a common source but where? Does nothing to change my opinion of the suitability of Conrad Pugsley for Wikipedia. (And don't you dare write an article about the Jesus man - pun!). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(stalking) As I said at the AfD, I think the local press have latched onto this guy as being a bit of an oddball (if he hadn't been arrested for possession of an offensive weapon and then let go, I doubt they'd care) and I reckon we'd be doing him a favour by not giving him a WP article. As for where the hack found the stories - probably right here, I'd guess. WP articles have extremely high presence in a Google search, and if they see one citation that looks newspaper-ish in it, they can dash off the required column inches, think "job done" and wander off to socialise somewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• The hack may have found Pugsley here but where did he find the bearded lady and the Jesus man? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello RHaworth, I have a small request for you that I was hoping you could and would grant me. Please read my talk page on the now almost decade long debate on the criteria for deleting the historic-economic documentary, The Money Masters, and then please, in the name of a minimum of decency, add some info if you can, on how many you were partaking in the latest deletion process and what arguments and reasons you felt were pressing to make it necessary to delete information concerning this documentary film. Thank You. Sincerely, Jan Ivar Jakobsen - Oslo, Norway, Historian and Computer programmer. Nunamiut (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Don't be idle. Do your own research, man. Special:whatlinkshere/The Money Masters will provide you with links to the various deletion and undeletion discussions. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

Hi! Do you think we should create protect this article given the fact that it has been deleted 3 times in the past day or two? Just a random observation. Regards. — Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• I protected it seven minutes before you wrote the above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Don't you, as a long term admin, even know that WP:CSD#A7 is not about notability? DRV it is then. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• The DRV discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	well done! Thank you for the help to delete Programming with Big Data in R (pbdR), but please keep Porgramming with Big Data in R alive. 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 saw you deleted this photo for copy-vio, and I vaguely remember seeing it prior to deletion. Was that the same photo as 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: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)