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.

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.

Hello, you recently deleted the red links from Template:California Ski areas navbox. According to Wikipedia:Red links, you are not supposed to. Those are existing resorts and someone might start an article about them (and some did). I just want to let you know. Thanks. Briarfallen (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple of days ago you deleted upon my request the page about Guntmar Wolff. However this page still exists on wikipedia if you type in Guntmar Wolff. It still shows the article. Would it be possible for you delete that as well. Thank you! 81.152.149.224 (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Anon users get fobbed off with old copies. If you actually bother to log in, you may see something different. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you 81.152.149.224 (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am writing to ask you to restore ChiZine Publications. There are plenty of other small publishers on Wikipedia with less information. I and others were slowly adding information, including why it itself as a company is noteworthy. Please also keep in mind that you are an admin; most of use are newbs trying to learn the ropes. Deleting entries by newcomers for not knowing all the rules will quickly turn this place in to oligarchy. And to mark it for speedy deletion on Christmas, when I was busy celebrating with family, is low. — Eroomtam (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• This place is an oligarchy already. But, I hasten to say, an oligarchy run by the experienced editors not just by the admins. I suggest you follow this advice. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

From this advice, I need for you to send me the text of the ChiZine Publications article. I also assume you are not going to un-delete it? Eroomtam (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Eroomtam

• E-mailed and, correct, I am not going to undelete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering why the CEO and President of a multi-billion dollar corporation is "not notable" enough for Wikipedia. Burl S. Watson was a giant in his time. When he became president in 1954, there was a huge half page write up about it in one of the leading newspapers in New York. If he was alive today and in a similar position, there would be no question of his importance. Your failure to understand the importance of one of the largest companies in the world at the time is probably why this isn't deemed notable. Burl S. Watson was one of the most powerful men in one of the largest companies in America. His predecessor has a wikipedia page W. Alton Jones. However, Burl S. Watson can't have one? What is your rationale? By the way, I have a degree in social studies education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomWatsonB (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have a degree in Natural Sciences, you have one in social studies education – so <expletive deleted> what? To be honest, the main reason I deleted the article was slovenly editing. You could not even manage to link to Cities Service Company. You could have mentioned that he succeeded W. Alton Jones and a link to that guy would have helped Burl's case. No attempt was made to indicate what the external links were about – does a link formatted like this [1] look as though it is worth following? Now, pull you finger out, tidy the external links as per my edit to User:TomWatsonB/BurlWatson, add wikilinks as suggested above and re-submit it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• We are not interested in your academic achievements but, given your user name, we would like to know your relationship to Burl S. Watson. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You recently deleted a page I created on contemporary druidry before I had finished it, there were links to be made and other edits, I felt it contributed to the knowledgebase and we were going to add more to it including ancient sourced material as backup to the contemporary theories. Does wiki not allow for new ontology’s and theories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attila of nazareth (talk • contribs) 18:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Usb10 (talk · contribs) considered that the article "reads like a how-to guide per WP:NOTHOWTO and appears to be orginal research per WP:OR". I agreed with that and threw in the observation that since we already have an article on neo-druidism, do we need yours? I am very dubious about whether your "finished" article would address Usb10's concerns. Wikipedia specifically does not allow new theories until they have become widely circulated and notable. If you must re-submit, I suggest you do so via the AfC process and leave a note at talk:neo-druidism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You have deleted our corporate page without discussing your concerns with us first. The page represented significant effort on our behalf and we tried hard to abide by the rules surrounding self promotion.

Perhaps you would like to consider pages such as Salesforce.com, Microsoft, Microsoft Dynamics, Netsuite, Oracle Corporation, SugarCRM, Zoho Office Suite or any other of the numerous corporate pages and then contact us and provide the courtesy of explaining your concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom.e.mackey (talk • contribs) 06:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What a strange idea that we should contact the subject of an article before deleting it! This is an encyclopedia not a business directory.

Your use above of ugly naked URLs [now corrected] instead of wikilinks confirms to me that your sole interest is to promote your company. Please leave it to people who are interested in building an encyclopedia. When your company becomes notable someone with no COI will write about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Just so we are clear please advise how you got to be in a position of influence with rights to unilaterally delete contributions to the site? On whose authority are you acting? Or perhaps your contributions (pun) are purely altruistic and you are acting as a good Samaritan for the general Wikipedia audience? Also – I note that you avoided the question on comparable sites. Please explain how your actions in this instance are consistent. If you take our site down you need to take the sites referenced above down as well. It does seem you have a history of inappropriate deletions (take a look down this page to a post that interestingly you have chosen not to respond to). — tom (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In the case of LeadMaster Australia Pty. Ltd., I was acting under the instruction of the Holy See since the article had been tagged for speedy deletion by The-Pope (talk · contribs)! Seriously though, I am a Wikipedia admin. We are the people who do the deletions when deletions need to be done. We act under the authority of the consensus of Wikipedia editors. This is an important point – admins have a strong influence on policy naturally but we are not the sole creators of policy. I got to be an admin by going through the requests for adminship process – which is, I believe, a lot harder nowadays.

Please note it is absolutely not "your site"! The site is en.wikipedia.org. It is not even "your article" – see WP:OWN.

Your request to take down the articles you list is, frankly, ridiculous. May I introduce you to the concept of "notability". I think even you would admit that Microsoft is more notable than your company. Each article is separately judged as to where on the notability spectrum it lies and dealt with appropriately. (See this recent discussion started by a similar request and note the statement of fundamental principle "there is no reason to assume that all foo companies are equally notable".) Since you had made absolutely no attempt to demonstrate the notability of your company, The-Pope and I both felt that it should be deleted. Your redress is to go through the deletion review process but before you do so, prepare a draft which does actually contain links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For a dispassionate view of the appropriateness of my deletions, have a look at my deletion log, count the percentage of blue links and compare me with NawlinWiki or any other admin. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, The page that I was in the process of creating was deleted. This was a bio page on the first female race car driver, to compete a full national campaign in the Australian Saloon car series, and one of only a handful of females competing in a full national series, in circuit racing in Australia.

Can you please allow me to recreate the page, and finish it. XR8Chic (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Are you surprised I deleted it – the assertion of notability given above did not appear in the article. Develop your article in User:XR8Chic/sandbox until it is viable and above all contains links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

[Title width guide]

++++ delete above here if no further edits – already in archive

Hello RHaworth. It would be better to explain briefly why Alangu Mastiff redirects to Bully Kutta. It seems to be a local name for the same breed [2]. The redirect as it is now makes no sense to an uninformed reader. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• So why did you not do this edit to inform the uninformed reader? My sentence could be expanded – I read that Alangu Mastiff is the name used in India because the Indians dislike the names Pakistani Mastiff and Sindhi Mastiff. That could be restated more diplomatically. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, dogs aren't my specialty. I was puzzled by Napoleon's comments (there was some logic behind his explanations, even despite his claims that "this is an Indian website and therefore it is biased"), so I prefered to wait for another opinion. Where do you read about the alleged dislike? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Where do I read – sorry cannot remember. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is just to point out to you that the DRV for the article you refused to undelete, Litton Industries bombing, found 7-0 unanimously that it "seems like the deleting admin has no idea what A10 is for and how it is supposed to work". So I'm going to go ahead and notify you that you may want to refresh yourself on the exact circumstances when Speedy Deletion can be used, and when you are required to follow the same nomination for deletion process as everybody else. LikeJudasOfOld (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The link to the discussion, which I've just closed, is here. Please review that feedback as clarification of when A10 usage is endorsed by the community. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think ceo deserves to be restored. They're a popular band; just google "ceo white magic" and you'll find a ton of reviews from the likes of Pitchfork, BBC, etc. exeunt (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• You are probably right. Unlike most band articles which are obviously written by the band themselves, this came from Smartskaft (talk · contribs), an established editor. But the article lacked even a fraction of a ton of reviews. Text e-mailed, if you re-instate, I shall not touch. Please see my comments on "just google". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I found another version of the article, so I redirected and merged some elements of the text. Thanks! exeunt (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at ten:London – expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming – and we'd love to have you – please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) – Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: general methodology and undocumented functions. ??? Sorry, what is it – "essay hung on neologism"? Where did you find neologism? There are links to special books! Just look! Thanks Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC) ??? Isn't clear, that Undocumented functions and Undocumented features are not the same! Undocumented features found in computer SOFTWARE releases, but undocumented functions found in any artifacts of technological culture. It's simple. Please, unblock my article. Thanks Hamard Evitiatini (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Your PROD on General methodology was removed by the author, and the article has been taken to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General methodology. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey I was wondering if you could recreate my article so I can change it. And I ment to put wreath I just dont use the word that often. Seriousmanatknight (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is highly unlikely that your corps will ever be deemed notable enough for Wikipedia. You can try re-submitting via AfC but do not expect much joy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You deleted a page wholesale from another user without warning. She is working on how to create verifiable third-party descriptions of an organization that is NOT her own (it was only on her own page b/c she's new to Wikipedia and didn't know about the sandbox when practicing doing code), and that we believe does meet Wikipedia's notability standards for musicians, albeit in smaller scale than other groups. There was nothing wrong with the creation of a page for that organization--Wikipedia has pages about many local choruses from around the world, and none of those other choirs use their proceeds to support local NGOs as part of their reason to exist. If you want to discuss whether it makes more sense as a stub vs full entry, or to push my student to seek out other third party sources before publishing it as a full-flown entry, why not first flag it and/or start a talk page? The whole scale deletion was over-the-top, and you should at least restore her personal page to her to allow her to learn to do it right. Cubanabop (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have to admit that the article was not unduly spammy. Restored to user:Arbatchelor/sandbox. Better evidence of notability will be required before the article becomes viable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I appreciate you flagging it so she can learn from this (and the real-life issues and responsibilities of authors who are part of a group encyclopedia), and I have shown her your concerns so that she can address them. Cubanabop (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You have indicated your intent to delete the entry Iradek software from Wikipedia. What is the course of action that you prescribe for having that entry retained? The company in question is notable as they have created something new and that has not been previously recorded in the history of human kind. This typically warrants entry into the Wikipedia. Please advise. Regards, Abner Jenkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.173.57 (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• What pray, has "not been previously recorded in the history of human kind"? Ridiculous language like that will help speed up the deletion of the article. Assuming it gets deleted, you raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cloderic (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC) While I understand you concerns regarding the relevance of the Golaem article in an encyclopedia, some other company in the very same market having roughly the same size are present on wikipedia (Kynapse, AiLive...). Wikipedia provides interested users in such technology a good entry point for further web researches, and people already reach our website (roughly 25% of our traffic) from wikipedia articles where we're cited (Crowd Simulation, List of game AI middleware). The article I wrote was citing some sources (I intended to add more independent press articles) and was well-linked to relevent topic pages.

I added the Southeastern Regional Lipid Conference as external link instead of internal wiki link, which directs the reader to a deleted page. You tagged my action [an edit to Ceramide] as vandalism and I respectfully disagree. According to the wiki rules vandalism is:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism

I would understand if it is not possible to link to a userpage, but this happened in good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Let me elaborate on this a little bit more so you may understand the scope of this page and my perspective on this. I have contacted several of my colleagues and leading experts in the lipid research field to have a look at the conference page. Comments were uniformly: perfect and glad to see encyclopedic information on a pure educational conference that is around for 45 years (which can certainly not be assumed for most of the wiki pages on media celebrities claiming an encyclopedic status. Sorry for being blunt here). I familiarized myself with the wiki rules and can certainly understand your concerns. However, I think that some of your responses or tags are somewhat insulting. Please keep in mind that this conference page has nothing to sell or self-advertise. It is an established educational conference and the wiki page allows students and post-docs to learn about it and link to other pages on subjects presented in the conference. They will be encouraged to edit other wiki pages and correct or improve their scientific content. Thank you for your understanding. Ebieberich (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• OK, OK, it was not vandalism. I unreservedly withdraw the edit summary. But I think it is nit-picking to discuss an edit summary when the edit itself (after a second edit) was uncontroversial. Why on earth do you think it is not possible to link to a user page? I am very dubious about the notability of the Southeastern Regional Lipid Conference but I have moved your draft to User:Ebieberich/sandbox. You must provide evidence of notability. Having done that, submit it via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the article in my sandbox. I was wondering if you still have the later page with external links to universities that mention the Southeastern Regional Lipid Conference in their department websites. I guess I would need this for notability. It also had edits of my colleagues who just started to use this page. What I find in my sandbox is the previous version without these links and edits. Thank you. Ebieberich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

• All your edits have now been restored. Use history if you cannot see what you want. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you please remove the tag "vandalism" from the edit summary. I figured that edits have to be proposed on "My talk" first before the article can be altered. However, from your response I thought it was obvious that the link to the conference page was introduced in good faith and not intended to vandalize the actual article on ceramide or sphingolipids (besides, the three major conferences on these topics are mentioned, not just the one the article is about). Honestly, I am just doing my job in trying to create a webpage on a lipid conference. I do this with approval of many lipid experts who have seen the article and found it worth to be submitted to Wikipedia. After discussion with you and OrangeMike, I agree that AFC is a good way to have it reviewed by someone else and that's what I am going to do. I am not sure yet where to declare my conflict of interest, but you may be able to help me with that. However, I really don't like my institute getting a message on "vandalism", in particular in this obvious case. Please remove the "vandalism" tag and reverse any IP blocks.Ebieberich (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• You really are nit picking but since it is now possible, I have done it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this. I can explain myself later on this issue. If I am not mistaken I think you have edited the article on the Southeastern Regional Lipid Conference webpage. Shall I now resubmit it via AFC or is it already under review and I better wait what happens. Thank you for your help. Ebieberich (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• "I think you have edited" – for goodness sake! Have I or haven't I? Learn to read edit histories. I edited your draft for Southeastern Regional Lipid Conference. That does not constitute review. When you have added evidence of notability, you should submit the article to AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• I hope you have read John's unique comments. Before you spend any more time on the article, give me links to three organisations comparable to your own who have articles here. (This is not a waste of time. You clearly have not studied other articles sufficiently. Following the style of other articles would help you improve the chances of your article at AfC.) Also, in the course of finding these articles, you might like to follow this advice. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit that it was hard to find a good standard for a conference page, but there are many examples of very heterogeneous pages, mostly without third party reference. Since you asked for 3 examples: Microbial population biology, International Conference on Systems Biology, and very surprisingly, a page that is just a list of webpages for the conference List of systems biology conferences. What is the encyclopedic value of this? I was more successful to find a good standard by visiting organization webpages, for example that of the American Society for Neurochemistry. I have changed the SERLC webpage accordingly, just mentioned the educational value as a fact without praising this or promoting the conference. As evidence (third party), I have listed third party websites that cover SERLC and mention the graduate student awardees. What do think, is it AFC-ready? Thank you for your continuous effort. Ebieberich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

• AfC ready? Well I suppose Biochemical Journal can just about be considered significant coverage in a reliable, independent secondary source. But I would like to see a couple more. I also found Gordon Research Conferences and Category:Biology conferences. They do not give me confidence for the success of your article! I am sorry, because we caught your article you are going to have to work harder than the authors of the other articles did! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least you are fair and kept the standard as I can see. I guess someone will hate me now. Ebieberich (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi I had seen your message that the content I had put on was in violation of copyright. In the time that it took me to track down alternate content you had deleted the page, which either means I was slow finding the content or you were super speedy at deleting... I have alternate content which is not the same as that on our website, so can I now please recreate the page with better content. Pretty pleeease? Denise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisesw (talk • contribs) 01:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Have I protected the page? So why do you bother to ask? "Track down alternate content" = find other copyrighted material? I know it is an outrageous suggestion but have you considered the possibility of writing the article in your own words? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A7 is just your opinion. Until I find a wikimod who understands what the page is about or expand on it, can you undelete it and move it to my help or sandbox area? Redsandro (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• You will have an hard job convincing me that the forum is notable but article restored to User:Redsandro/sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have deleted the four images I uploaded for the article I am writing on Oliver Bevan because Wikipedia does "not allow non-commercial only licencing". I'm not entirely sure what that means (though it sounds sensible); however, I had contacted the artist and told him I am writing a Wikipedia page on his art, and asked if I could use the images. He consented, so I would be very grateful if you can let me know how I should mark these images for use in the article? I'm still learning about writing for Wikipedia so any help would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Jpardey01 (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You said that on Mark T. William's page – to keep the image uploaded he "must be ready to licence the image under the Creative Commons" and I was just wondering what this means/how he can do this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esterfine (talk • contribs) 15:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• He should go to the photographer (they may be images of him but the photographer holds the copyright) and ask the photographer to go to the Commons, create an account and then upload the images selecting "Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL" as the licence. What could be simpler? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This PROD has been contested. Courcelles 19:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think it was a little arrogant to decide that the Menelik Number was a "blatant hoax"? If you google, you can find some site and forums that talk on that. For example in this forum there are hundreds of people discussing the issue and calculating their Menelik Number. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia but how can I restore it? — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funafuti18 (talk • contribs)

• Hoax was, I admit a convenient excuse to get rid of what Ttonyb1 (talk · contribs) and I thought was obvious rubbish unencyclopedic trivia. Why on earth did you append the list of sovereign states to your one sentence and why did you not include any evidence of the number being notable? To avoid speedy deletion again, re-submit via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that it was not useful to append the complete list of sovereign countries. Next time I'll just put a link on the dedicated Wikipedia pages. Why don't you simply restore it and I'll correct it in a more appropriate way?Funafuti18 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Funafuti18

• I am not going to restore what I consider to be unencyclopedic trivia. Follow the AfC route as I suggest. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page going on about ciaran wardle, a future olympic star? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownUser2010 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering why you've deleted my new wiki page for the Mashi foundation? I created it last week and intended to update it with more info this week, I've looked at clause A7 that you referenced but I'm not understanding what it means really. Can you elaborate on why you deleted it please? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.7.32.223 (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• What are the words following "A7" in the deletion log? Surely they are self-explanatory? Did your article indicate the importance or significance of the subject? Work in user:Hodgezappa/sandbox until you have added links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Frank 'n' Stein Show Apparently the same user has recreated an article already deleted under speedy deletion.--ForgottenHistory (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

On 22 October 2010 you have deleted the EUROAVIA page. I would like to re-write the page, but it is currently blocked and can only be edited by administrator. Can you unblock the page so that I can write the article in a proper way?

FYI: I'm a member of EUROAVIA. Thank you for your concern. — User:Burki1907 —Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

• Create a draft article in User:Burki1907/sandbox then go to deletion review requesting review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Association of Aerospace Students. In the unlikely event that the decision is to re-instate, then removal of the protection from the article and a redirect at EUROAVIA will be uncontroversial. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please check out this page. All published sources agree that the concept is non-existent, thus an article claiming otherwise constitutes blatant misinformation. Please delete the page if you see fit.BassHistory (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, another editor helped me with a better solution.BassHistory (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Personal Computer Refurbishment and Recycling Centers. I've replied to this on the article's discussion page per a recent similar proposal, but I did want to add that I don't see any significant difference between these two lists and List of King George V Playing Fields in Kent or List of public-access TV stations in the United States. If we limited the two lists to only NPOs, would that satisfy your concern? Simesa (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• No. Limit the list to organisations that already have articles here. (And fix the ridiculous capitals in the title.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You're correct about the capitals – sorry, I haven't been on Wikipedia for awhile. However, to be fair, only a handful of the stations in List of public-access TV stations in the United States have Wikipedia entries — They're almost exclusively identified by their hosting town and literally have their websites listed as in the lists I put up. Simesa (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I read WP:NOTDIR (item #1) and it doesn't apply. The relevant policy seems to be in WP:Stand-alone lists under "Appropriate topics for lists". Simesa (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! It looks like you deleted File:Matt from Etsy and Phil Torrone.jpg as "Unambiguous copyright violation", but I recall that when I uploaded it, it was a Creative Commons licensed image – I don't remember the particular license, though, and I can't see the image history to find out what that metadata said. But I found the photo on Flickr again and it's now marked attribution-noncommercial, so it's probably not worth re-including in the article. Just wanted to clarify that "Unambiguous copyright violation" was likely the wrong speedy-delete reason, and I also wanted to find out what that image history says for the license, to see if I made a mistake when I originally uploaded it. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Attribution-noncommercial" is incompatible with Wikipedia so posting it was a copyright violation. You posted it with ((cc-by-sa-3.0)) which is, of course, wrong. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • But it may have been licensed as by-sa when I uploaded it three years ago, and Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable, so in that case leaving it on Wikipedia would have been fine. Oh well, this is why the Flickr upload bot on Commons is useful – it would have verified whether or not the image had that license on Flickr upon uploading. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Restarting the talk page brings up this message:

22:03, 25 December 2010 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Aziz Bagh, the Heritage of Culture" ? (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)

This, and User talk:Zahmed55#Speedy deletion nomination of Aziz Bagh, the Heritage of Culture, leads me to suspect that the article may be a recreation of a previously Wikipedia:A7#A7'd page. Or I'm completely wrong, something I must admit that occurs with disturbing regularity. Oo-roo! --Shirt58 (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• The article was deleted once and once only. The G8 on the talk page is my standard reason for getting rid of talk pages when I delete an article. Strictly speaking, articles about buildings are not speediable, so I have given it an AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I contest that it is a copy vio, however, I first want to know why that can't be a template? I want to use the same text in two articles, therefore it's a prime candidate for templating. Wizard191 (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• It should be a separate article which you can link to from the two articles you have in mind. There is absolutely no need to transclude it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at how long it is? It's definitely not long enough to deserve an article, nor does it qualify for one per WP:N. However, the same text deserves to be in two articles: casting (metalworking) and sand casting, which is why I made it into a template. Please explain further, because I still don't see why it shouldn't be a template. Wizard191 (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• It would be short but not the shortest – see this list which is ample precedent for a separate article. How many "list of terms" templates are there? But why argue the matter? Resolve the copyright position, launch it as an article and see what happens. Ask on the talk page if anyone thinks it should be a template. I think the best title would be list of metal casting terms to distinguish from dramatic casting.

Hello RHaworth, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Usama Mukwaya, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 22:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• "May wish to review" – don't be so patronising mate. And in any case what was the credible assertion? For example, did you Google "Screen Writers of Uganda"? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, RHaworth-- I just wanted to thank you for having recently deleted those images I uploaded to Wikipedia for ((db-f8)). Now there are no remaining free images I've uploaded on Wikipedia; all have been moved to Commons. Thanks! Jsayre64 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, looking over some of your comments on your talk page, you seem to have a attitude that is not suitable for an administrator. Before you disagree with me or go in mad rage, just review some of your comments here. I suggest you reshape your modus operandi to more civil levels especially for someone taking on role model duties! Thank You :D 98.178.219.26 (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• People frequently misinterpret my forthright style with rudeness. I take as my standard "parliamentary language". Please point out anything I have said which a Speaker would rule as being out of order. An anonymous reply is likely to be ignored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, and I think I can explain why that happens so often...I personally find asking questions about authorship is less appealing than simply stating your case. It's a matter of acusatory versus declarative tone. As an example, when you ask me if I've considered using my sandbox to develop an article before moving it to main article space, which, to many readers, implies a "you dolt!" added on, you could instead simply write that it is better for articles to be more fully developed in your sandbox, which then may be moved to main article space. There seems to me to be a subtle but imortant difference between forthrightness and tact. BTW, I should know; now I see I have done that and I should not have. I was kind of miffed that my article had been deleted and I apologize for that tone. Your brand of forthrightness might be expedient but at the same time may discourage participation in Wikipedia was the thought. -- Joe (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I work for a dance company called Palindrome Intermedia Performance Group. It used to be listed in wikipedia, but, if I am not mistaken, you deleted its entry. why? Is there something we can do to be listed again? It the deleted content saved somewhere (so that, in the event that it can be put back up, we do not need to write it again from scratch). thank you, robert wechsler director palindrome impg www.palindrome.de robert@palindrome.de Wech7 (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Of course there something you can do: simply wait. When the company becomes notable, someone with no COI is sure to write about it. If you cannot be patient, try this suggestion. (Learn about the shift key!) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Arrwiki (talk · contribs) has posted a penitent enough unblock request in which he seems to understand what he did wrong. I have put on hold pending comment from you. Any thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is only a 48 hour block anyway. But by all means unblock. Would do it myself but I am not familiar with the templated message to go on the user's talk page! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you un-delete my user page "Good news about sex and marriage" ? Alan347 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, no, given the unambiguous decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good News About Sex and Marriage. I have e-mailed you the text. As a reasonably experienced editor, you should know better than to try and re-submit the article without making the slightest attempt to provide evidence of notability. If you can provide such evidence, raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. Alan347 (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

How about User:Alan347/GNASM? It's expanded from the deleted version, but with no further evidence of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, could you go in more detail as to why you deleted 9 Point Hedonic Scale page? Is there anything in particular I need to change. User:9 point Hedonic Scale 2 January 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

• Look at the log for goodness sake! I did not delete it. I think the "unambiguous copyright infringement" may be a mistake. "No evidence of notability and little better than an advert" was my grounds for deletion and surely that is self-explanatory? I suggest: get yourself a sensible user name and declare on User:9 Point Hedonic Scale and user:Pkresearch that you have stopped using those names and are editing as <your new name>. Re-write the article in user:<your new name>/sandbox, in your own words, using Wikipedia style not advertising style, using wikimarkup and formatting, eg. wiki style refs, not your idea of refs and, above all providing links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Then raise the matter at deletion review. There is a wide variety of formatting of the title but I would strongly prefer nine point hedonic scale. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Way back in June 2008 you moved Somerset Towers to Somerset towers, but I can find no rationale for this move. My feeling is that the capitalized form is more correct, since this a collective name for a specific type of tower, eg. Gothic church towers, rather than follies, shot towers or any other type of tower. What are your thoughts? Derek Andrews (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• You are utterly self-contradictory. You are suggesting apparently that towers should be capitalised but you give examples using lower case t. Is it a trade name or the name of a specific tower? No. Of course it should be a lower case as with pele tower or shot tower. My only reservation is that, following Wikipedia standards, the title should be Somerset tower. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Looking into this somemore, I think maybe the original author has either been misled or has tried to make more of the name than the topic perhaps deserves. The article uses the capitalised form extensively in the text, and I will fix this shortly. Thanks. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you've just speedily deleted the System76 article under A7, claiming that it gave no indication of its significance. Significance "is a lower standard than notability" and "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." As a large manufacturer of laptops for Linux and a topic of some discussion and excitement on Linux tech blogs, and probably the only laptop manufacturer that pre-packages its hardware with Ubuntu, I don't think it's unambiguous that System76 is non-notable, much less non-significant. I have to go right now, but I'm just letting you know I'm planning on putting it up for deletion review soon. See you around -- AndySimpson ^talk? 01:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, if you're amenable to undeleting it now, perhaps along with creating with an AfD, I'll hold off on making a deletion review entry.-- AndySimpson ^talk? 04:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi It seems you have deleted the above? I'd like the page reinstated please, if it cant in the form it is in now, then please advise how to change it Thanks for your assistance Regards James Rotheram Managing Director Hurrah Productions — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Rotheram (talk • contribs) 10:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a deleted article if that is possible? It's the article about Eklips. — Daniella — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanieNareS (talk • contribs) 10:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Two states e-mailed. The article had somehow survived four years. His band's website has gone so is he still performing? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would that be deleted? It is just a silly saying that started to become popular lately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22duce22 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Text e-mailed. You yourself have given a totally valid reason for deletion: "it is just a silly saying". Try posting it on one of these sites. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. If I look up hold your horses there is a site article for that. Isn't that just a silly saying? I thought the point of wikipedia was for people to come to it to look up things they don't know about, including sayings they have heard. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22duce22 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• OK, we do have idiom articles. But "hold your horses" is venerable. I don't expect you to wait an hundred years but you must wait until you can cite widespread use of your pet phrase. Please learn about wikilinks and to sign talk page entries with ~~~~. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Using Whigoo page as an example for hotel consolidator services which "increase usage rate", see my changes to Hospitality industry. No other company in that sector offers a vertical online shop for productive assets so far. This is my knowledge which I am able to contribute to wikipedia in this area so far, citations were pronounced to follow soon. Mph76 (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you please comment and give me advice on how to proceed. Kind regards. Mph76 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

By the time I got the Talk:Telocity page written and submitted, the article was already deleted. Oh...and care to share anything about how this article needs to be improved for it not to be deleted again should it be reinstated (that is to say, the factor or factors which caused you to delete it)? -- Joe (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Text e-mailed. I cannot believe that someone with six years history here has never read the words "links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Why the rush to put it in the (article) namespace? Ever thought of using User:Rchandra/sandbox until you have got the external links, etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • As I tried to explain on the talk page before the article was deleted, it is an article I hope to have developed (perhaps along with other Wikipedians of course). It's also the reason I attached the stub template. Look...I apologize, but I've been contributing to Wikipedia for years, and I just failed to see in this case why it needed nixing so quickly...that's all. 'saw right, not the first time I've been totally wrong, and sure it's not the last. Can I believe it? Yes...I don't think any Wikipedian has been immune to having days of bad judgement. And actually, no, I didn't think of putting it in my sandbox. It was not considered because I thought maybe other Wikipedians could collaborate, and was unaware that a sandbox could be moved into main article space. But the important thing I think is I learned from you. -- Joe (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Roger, this unlucky article has been deleted 3 times already list of image analysis software, last time by you. You have stated your reasons and I don't dispute them, but it is actually inconvenient not to have it in wiki. I presume having software list is not against Wikipedia policies, there is quite a few of them lists of software and I find them very useful, particularly comparison lists. So what should be done to this one to become acceptable? Also, could please send me the text of the article, perhaps community can shape up content (with your advice even?)so it will find its place on wiki? Regards, Khvit (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Khvit.

• How can I send you the text? Read this! And why do you use external link format for wikilinks? As you will see, the version I deleted was not worth thinking about. You can see the deletion reasons for the other two. If you can produce a list of blue links that is of a reasonable length, then do so and raise the matter at DRV. Also, create category:image analysis software and see how well you can populate it. In case you are missing the point: the rule is that "list of" articles should be lists of internal blue links. An article consisting of nothing but external links qualifies for speedy deletion. Anything between these extremes is liable to be proposed for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just a user and community member, so forgive me for not knowing all the coding rules and arrangements in Wikipedia world (it is a maze for uninitiated, frankly). I have enabled email now, thanks for the tip. Let me see what the text looks like. I will compare it with other lists of software that find useful and see how it can be shaped to be on par. One more question: in any case it will take some time for community to populate the content – is there any way to protect article for a some time to give it time to develop? Thanks and regards Khvit (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)t

Category Category:Image processing does cover most the subject, naturally, except for characterization and recognition parts. There are quite a few software companies and products in this category that I recognize but still no software comparison list... Perhaps better way would be to have a "Comparison List of image processing and analysis software", any thoughts / advice? Khvit (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Two states now e-mailed. What is this "community" to which you refer? If you mean the Wikipedia community, then of course the article must be in the (article) namespace and unprotected. If you mean some other community, then develop the article in user:Khvit/sandbox. List of image analysis software seems as good a title as any. Feel free to create a redirect at list of image processing software. We do not need "comparison" in the title – "list of" implies comparison. Don't forget – software with blue internal links only! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It existed for two years. Australian Open Drive-in Theatres Roerick (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why this page was deleted. Mann has a top 10 single "buzzin" in LA and top 20 in 20 other markets right now as well as over 5million views on the new video with 1Mil coming from VEVO. The single is top 100 on itunes hip hop/rap charts. His last single Text ft Jason Derulo was top 10 in Seattle and was a regional success on the west coast. He is signed to Mercury/Island Def Jam as well as Beluga Heights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.242.176 (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You deleted Hibba Israeli Heritage Movement – IsraelInTouch: Taglit-Birthright Israel Program, but then it was recreated by the original author. I believe this was probably an edit conflict rather than a blatant disregard for policy, as the article was recreated with the db tag intact. I thought you might like to go deal with the situation again. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You deleted RadeonPro: Radeon Profile Tool as an advertising complain, but if you could take some time to read what I wrote to Andyjsmith you would see that the page looks exactly like other similar tools already on wikipedia. What's the difference between them to classify my words as advertising and the other pages not? Can I appeal or your decision is final? Mautari (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I just created the article on GeeksPhone and was immediately informed that it was marked for speedy deletion.

Most of its content of this page was moved from the GeeksPhone One page in an effort to separate information on the company from information on the product. (Until recently this was their only product; as they have announced two new products, more pages will follow.)

I would like to understand why the page was deleted: I am not affiliated with GeeksPhone (other than by owning one of their products) and I can assure everyone that I am not gaining anything by creating this page.

We have a category named Android devices on Wikipedia, as well as a list of such devices; the GeeksPhone One is simply one of them. There are articles on fairly much each of these devices, as well as on the companies that produce them – so I do not see why this particular company should be inappropriate for an article. Also I try to avoid bias – I am aware that company websites are to be taken with a grain of salt: While it is unlikely that much useful content for a "Controversy" section can be found on these pages, I do believe that they are among the most authoritative sources for "hard" facts – who their management is, when they were founded, their locations etc. - it is a matter of keeping a critical distance. And I do not think I was promoting the company (if you look at the "About Us" section of their company website, you'll find a lot of self-glorifying hot air that I didn't include).

While I am ready to discuss the appropriateness of the article and how it would need to be changed in order to meet Wikipedia's criteria, I cannot agree to the speed at which all of this happened. The page was marked at 20:37, almost instantly after its creation, and deleted at 20:47 – exactly 10 minutes later. I don't type that fast – in fact most of that time I spent to find out what had happened in the first place; I managed to insert a ((hang on)) and as I was just writing the comment on the talk page, the article had already been deleted.

Frankly, that feels like being executed on the spot – say, for robbery – without having even heard the full charges (who did I supposedly rob?) or being given a fair chance to defend myself. I do understand that fighting spam and advertising is important – I get annoyed by these things myself – but acting this way on someone who writes an article in good faith is going to discourage people from contributing any further. I do not believe that this is going to be beneficial to Wikipedia. -- Neomilanese (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please try to be less long-winded. I am sure you could have made your points above using about a quarter of the words you did. Things you omitted which might have saved the article: a link to GeeksPhone One in the first paragraph instead of almost invisible down the bottom; a statement as an HTML comment, on the talk page and in the first edit summary that the article was derived from GeeksPhone One – such a statement is mandatory anyway for copyright purposes; links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I have restored the article to User:Neomilanese/sandbox. Address the matters above before re-publishing. If it gets deleted again, you have redress at deletion review – and let me know – I might, just for once, propose re-instate. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If I am reading the logs correctly, you deleted the article on Michael W. Allen. This article was a contested PROD, and only two days old. Can you tell me what happened here? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the rules to say that a prodded article cannot be deleted early. You shot yourself in the foot by applying an ((hangon)) tag. When I see this I assume that the article had a speedy tag before and you replaced the speedy tag with hangon. Have this AfD with my compliments. If you feel Michael Allen (educator) is the better title, wait until the AfD has closed and then use ((db-move)). Do not copy-and-paste. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the rules to say that a prodded article cannot be deleted early Really?! That seems like an oversight. Where do I go to discuss this properly? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have restored the article, why are you fussing over process Discuss at the Village Pump or whatever. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)?

Oh I'm not worried about this article at all. My concern is over lazy PRODs. If we're going to have a process who's outcome is "delete by default" we should have pretty stringent rules over how it's used. I really don't think VP is the place to go though... Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised the election coordinators were not advised of this deletion beforehand. Not having the page was a major impediment to planning. I was a contributor to the page. Why was it unilaterally deleted? I have no copy, and it will be required again. Tony (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it was only the talk page. Fine. Tony (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello RHaworth. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Alaska Vocational Technical Center, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate your work in keeping Wikipedia tidy (one of my long-standing issues), I'd like to hang on a moment regarding these two articles at least. I created the stubs so others in the industry (enterprise storage and server virtualization, respectively) could expand them. I think you will find that both are notable: Storage Decisions is perhaps the most important enterprise storage business conference and has been the site for many corporate and product launches, and Veeam is a rather-large company with a great deal of press coverage and product adoption. As I said, I've asked folks in these industries to help expand the articles and references and think you will find them satisfactory. --SFoskett (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)