User talk:RHaworth/2014 Jun 07

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

Archives

The Knowledge Centre for Agriculture Deletion

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

Is it standard Admin practice

…to allow, and even encourage (through absence of correction) another, presumably nonidentical User/editor/persona to reply, repeatedly, to administrative business-related queries that are directed to you, RHaworth, at this User Talk page? Or are RHaworth and Launchballer one and the same, or otherwise connected in their administrative practices here? Curious if this is standard practice that I just have missed—admins having editor-understudies handling their correspondence. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Launchballer is not in fact his understudy, but his supervisor! After all, RHaworth needs someone to whom he can defer, when someone asks to speak to someone of such rank. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to talk page stalkers answering on my behalf. If they say anything with which I disagree, I will resond appropriately.
We have a very firm rule: no legal threats. I hasten to say that I have not seen you make any actual legal threats but you have made numerous threats such as this one. These may be just as disturbing to their recipients as legal threats. You said here "blocks, and threats of blocks, are last resorts in modifying editor behaviour here, are they not?" But apparently you consider only slightly less serious threats to be perfectly OK. If you see actions which you deem inappropriate, by all means "forward them to an Admin page" (or take other action as you see fit) without any warning. But kindly cease and desist from simply issuing threats. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your 6th form protege's activities are, minimally, non-standard; more accurately, unhelpful; and likely, when discussion is raised about it more formally, against WP policy. If this overall surmise is correct, then you are abetting this dysfunctional behavior by a young editor. So, I present no defense of the statement made to him to "heed" (or any statements with which you take umbrage). Formal warnings at WP are a standard part of practice at WP, and informal cautionings all the more. (Contrary your seeming perspective to act or denigrate without warning, letting chips fall where they may.)

In this case, the only reason I haven't already "call[ed] others' attention to" his responding, as a 6th form editor to an Admins queries, since he has not heeded the call to desist, is that I view you as the primary problem, and he the simply misguided junior (in your strange relationship). If I can find a way to constructively redirect this, I will; if not, I will not sacrifice him in any vindictive effort toward you. (Even if I were disposed to such, to you alone—which I am not, as you are simply a source of wonder and amusement to me here—I would not hurt another in process.) Such personal disregard of others is, seemingly, your bailiwick. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

European Association for Biometrics

I believe you recently deleted an article I created for the European Association for Biometrics. I would like to have a copy of the deleted article please. Also I would urge you to reconsider deletion of this article. Articles of similar organizations are allowed on Wikipedia: for example Biometrics Institute. Please let me know should you require further information. Best wishes, Farzin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifarzin (talk • contribs)

Looks like my school contacted Biometrics Institute to get biometrics installed there. They will not be best pleased with my take on the article.
The creator of Biometrics Institute, Izzy67, was once blocked over username concerns; she used to be Biometricsinstitute. The article has been around for almost six years and I can see nothing there that explains why it should have a Wikipedia article. In addition, sections 3 and 4 are unreferenced and smell distinctly advertish. Now being considered at AfD.--Launchballer 22:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion?

Delete? Keep? Unblank? [1] I don't think IP's can have subpages FWIW. --NeilN talk to me 01:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As it has been blanked it can be speedied under WP:G7.--Launchballer 09:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This pages serves a very useful, and I say necessary, purpose of tying together the IP address contributions by this user - who has explicitly indicated a desire to tie IP address edits to logged-in edits. Even as a blank page, it serves a useful purpose as long as the incoming links are still there.
I have seen nothing to forbid subpages [[user talk:IP address/]]. Besides, if you are going to delete it on those grounds, you will have to delete the more extensive page which ties together my IP address edits. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Bitmessage.ch

Why didn't you Talk before deleting? --David Hedlund (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Because I and many other admins have a policy of shoot first, ask questions later. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Smart. --David Hedlund (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Uniagonal deletion

Not the first with the idea of the term uniagonal, see this. The term has been discussed before, it's not pseudo-science it's an actual state. Also, your own policies state if the idea has significance and is credible, which if a state exists it is credible, that it's not supposed to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steihl (talk • contribs)

That is not a reliable source. Read this.--Launchballer 18:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Jabari Parker's high school career

Why did you revert ThaddeusB who granted my userfication request as an WP:AFD decision? He was well aware of the AFD. -- TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I suspect you have been admin shopping. If you can persuade Ivanvector (talk · contribs) that the article should be restored, then I will happily do it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not been admin shopping. After Floquenbeam went offline for 3 days, I randomly chose 10 admins to make the request with. I chose 10 starting with the letter T because of my ID. 10 was just because "you don't know how many have retired, gone on wikibreaks, have no interest in the issue, etc". I think it is admin shopping to chose someone already predisposed one way or the other like Ivanvector (talk · contribs). Shouldn't you choose someone neutral rather than someone I am already bickering with. -- TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why, then, do I see posts to the talk pages of Titoxd, Thespian, ThaddeusB, Tawker, The Placebo Effect, Thehelpfulone, Thingg, Tijuana Brass, Toon05 and TParis in your contributions history - all of which were made within mere seconds of one another? -- Launchballer 21:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What an admission! Asking ten admins is admin shopping with a vengeance! AfD 1 and AfD 2 both closed with "delete" decisions. Since userspace is only for stuff that stands a chance in mainspace, there is absolutely no point in userfying the article. It is as simple as that. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Like I said that was because "you don't know how many have retired, gone on wikibreaks, have no interest in the issue, etc". I could have asked one single admin who I am friends with, but I did not think that would be any fairer than asking one who was already predisposed against. There is no rule that "userspace is only for stuff that stands a chance in mainspace". My bio is in userspace and has survived Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon (2nd nomination). This is a userfication request to enable me to become a better editor by understanding policy and guidelines. It appears that you have reverted another admin because you don't understand the rules (if you think it has to have a chance to be in mainspace).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
      • This is getting utterly ridiculous. Tony, you do not need a user copy of this article to "become a better editor by understanding policy and guidelines", and I doubt anyone paying attention to this drama is naïve enough to believe this is your true intention. Certainly Floquenbeam saw through the charade, and he wasn't the only one. This is all about trying to save this fork on a subject that you have, to be perfectly blunt, an unhealthy obsession with. And I can predict at least one (if not multiple) trips to ANI in your future when you continue this forum shopping by trying to turn "policy discussions" into unofficial DRVs. Resolute 22:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Resolute, If you honestly believe what you say I am sure you would accept an offer to delete the userfication if at any point I am not using it investigating policy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
          • I closed the AN in the hope you would get the hint and drop it for your own good. If you want to discuss or learn policy, go to policy talkpages. Or the help/reference desks. There is absolutely no need for this content in your userspace as multiple people have told you in multiple venues. If you are unwilling to listen to people when they advise you of something, you run the risk of being topic banned from the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Only in death, Since you may not have noticed the multiple instances in the AN discussion where the unavailablility of history caused confusion and you are certain the histories are not necessary for my intended discussions, would you be willing to userfy them when it becomes obvious that their unavailability is causing further confusion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Olatunde olalekan isaac

Hello,I reali appreciated your contributions on wikipedia. The article olatunde olalekan isaac [plus Olatunde olalekan, Olatunde O Isaac, Olatunde isaac O and no doubt a few more] was deleted under the A7 law. The article had no good reference then. But how do I recreate it? if it now have a better reference. Thanks (Seventyx (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

  • I apologise for saying this but you really are hopeless. How many times has your pathetic bio stub been deleted? Has it never crossed your mind to look at some of the bios in Wikipedia and copy their style. When you become notable someone with no COI will write about you here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

help bro

can u pls somehow return my page that u have delete from my sandbox. i am student and that was my essay witch is really important this is link of my sendbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefannrt9012 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Please use proper English and wikilinks. This is the English Wikipedia. Contributions in other languages are not accepted. Wikipedia in not a free host, please do not use it for your school work. read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did u delete land of Mianite

I spent a lot of time on this fictional page typing about events that happens in a game and u deleted it, if there is anyway u can send me what you deleted or re post it that would be wonderful for me thank u contact me at <email redacted> thank you this is from the wiki page land of Mianite for reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlesscows (talk • contribs) 18:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You've answered your own question. Wikipedia is not for things that you made up. You should've learnt your lesson from The world of Mianite; why then did you try to write Land of Mianite? -- Launchballer 18:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • For goodness sake! It was not a fictional page, it was a very real page about a fictional land. Wikipedia does not publish fiction. Very reluctantly emailed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio image

The same user who uploaded File:Robert Downey Jr Susan Downey at 2013 Art + Film Gala.jpg also uploaded this file thumb. Thoughts? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Don't tell me! Tag it with {{db-imgcopyvio|url=http://capitalpictures.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/NOV-02-LACMA-2013-Art-Film-Gala/G0000T1bCJTh0FhI/I00009uz64nHmQzE}} for goodness sake. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Tia Singh

I had no COI when I wrote the article about Tia Singh. I found out that the article was deleted because Wikipedia found it as a promotional material/spam and don't have encyclopedic value. I believe that it happened because of the lack of substantial references to hold my article . I was not deeply aware of Wikipedian policies while I wrote this article, hence I do agree that it was a mistake from my side. I am looking forward to become a serious Wikipedian and can't risk my account getting suspended. If you check the other articles, you can see that I've given enough references that meet Wikipedia standards. So a new article won't be written about Tia Singh until I find proper references that follow Wikipedia standards. — AbyJohn1991

  • @Abyjohn1991: I assure you that you are a long way from having your account suspended. Creating a few non-notable bios is harmless. What matters is how you react when they get deleted. See Olatunde olalekan isaac for an extreme example of someone who has kept pushing the same nn-bio again and again!
You came under attack from 117.214.28.134 (talk) (based in India). They had a 50% success rate. The ones that got deleted are: Thais Lopes, Tara Wheeler, O Malli, 46 Mommas and Tia Singh. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Insight E

Hi RHaworth, I hope this finds you well. I am emailing in regards to the deletion of the INSIGHT_E page, which was about a European-wide energy research programme. I received a message from JacobiJonesJr on 1 June that the page had been deemed promotional and needed to be amended or it would be queued for speedy deletion. I revised the article later on 1 June and removed "the principles" section which might have contained unnecessary information about the conceptual purpose of the project. I then sent a reply to JacobiJonesJr on the talk page about the amendments and asked if the article was now suitable for Wikipedia. I did not receive a reply and instead the page has just been deleted.

I would be most grateful if you could let me know how I can rectify this problem and create a page that meets Wikipedia's criteria. Here is the original link to the page: Insight E. Any guidance would be most appreciated. Very Best, Matthew Reading-Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.171.60 (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read this (which contains WP policies, rather than just personal statements): As a user, despite being an administrator, you are required to follow WP policies. It is against policy to deny editors working from IP addresses the ability to edit, whatever your personal feelings on the matter might be. Please see WP:IP, where it states "Contributors… identified by their IP address… may… edit pages that are not protected or semi-protected."
You are also expected to lead in your discourse with other Users, "by example"; per the administrative conduct section, "Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another… if an administrator finds that he... cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct." Italics added. Last friendly encouragement (or moan, if you will). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Where in the moan RHaworth links to does it deny IPs editing rights? Of course they can edit this page - my reading of it asks them to state what their relationship to the article is. Not difficult.--Launchballer 16:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ave!Comics

The article about the above French company has been protected by you. An user had created a draft and submitted it at AfC. The draft hasn't been written in a promotional manner. Please move the draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AveComics to Ave!Comics. -- Skr15081997 (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

David L. Cook

You deleted my page concerning David L. Cook and I do not understand the reasoning. I work for Harris Cook Law Firm and therefore have the right to copy this information on to our Wikipedia page. Can you please allow us to continue editing on our original page because it took us quite a bit of time and we don't want to have to start over from the beginning. Please let me know as soon as possible. I think this is the link that you are referring to? Thanks, Cecilee Cook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landersen1 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Your submission was a CV. It was not even a start at a proper bio. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone who has no COI but does know what a Wikipedia bio should look like comes along and writes about the guy. (Mansfield is not so arrogant as to call itself a city and I simply do not believe that David L. Cook has ever been its mayor.). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Annoyingly, Mansfield, Texas is.--Launchballer 11:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, you are the one who hasn't done their research since each of the following websites include information about Mr. Cook being the mayor of the CITY of Mansfield. [non-talk stuff deleted] You tell me to wait for someone else to do the bio, but the point of me submitting this draft was to get this done soon and not have to wait on someone else to take care of it. If you would please allow us to continue editing this page, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time and I hope we can resolve this soon. Cecilee Cook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landersen1 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • What a cheek telling me to do the research. All the links, and more, that you gave should have been in the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm curious. Your username "Landersen1" implies that your surname is Andersen and your first name starts with the letter L. (Or perhaps the reverse.) And yet you sign yourself "Cecilee Cook". Why is this? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
This edit made me really annoyed per WP:TPO.--Launchballer 22:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This matters, per what WP policy, exactly how? Your willingness to act on your annoyance rather than on the principles of civility, here? And you what, feed somehow, on this admin's approval/encouragement of the same? You twins really are the LCD of this place. You are like cats playing with their food. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Ms Cook, there is a serious conflict of interest (COI) that is against Wikipedia policy that you will not be able to circumvent here if the commonality of your last name with the article subject implies what it seems to imply. Click here to further explore [2].
Someone without an apparent COI has to write about the title individual, and when they do, it has to be neutral, and well-sourced (reputable news sources, print and/or online, no self-generated autobiographical material). You will not succeed otherwise, even with sympathetic and more cordial editors, and for having failed once, the second submission will generally receive greater scrutiny.
There is no recourse in discussion here, with (Redacted) early Wikipedia experiences of others. Cheers, best wishes. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Demiurge for the redaction, here it is, for novice users who do not understand how to use edit history to review what the fuss was about, [3]. Apparently, attempts at clever jibes by editors aimed at admins and their surrogates are out of bounds, but incivilities from admin-surrogate pairs against IP and new editor are fair game, both in their issuance, and their defense. This is an odd place, and the redacting user, all the more for the limited scope in their application of WP policies in discipline. Damage done to Wikipedia... this page in general, or my redacted comment? mdr. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Mircea Gradu

You deleted Mircea Gradu article and I disagree with it. Gradu is a very consequential automotive engineer. Among other things, he coordinated the design and development of the transmissions of all Chrysler vehicles in the last 5 years - please see link. — Simiprof (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Irresponsible

Dear Mr.Warmth, I am wondering why our article for center for responsible travel is deleted. It is our keen for letting people know this sustainable tourism organization. We tried to be objective and concise.Thanks please let page recovered and I can make changes according to your rules. Sincerely, Jcrest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsoncrest (talk • contribs) 14:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I am sorry but I must give you a cool reply: kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your centre is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Apology for Gross misconduct

My competent admin., Rhaworth. I have come to apologise for my gross misconduct. Am a sockpuppet of Isaacatm (talk · contribs), but I promise not to be involve in such a nonsensical exercise and I will always make a very good contributions on wikipedia. Pls. Kindly accept my apology. (Wikicology (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC))

Biophysiotherapy

I was reading an interesting article about biofisioterapia (in Spanish) and I've tried to read it in English to share the concept with my North-American and European colleagues, but the link seems to be deleted (biophysiotherapy). It looks that there is a copyright problem but I've seen that the page you refer (a wordpress page) is open or public license or something similar (Creative Commons), so I don't understand why I can't read the page in Wikipedia. As a MD&Ph, specialized in ESWT, I found BioPhysioTherapy an interesting concept (and the page in Spanish provides an accurate approach). BioPhysioTherapy starts to be known in LatinAmerica and I've heard about it even in an international medical congress, so I would like to discuss with you, with the due respect, why you don't allow to create a Wikipedia page. Of course, I appreciate your work controlling the quality of the content, but I wanted to talk with my international colleagues about the concept to prepare the next Shock Waves international congress, and I couldn't, because the page was deleted and I can read just in Spanish and Catalan... why not in more languages? . Thanks. -- Traumatologo-Rehabilitador (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can read that article, why not translate it into English and write the article here? BabbaQ may be able to help you since he regularly gets translated articles from the Swedish Wikipedia on to WP:DYK. Please note that the Wordpress site that was copied from is unreliable per WP:SPS.--Launchballer 20:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course it is purely a coincidence that your account was created two days after the account of the creator of Biophysiotherapy. Even if the copyvio situation were to be fixed the article would still be likely to fail on the grounds of lack of notability. But if you can provide good sound references, preferably in English, then you could try again. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. As I explained when I contest the speedy deletion of biophysiotherapy, I own http://biophysiotherapy.wordpress.com and I included the text "The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License" as requested in Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials. I also modified the original content. But anycase the page has been deleted. I'm sorry about not being able to do it correctly; I usually work on spanish Wikipedia and maybe in english is very different. I want to ask how can I publish a translated version of a page (actually someone of my team, who wrote a correct english, not me), because I think biofisioterapia is an spanish word (the concept was born in leading hospitals from Barcelona, Spain) but not an exclusive spanish concept (I think that biological effects of physical stimuli to treat neurological and musculoskeletal problems, instead of physiotherapy, drugs or surgeries, are universal). More links about the concept can be found in http://www.biofisioterapia.org or http://www.biofisioterapia.com (sorry, both are in spanish, but as you can see there are not commercial but informatives). Anycase I don't wanna generate any problem with you or Wikipedia; my only intention was to explain a concept to contribute my two cents. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. -- Xavierguillem (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. As I've published my talk I've realized that there is a previous talk about the sabe subject. I don't know what is correct to do in that case. I apologize for the duplicate. -- Xavierguillem (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Just get rid of the duplicate header. Both mine and RHaworth's comments apply here. And this is going to sound terribly nitpicky, but your phrase 'anycase' is grammatically incorrect: you mean "in any case".--Launchballer 23:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Launchballer for the info; I will check it. And thanks for your kindly correction of "in any case"... -- Xavierguillem (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Launchballer, yes, it was nit picking - as recommended here, don't do it. Remember that contributors may not have English as their first language - as is pretty obvious in this case. Also errors may simply be typing errors. If the meaning is clear, don't complain about poor English. (Although technically it is a sin, I think it is OK to silently correct another editor's spelling or grammar mistakes - I do it often enough!)
Xavier, absolutely no need to apologise for duplication - I have some firm layout rules for this page but I recognise that they are personal and idiosyncratick so deviations from them are silently corrected. As to biophysiotherapy, I get a strong feeling that this is very much your invention. But in this case my usual "kindly have the decency" mantra does not apply because the minute number of Google hits for biophysiotherapy suggest that no-one is going to be writing on this subject here in the foreseeable future. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks RHaworth for your answer. I admit that the concept BioFisioTerapia created by spanish Doctor J.Pous (not by me), perhaps begins to be slightly known in a reduced medical network in Spain (and in Spanish), but it makes no sense at this moment consider the concept at encyclopedic level from a global point of view. Sorry for my lax approach, and thanks again for your corrections. Good job. -- Xavierguillem (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This should bring a laugh

RH-LB (conjoined twins): User:Sven Manguard, see first bullet under Wikipedia resume "Milestones"; and Category:Aliases of 76.66. Curiouser and curiouser, this place seems. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

woosh deletion

Hi, I ran into this page and saw the article had been deleted (more than once, but I assume giving this name the last deletion for test edit was correct because of his name). I think this subject is admissible, plenty of result in google search, and serious books speaking about it. Can you restore it ? If this was a promotion article it can be neutralized. See this and this in books.google.fr. — TomT0m (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't know how you can bear to leave horrible ugly long Google links naked like that. The three versions of whoosh said:
  • Woosh is wireless internet/phone service
  • Woosh is a leading wireless broadband service in New Zealand
  • Woosh is the brand name given to bus services being operated by Worcestershire County Council
So there is no prejudice against writing an article that says "Woosh is a search engine written in Python". When you do it leave a note on the talk page pointing to this message and making it clear that you are writing about a completely different woosh. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're on the same page. The article you deleted was on the python software, I heard. Will you restore it so that we see what it was ? I intend to ask a WP:DRV, so it's easier if you do the restoration yourself :) Or rename it if something like woosh (software) is a better name ? I know an article has been written, let's not restart from the start. — TomT0m (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • If you are talking about a different page, why did explicitly provide a link to woosh? You won't get very far at DRV unless you provide the right link. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Woops, it's Whoosh, I forgot an "h", sorry. Can you restore it ? TomT0m (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Should that be "whoops" rather than "woops"! I will certainly not restore - whilst spam may have been a bit strong, there was absolutely no attempt to provide independent references. But I have emailed you the text. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Culture of Telangana

Hi Telangana is newly formed state (Bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh). It culture has to separate from Andhra Pradesh. So, I would like to elaborate this page by including deletion culture portion of Andhra Pradesh. And the culture section is need to be redirect. (talk) 23:54, 04 Jun 2014 (UTC)

Please post messages at the bottom, not the top. I have moved it from there.--Launchballer 07:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy

Hi. It looks like you deleted involuntary celibacy as a G4. It was history undeleted at DRV on the 4th (same day you deleted it). There may have been some discussion elsewhere, but if not, could you undelete it please? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I saw this comment: "due to the nature of this entire debacle, things have gotten quite confusing". I am certainly confused. Please provide links to the log entry for the alleged history undeletion and the associated DRV discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it wasn't history undeleted, the closer just wanted the history to stand. WP:DRV is that way. Hobit (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • For goodness sake! I know where DRV is; what I wanted was a link to the specific DRV discussion that you are talking about. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd assumed you could use "Cntl-F". In any case, it's [4]. Hobit (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I am the one that tagged it G4. There is no consensus whatsoever for the term "involuntary celibacy" to exist in any form, be it article or redirect, in this project. Certainly not to point to a BLP article that contains no discussion of the term whatsoever; it was decided that while Donnelly may scrape a bare minimum of notability, it isn't for the "incel" stuff. If there is some history under involuntary celibacy that needs to be preserved somewhere, it should be in some form or method other than restoring it as a redirect. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "No consensus whatsoever" means we delete the article and all of its history. If you are saying that there are edits within that history which have become part of other live articles, then their might be a case for restoring but I would need details. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Per the findings at the Donnelly AfD, however, "the overall concept has been determined (informally) by the community to not have a place on this site" and "to include anything other than a few lines on her work on "incel" in the article would be a direct violation of the 'very clear consensus" (her being Denise Donnelly). I made an analogy a ways back; "incel" is an orphan that no one wants and no one can decide whose doorstep to dump it on. The celibacy folks rejected it as a fringe topic, and the consensus at the DOnnelly AfD rejected it, as what little she has written about it is a minuscule aspect of her career. We shouldn't redirect the reader to a topic where they cannot find any information about said topic. Tarc (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't care about the topic at all. However, the point is that those 1,000+ revisions never got a fair day in court. If the sock had not moved the page, the result would likely be different now (note that a direct nomination of Involuntary celibacy just a few months ago ended in merge, rather than delete, suggesting that people are OK with the content staying). The fact that the content of a page that has existed for years was suddenly moved to a completely different name, rewritten to describe the totally different subject, and nominated for deletion raises questions as to the applicability of the AfD to those revisions. I would suggest relisting Involuntary celibacy at AfD to get a clear opinion from people. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "There is no deletion discussion which supports deletion". OK, no AfD discussion but, I clearly see here in the DRV discussion the words "deletion endorsed" - and note who wrote them. The article had a decent AfD discussion before the Denise Donnelly mess. Why will none of you tell me explicitly why you think the history should be preserved? Are you trying to say: because parts may be used in the celibacy article? The best I can offer is: restore the edits, put a redirect to celibacy on top of them and then protect the title. Will that satisfy you? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm honestly not sure if there is or is not history to be preserved for the sake of GFDL and all that. There are 5 edits under Denise Donnelly as the article currently stands. If VQuakr created that stub entirely from scratch, not by reusing or recycling anything from the "Denise Donnelly" article as it stood when Candle renamed involuntary celibacy and edited it further into a biography, then is there anything that does need to be preserved? I have n o real interst in the subject matter either, other than having a dim view on non-notable pseudoscience being promoted via a WIkipedia article, which is all the original article was. My interest atm is seeing involuntary celibacy remain a redlink. It is a rather thorny question of what to do when an XfD results in a merge to a target article that doesn't want the material. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
@Tarc: thanks for the ping. You are correct that the stub I started was independently written based on third party sources, so I do not see any reason why a histmerge would be desirable. I am a little concerned about your statement, "My interest atm is seeing involuntary celibacy remain a redlink", though. As a plausible search term, it should redirect somewhere. Based on the consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination), it appears that there is consensus for IC to be a redirect to celibacy whether or not the latter page covers the former topic. Think of it this way - it affords our readers a chance to review the mainstream interpretation of the topic after searching for IC. I would have no objection to the redirect being protected to prevent future re-animation of the article. @RHaworth: since you recently G4'd involuntary celibacy, would you be willing to restore a protected redirect per the outcome of this AfD? VQuakr (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not see the point in redirecting it to celibacy when 'involuntary celibacy' is not mentioned even once in the article celibacy anymore. It seems very strange to me. There is only one article in wikipedia's main space that mentions involuntary celibacy, and that article is Denise Donnelly. Naturally it should redirect there, if only for this reason. To redirect it to a page that does not mention it and has, as of now, nothing to do with the term would be senseless. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
But all that is at the Donnelly is a single name-drop of the term, and the AfD closing statement was pretty clear that if Donnelly's article was recreated, the incel business shouldn't be in it to any great extent at all. Why direct someone to an article that gives no info on the term? And as far as a redirect to celibacy is concerned, that's not possible at the moment either as editors at that article's talk page decided it was inappropriate, per Talk:Celibacy#Requests for comment. The term is in limbo at the moment, hence the "unwanted orphan" comment earlier. Tarc (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that, it was a typo. I meant "decision endorsed" (fixed). A protected redirect seems to be a good idea (and can be nominated for RfD if desired). Mythic Writerlord: The point is that by default, content should stay on Wikipedia unless its removal is ordered by a deletion discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, no, content is removed from or added to articles each and every day via normal editing processes. An AfD result of "merge to Article X" can determine that there was a consensus to do so, but it is not a binding mandate that can rule out discussion at Talk"Article X", if they decide that the merged content is not germane to the article's topic. Tarc (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I might have caused some misunderstanding with the statement "content should stay on Wikipedia." I'm not saying that content needs to remain in a particular article; I'm saying that content should not be deleted (as in, using the delete button) without discussion. Can you identify any discussion that actually supports deletion of those revisions? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted page Syngraph

Can you explain me, where is the part or phrase that you consider advertising or promotion? I have whole rewrite the page after the first deletion, but don't understand where I wrong. Can you help me or suggest where is a mistake? The page was Syngraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.195.18 (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Messages go at the bottom, not the top. I have moved it from there. Read this.--Launchballer 07:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • We don't have a speedy deletion criterion for patently non-notable software so the deletion proposer used spam instead which I was happy to accept. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your project is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your answer, now understand the reasons of the delete. Good work! — Dastardley (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
For future reference, yes there is - {{db-web}}.--Launchballer 12:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Restored a few speedies

When checking the speedy deletion nominations of User:OccultZone, I restored and discussed a few which you deleted (incorrectly, in my opinion). Feel free to join the discussion at User talk:OccultZone#Speedy deletion nominations (or here or at my talk page of course). — Fram (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Agilefant

You had marked the page Agilefant for speedy removal due to A7. But the page was about an open source agile project management tool Agilefant. We were just in process of adding links to several 3rd party sources, where Agilefant is highlighted, as one of the top open source project management tools, e.g. the VersionOne's 8th annual State of Agile survey, where Agilefant is highlighted in the executive summary as one of the emerging tools in the market place. Can you explain, how the page falls under A7? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iko Rein (talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your tool is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Instant Heart Rate

Give me the source of Instant Heart Rate that you deleted so I can fix in in my sandbox. I have no lust to recreate it. --David Hedlund (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the source. Can this article be deleted from my sandbox as well? --David Hedlund (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The text has never been in your sandbox so it does not need deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thea Austin

Hello, RHaworth. Another administrator, MrKIA11, deleted Thea Austin; could you please restore it to User:Launchballer/Thea Austin because she featured on Rhythm is a Dancer and was a member of Soulsearcher? MrKIA11 hasn't edited in almost four months. Thank you.--Launchballer 13:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

How did that fail proposed deletion? Any reasonable administrator would have known that met WP:MUSICBIO#C2 and declined the prod.--Launchballer 14:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • That is simply not how prod works. Prod is an invitation to editors and in particular the creator of the article to improve the article. If the article remains untouched for seven days, as happened in this case, then the admin can delete it without making any judgement whatsoever on the notability of the subject. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I notice that the creator, Robert Moore, is active - I wonder why he didn't?--Launchballer 16:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • One obvious reason is that the prodder failed to notify Robert Moore. Unfortunately we cannot rap their knuckles because the prodder was 69.136.5.118 (talk). But why don't you ask Robert Moore? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Clang, clang, clang...

... go the alarm bells about a new editor who claims "Admin.Rhaworth whose immense contributions and correction has been my driving force." --Shirt58 (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The alarm bells sounded for me when I read the apology above. But a quick glance at the recent contribs suggest that this may be one of those rare cases where the leopard has actually changed his skin. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Zening Resorts re-writing

Dear RHaworth, First of all, thank you for your job taking care of Wikipedia's quality control. I am sorry that I can not provide you the link, since I am a beginner in Wikipedia and I do not have the knowledge or/and experience required. But I can provide you the link where the article used to appear Zening resorts.

Secondly, I am contacting you since you are the user who delete my article about Zening Resorts. As I answer when I received the speedy deletion, this is the first article that I write for Wikipedia. That is the reason why - though I read the tutorial before start writing - mistakes can be made, and I am totally open to suggestions in order to be possible for my article to come up to the public.

I was thinking about how my article could fit in your non-advertisement criteria, and I consider that I can eliminate the sections 4 to 9 (main characteristics, accomodation, amenities, leisure activities, food at zening, and yoga and meditation).Probably the section 10 (Spiritual wedding and honeymoon) as well. The rest of sections I consider they are basic information of the place and social actions for the good of the community.

But since you are the one of us with much more experience and knowledge in Wikipedia, please clarify me what I should change to be able to participate in Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention and your time. Yours sincerelly, aazrcy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aazrcy (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • You apologise for not providing the link and then you give me it! - admittedly in the wrong format. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your resorts are notable and writes about them here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hbomb Customs & Classics

Hi... I have tried before to contact you...but cant be sure the content and subject of the matter made it to you. I am questioning the deletion of the page that is Hbomb Customs & Classics. This page was merely began due to the overwhelming growth of this business, in which case the page was commenced to give people searching the name the knowledge and understanding of it's nature...certainly not an advertising ploy. I would like to see the page commenced or re-instated, but am wondering if you might have a tip that can perhaps steer it away from sounding like an advertising type draft. This is not the reason the page was started. The company has more than enough projects and work without more advertising, but a knowledge of the type of work and people who helped make it is the actual reason the page was created. More or less content is welcomed, but being that you deleted it after other administrators saw it and didn't delete it, makes me come back to you to ask your advice on this matter. Thanks for taking the time to keep wiki clean and tidy, and the time you are taking to review our matter. Kind regards Kylie and Hadleigh Anisy Oudemans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbomba (talk • contribs) 05:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Dora Tokai

Hi, I would like to ask you why did you delete my article about Dora Tokai? First time it was deleted, but after it was created by Wikipedia "Dora Tokai, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created." I think it was not fair at all. How should I create my article if you always delete it, even if it was created this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaco987 (talk • contribs)

Please: sign your posts; provide a wikilink; learn to tell the truth (it was anything but the first time it was deleted); keep to one account only (i.e. Monaco1234 or Monaco987); kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks Tokai is notable.--Launchballer 07:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Bosphorus Art Project

Hey RHaworth, I would just like to ask you for advice regarding the Bosphorus Art Project page I created below. It was tagged for speedy deletion. When I reviewed it I understood the reason very well and I believed I made the necessary changes. After that I contested the deletion but it was deleted right away. In the latest version, I don't think there was any copyright infringement issues but of course, I might be wrong. I am trying to learn and I would still like to create the page. I realize that if I try to recreate the page, it will be deleted. I guess I can try to recreate it with different text but I'd still like to use the same sources. As a new editor, I don't want to be penalized therefore I'd really appreciate it if you give me advice and direct me in the right direction. -- GavXX (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Berkshire Conference

Hi RHaworth. You recently deleted the Berkshire Conference on the History of Women article under A7. Would you restore the article to my userspace so I can work on improving it? Thanks, gobonobo + c 13:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Liberty Videocon General Insurance

Hello, i know there were copyright infrigment isusses in my Draft:Liberty Videocon General Insurance. please review again. i have updated everyting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syednayab (talk • contribs) 14:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Has already been reviewed. Rather than trying again, kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Jamie's World and Jamie Curry

Hi - I noticed you were the last one to delete these pages - would you be able to create them as a redirect to List of YouTube personalities#Jamie's World? Ollieinc (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 09:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Contestion of deletion.

You've deleted the page The VINC System which was my first contribution to the Wikipedia. I would like to discuss with you about why you deleted the page and the redirect Vinc System.

First of all, you deleted the page under the A11 criteria, which it was not speedy-deleted tagged as. This means I had no preparation to defend my article from the deletion criteria. Second of all, I would just like to inform you that "The VINC System" article was not: "An article which plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally". Instead, it was an article about a political system which was created by Vincent Hansson, giving credit where it's due is important and that's what I've done. It also hosted a lot more information and I continuously to the last minute before deletion added new content to make the article more filled out. I even requested in the article talk page, that the article would be tagged as: "Not finished, needs more information". Taking a quick look at the talk page will give you that evidence, also while I was editing the wiki talk page which was deleted which made me re-create the wiki talk page with new information.

The sources I've used and credited are the most reliable sources for the information in the article, which means they are official sources of information hosted. I would also like to contest the deletion of this claim: "Article content does not determine notability" "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." - Which means that the claim A11 wouldn't really make sense of a reason of deletion.

Saying that the idea is made up is also wrong, because:

  • We have support for our system on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the VINC System is a real alternative political system. Perhaps I might agree that the VINC Organization is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, because the organization has not had any real progress of having it implemented in Sweden where the VINC Organization is hosted.
  • The system is also not something that you would think was made up over one weekend, but is instead the long term work of creating and rethinking all the possible political failures of a political system.


What I would like from you is that you:
Re-create the article and tag it with your cause of deletion(if you find that neccessary) -> leave the case for another administrator to decide the final outcome of notability. or Re-create the article in my userbox give me your thoughts as why this article was not notable, and advice on as to how to prove them for the next submit. or take a look at the article again; knowing this information I've written here and visit our website (www.vincsystem.com) for more information, then find that you've done something wrong and re-instate the article with a tag of "not finished, needs more" but let it pass speedy deletion.

Choose one please and get back to me as soon as possible, thank you.
Khaleesi. Khaleesi.Targaryen (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of Exchange ActiveSync clients

Hello, I respectfully request for you to un-delete this page or somehow feed the information previously stored here back to the TechNet wiki page that you listed as the page whose copyright the Wikipedia page was violating.

The main problem is that the TechNet wiki page has less information than the Wikipedia page. It seems that the Wikipedia page had become the trusted source for this information rather than the TechNet wiki page. I am specifically looking for information about Android 4.0 and greater, which was on the Wikipedia page and is missing on the TechNet page.

I respect copyright violations, but this article had become the most up to date source for this information. Taking down this content on Wikipedia has reduced the quantity and quality of available information on the internet. What can be done now? I am not a TechNet wiki contributor, but I want to help get the information that was in this article back on the internet. If the information in the Wikipedia article could be made available to me or to someone else, I could try to pass the information on to the person who had maintained the TechNet wiki article.

Please reconsider the deletion of this article or somehow help getting the information back on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsetn (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/2014_Jun_07&oldid=1172214105"