User talk:RHaworth/2012 Oct 06

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

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

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

my double mistake

RHaworth, thanks for deleting RockMagnetist/Drafts/Corrupting Dr. Nice. It seems I made a double error – in creating the page when I meant to create a user page, then in not immediately flagging it for deletion after I moved it. I'm glad you caught it quickly. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Quickly! It had been lurking for 47 hours – deletion was hopelessly slow. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Usurped talk page

Sir, i thought these (both mine) entries will remain in my new username but not happened as expected , this talk page will remain like this only, will not be used at all, that's why i requested it to be deleted. Cannot i get it deleted ? --Доктор прагматик (usurped) (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary

Useless sub stub? Non notable? Took 11 years to create, somehow.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I saw Alcatraz recently in the distance. But why are you telling me? Have I said the article was a stub? Have I suggested the subject is not notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Because you always associated me with creating useless, empty, non notable articles that's why!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

page only a scientific research

page only a scientific research
This page was only scientific research, i request Wikipedia to review it and open it for for contribution, Wikipedia is a research forum, people contribute in it,without contribution it will end, Ibrarw (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
* 1) If you think your request should be addressed to Wikipedia, why are you addressing me? 2) How do you expect me to do anything if you don't tell me the title of the article/s you are talking about. 3) You are unlikely to succeed anyway because Wikipedia is, most emphatically, not a research forum but a place for well-established and well-known facts. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Business School PAR

Hello, I've been texting with your colleagues-admins about wiki page Business School PAR because it was several time speedy deleted. After I've been edited it, you've deleted it again.

Plese, explain point by point what is considered as advert and what I need to change for page to become wiki suitable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parovci (talk • contribs) 07:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Two side points: a) "texting"? - how many admins do you have phone numbers for? b) have I personally ever deleted anything of yours? The advice given by Stephen Buxton covers the matter adequately. I will just add: kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the school is notable and writes about it. If you insist on trying to get an article in, try finding a sponsor. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be indecent and accusatory, I was writing about this School because I wish to write about the city I live in, I am in no real association with this school. Please explain in detail why is it considered as advert having in mind that this wiki page is not an advert. Sincerely, Marina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parovci (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry to be negative but I can summon up no interest in this matter. Your latest effort does not seem too bad but does seem to lack in independent references. You received a detailed reply from Stephen Buxton – try him again. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll do that, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parovci (talk • contribs) 07:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Armenian terror

Hi, dear RHaworth. I want to know the main reason for deletion of the category. And I hope you had read my comment on the talk page of this category. If it's not forbidden to create articles: Arab terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism, Christian terrorism, Islamic terrorism and also categories for this articles with the same name, so why it's forbidden to create "Category:Armenian terror" (or terrorism)? Last voting on this category was held in 2007, when there were only few articles on armenian terrorism. But today we have much more articles and many categories about this term in Wikipedia. So please explain me your main reason for the deletion. If you are going to base your position on the discussion and the decision that took place five years ago, then I think I have a right to restore this category. Thank you for attention. Wertuose (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Do you understand the difference between a category and an article? Deletion of category:Armenian terror was uncontroversial – it was empty. Deletion of article Armenian terrorism was discussed here less than three years ago where there was a pretty clear consensus to delete. If you think the article should be re-instated, raise the matter at deletion review. As to the category: put some articles into the category – if those edits stick, then creation of the category page itself will probably be uncontroversial. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I am in Wikipedia for more than 4 years, so I know the difference between an article and a category, that's why I said above that the articles that I mentioned has categories with the same name as the article, it means that there are categories Category:Islamic terrorism, Category:Jewish religious terrorism, Category:Christian terrorism, and please take a look at this category: Category:Nationalist terrorism. And finally for information, there were 22 articles in the Category:Armenian terror few hours before you remove it. So maybe it will be better to stop those who try to harm removing articles from the category? Thanks in advance for assistance. Wertuose (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  • So stop discussing the existence of the category. Address the question of why the category tag was removed from those 22 articles. The MediaWiki software provides vast amounts of information but one thing it does not do is create any record of previous members of a category. So tell me the titles of some of those 22 articles. Who has been removing your category tags? Is it one person? Talk to that person not me – I am fairly neutral in this matter. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for your understanding. I have created Category:Armenian terrorism and it includes 3 subcategories and 22 articles. Wertuose (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And it seems that User:George Spurlin (talk · contribs) has removed that category from the articles. Wertuose (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Since Wertuose recreated the deleted category without the wiki communities consensus, I have removed it from all the articles and tagged it for speedy deletion. --Antelope Hunter (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • To Wertuose: next step is probably deletion review for the article Armenian terrorism – or give, up recognising that you are on an hiding to nothing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • To Antelope Hunter: I can't understand you, what are you talking about? Here is Wikipedia – the free encyclopedia, but it seems that some users don't think so, and they want to politicize this issue. I strongly recommend you to read this deletion discussion where you will find that 5 years ago this category was deleted because there was only one linked article. And now please read this section of the Wikipedia:CSD#G4:

      "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies ...".

      So as you can see reason for the deletion is no longer applies for this situation, because there are many articles about Armenian terrorism, terrorist actions and terrorist organisations organised by people of armenian origin. This facts approved by sources. Wertuose (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Why are you continuing to talk to me? I have already told you that your next step is deletion review. What do you expect me to do? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Scarborough FC

[Deleted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.19.209 (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I am always reluctant to talk to IP addresses but an IP address that shouts stands no chance. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

justin matthew (2)

Re: seletion of justin matthew (2) from the afc space. Someone, but not me (K7L) had destroyed my talk page (User:Nittmann/talk) by superseding it with this and placing a backlink here (or leaving it, this was probably not a move, my talk had been deleted, history is gone). K7L is a postal code in Canada..... I deleted the backlink, then Dcshank put it back in.

Thank you so much for removing this from here, because I am not asking for submission so it should not be here at all, not physically, not as a link. — Mike (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I find the above almost incomprehensible but you do not seem to be requesting any action, so no problem. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Roger! Thanks for helping clear out the A7 CSD nominations for schools that Cossde placed. In all, there were about 85 schools with A7 tags. I often review the CSD tags to reduce the workload for administrators. I either leave the tag; remove it with a note; or cleanup, edit, and add citations to establish notability. Hopefully it helps reduce the load a bit. Again thanks for the help with clearing out the A7 schools. I was feeling a bit swamped. Cindy(talk to me) 07:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  • 85 – gosh! I must have come in near the end of the cleanup operation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

B-boy Pop page

Hi, I'm writing to you in reference with my former wiki page that I mentioned above.I'd like to know why you deleted my page. thanks, Yavor, Yavorpenchev — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.14.100 (talk)

  • Count yourself lucky I am replying to an IP address. There was absolutely no attempt made to provide evidence that the guy even exists let alone that he is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Parkes

So how long are we supposed to leave pages like Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andrew Parkes (talk pages with no parent page) knocking around in the system? Especially in this case when Andrew's other multiple attempts to promote himself have repeatedly resulted in speedy deletions or prods? Valenciano (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  • So why did you give G8 as the speedy deletion reason when Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ pages are not supposed to have "parent" pages. If you had put your reasons above into a {{db|free text}} tag, I would have deleted it straight away. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that, my balls up, I'd wrongly assumed that G8 applied in this case. Anyway, thanks for sorting it. Valenciano (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kung Fu Panda 3

Hi. Can you please unlock the Kung Fu Panda 3 article, since the film has now been confirmed and has a release date attached. For more info and sources you can check Kung Fu Panda (franchise)#Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016). One of the latest reliable sources is here. KFP3 article would be currently used only for a redirection to Kung Fu Panda (franchise)#Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016). Thanks! --Carniolus (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  • No problem as long as it stays as a redirect for the time being. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Incentive-centered design

Hello RHaworth, You deleted my group's page for incentive-centered design. We indicated that the page was part of an educational project and it was still a work in progress. Could you please restore the page? We will gladly take any advice you have on how we can improve the page. Thank you, Rr442 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, could you please email a copy of the page to me? Thank you, Rr442 (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • As mentioned by my group member above, this is our project for our class at university. The page was meant to be an initial proposal for the project, so in terms of research and everything, it is still in its very beginning stages. I would really appreciate it if you could restore the page so we could work on it. Thank you, Dhytse

Enedina Arellano Félix

Hello. Did you read the rationale I wrote at the talkpage in Enedina Arellano Félix's picture that was just removed? I was curious about your answer (or anyone else's). ComputerJA (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

  • So link to the image, as well as the article. I also deleted it because of its pathetic quality. Is that really the only available image? Better images might possibly be available using a fair use rationale. But I encourage you to take the deleted image to deletion review. I have restored your arguments to User:ComputerJA/Enedina. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So it was deleted because the image, according to you, was "pathetic"? I thought this was about copyright violations. And yes, as far as I know, that is the only image of Enedina. I'll put it up for review (although I have no idea how to do it). Thanks for your patience and help, by the way. ComputerJA (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Enedina Arellano Félix. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ComputerJA (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of BUY1GIVE1 PTE LTD

I was looking at B1G1, which was previously a fairly extensive article with a fair few references, on which the last edit was to redirect it to a deleted article. I noticed that you speedy deleted BUY1GIVE1 PTE LTD and might be able to suggest whether B1G1 should also be deleted, or left in its former state, or otherwise. --Qetuth (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  • MasamiSato (talk · contribs) has a blatant COI but B1G1 (as an article rather than a redirect) did seem to include one or two independent references so I left it but feel free to send it to AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page for Ars Nova (theater)

I received a notice that you deleted the talk page for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ars Nova (theater), a pending article on Ars Nova Theater. I specifically included Talk:Ars Nova (theater) for the benefit of the Wikipedia editors who would be reading my submission, on the grounds that the section on Conflict Of Interest specifically requests that users who are affiliated with the organization they're writing about own up to it immediately. I wrote the talk page stating up front that I work for the theater, that I believe the subject is notable enough for inclusion even without my opinion as an employee (for multiple reasons, all of which I listed in the Talk entry), and that I worked very hard to make it neutral in tone but would welcome any suggestions or criticism given by the Wikipedia editors should it not be sufficient.

The Talk page was flagged for removal because it was linked to a page that was not in the main directory--a page that was absent specifically because it was pending approval. If it wasn't pending and had already been approved, I wouldn't have needed to include my disclaimer. In fact, I specifically stated at the bottom, under reasons why the Talk page shouldn't be removed, that it gave context to a page submitted for approval.

So, why was my Talk page deleted? Did I post this stuff in the wrong section? When it said in the COI page to set up a Talk page and post everything I posted before, did it mean somewhere else? A different Talk page? I didn't post anything objectionable in it (at least that I can think of), so I can only assume that the deletion was the result of a misunderstanding on one of our parts. If it was my misunderstanding and the material wasn't objectionable outside of its location, would you mind giving it back to me so I can put it where it needs to go? Thank you. -- RunnerOnIce (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Also, the waffling was because I was angry when I first wrote this post and later decided to rephrase it to make it less rude. Assuming you mean waffling on this page, at least, since from what I read on the subject, editing pages and info related to your page are highly encouraged while it's still pending. Either way, I don't believe I ever changed what I was saying--just how I was saying it, and deciding to include more necessary information, not less or trying to hide anything after the fact, and deletions were made for tone or clarity only (or, as stated in this case, rudeness. RunnerOnIce (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of METRIC

I really do not understand the rational of deleting the article. The METRIC article was created a long time ago, in 2009. The article which was quoted as source was published in 2012. I indicated that in the talk page of the article. However the article was deleted for copyright infringement. I really do not remember from where I got the information and even that I posted the article and do not care if it is deleted or not. But I do not understand the logic on how an article posted in Wikipedia three years before the claimed source was published can be a copyright infringement which justifies the deletion. Would it not be a prerequisite that the source be published before the article in Wikipedia? Afil (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)06:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  • The article was vandalised into a copyvio by 129.101.83.162 (talk) on 2011-09-26. It took a year for anyone to notice! Non-copyvio edits now restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Electronic beam curing

I am sorry to see you felt that Electronic beam curing was still a copyvio. As I stated on the talk page, we need more articles on various composites and their manufacture. I spent some time yesterday working on the article and the article's creator deleted the copyvio material. All that was left was a well-categorized stub. Did you even read the talk page before deleting? Jane (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I also see that after the talk page was opened and "discussion" started, that in fact no response from anyone regarding the status and related changes were reported back to the user from you before deletion. The deletion log says (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.trespa.com/sites/default/files/Trespa_Anniversary_Book.pdf)", and this is exactly the issue that the user and I were addressing before you deleted the page. Is this normal behavior? I am not familiar with the deletion process, so if I am missing something, please let me know. Jane (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Interesting co-incidence – two similar requests on this page consecutively. Sorry, yes I should have taken more time investigating. Non-copyvio edits now restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The only reason I got involved was because of the Trespa article, and that's when I found out that the stuff we have on composites is pretty thin. Since that is on my watch page, I got the alert (which I assume will happen also if he goes for dry forming process, which I think needs to wait until High-Pressure Laminate is made first. Jane (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey RHaworth. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages – there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Parinday (band)

You deleted Parinday (band) as an A7 after I had already declined a speedy once. Shouldn't this go to AFD when there is a disagreement like this? GB fan 05:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  • The rule book says that if a prod is removed it must not be put back. I know no similar rule for speedy tags. I do not look at the history in a case like this so I was not aware of your actions. If you re-instate the article I shall take no action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right. There isn't any rule that says that a speedy can't be replaced. I just look at it differently I guess. A7 is fairly subjective, I feel that if two of us disagree we should err on the side of retaining the article. On a related note, if you don't check the history before deleting, how do you know someone didn't vandalise the article prior to tagging it? GB fan 14:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of SmartArtMovement

SmartArtMovement page got deleted because of copyright infringement "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 08:54, 30 August 2012 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page SmartArtMovement (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of this on Myspace)" Totally untrue! As a matter of a fact; The article was first published on Wikipedia!!!! weeks later on Myspace!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozef vercrusse (talk • contribs) 10:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  • So why does not the Myspace page acknowledge that the article was first published on Wikipedia and provide a GFDL licence for the text? In any case we could also delete the page for total lack of references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ali Alkadhimi

Why did you undelete Ali Alkadhimi? I had just deleted it because it was still tagged for A7, but after doing so, saw that you had just recreated it. Was this a refund? Or meant to be userfied? Or was the undeletion in error? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I am mystified. I cannot recall how I even came to be looking at the article. All I can say is that I think I realised subconsciously that I had done something wrong, so I stopped Wikipedia activities and sent myself to bed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Heh. No problem. Hope you feel better now! Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Too much hype

Hello RHaworth. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:The Hype Energy Logo, Sep 2012.pdf, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother too much about this. The file is non-free and useless, so it is most likely going to be deleted as orphaned fair use in a week. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Kevo1cat is back

I've been tracking what appears to be an attempt to host an online role playing or scifi game on user accounts. I ended up finding your indef block of User:Kevo1cat for what is unmistakeably the same bizare stuff. The histories of the current pages are: User talk:Koevanuda and User talk:Koevanudakatayodafather. I've linked the histories rather than the actual talk pages because at times the pages are so large (>700 K) I have trouble loading them. Obvious User page violation, and almost certainly socking by your indef'ed user. — Meters (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hi, your name was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:RFA#Statistics (and lies?), so I decided to stop by and see if you might be willing to answer a couple questions?

1. What motivates you to do a lot of deletions? Is it your primary manner of participation on Wikipedia or a smaller part of your overall work?

2. What sorts of things or interactions make your deletion work less pleasant? What sorts of changes or occurrences would make you less likely to perform the number of deletions you presently perform?

3. Do you have any suggestions on how the deletion process or conduct policies surrounding deletions could be improved to encourage greater admin participation?

Feel free to respond here or at WT:RFA, if you decide to respond. Thanks. MBisanz talk 15:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi Mr R. Howarth,

Could you help me delete the following images:

Thanks. (I was the original uploader) --George Thompson (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. (In the near future, I wish to take photos of those churches myself and hence eliminate the copyright issue once and for all). --George Thompson (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I thought of that and then I thought: China is a big country – taking your own photos may involve a fortnight's travel and 10k km. Does it? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please help delete

Hi RHaworth, Could you help me this file: File:Gilgit River.jpg I was the original uploader. Thanks. --Jose77 (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  • You say "please help delete". But I have already deleted it so what further help do you need? It is just possible that you are asking me to undelete the file. If this is the case, reply is: a fair use rationale is inappropriate – a free image could reasonably be found. In any case 400×268 pixels is just a thumbnail by today's standards. Why don't you go there and take a decent photo for us yourself – see the immediately previous message where the guy proposes to range over China photographing churches. OK, if that is impracticable, have a look on Panoramio or put in a request at the Pakistani Wikipedians notice board. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • You haven't even bothered to look on the Commons. Is the pic on the right the same bridge? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Btw, I never requested you to re-upload the file. The photo does not mean much to me and I only uploaded it to decorate one of the wikipedia articles related to the region of Gilgit when requested by a Gilgit local on my talkpage a few years ago.

Recently however wikipedia's policies towards image uploads have become more stricter so I cannot be bothered tracking down who the original 'owner' of the image was. I would rather travel to Gilgit during one of my holidays and take more better pictures of the region myself. --Jose77 (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  • So if you were not requesting me to re-instate, what were you asking? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

About the Metanoia «Volumen» article

Hello sir. I am the owner of the website: www.metanoiaband.com, the information I was using is entirely mine, and I wish to share it here in wikipedia. I follow the instructions in order to make the correct license for me to share this information. It already in the website www.metanoiaband.com/biografia The instructions also says that I have to put this: {{OTRS pending}} but I don't know exactly where to put it. Let me know how to proceed. Or if I have to start over again copy/pasting everything from my website. My apologies for the inconveniences, i'm new at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeugenioperez (talk • contribs)

Access to QMobile Page

I want to enquire why did you delete my QMobile article. It is just to discourage others and showing your superiority. The article was improved to much extent but still it was deleted. I think you only read multiple reasons for previous edition and went ahead for deletion. A number of articles are there that deserve deletion and they were created a long time ago but my article didn't survive some hours. Please give access to the text of deleted QMobile (not for rewriting) and I think I will never contribute to Wikipedia from now and onwards.--Pmsamee (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Despite thirty or so edits you had made no attempt to provide evidence that the company is notable. If you submit a properly referenced article via AfC, it may well stick. Text e-mailed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of AfterBlood (Band)

I took extra care to create an article about this band, using templates and wording found within other bands' pages. I do not understand how to state a starting band's importance without it sounding like promotion. I tried to state facts with sources to other magazines and it took me hours to create. May I know in which ways I can improve this article so that it doesn't "offend" the rules?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.233.254 (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There, no IP address, username is Palanthas, hope that's better. AfterBlood. Can I get a reply now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palanthas (talk • contribs)

  • (talk page stalker) The article was at AfterBlood and was properly, in my opinion, deleted as an article that makes no believable claim of importance (see Wikipedia:CSD#A7). There's no record company, no hits, no important tours, no impact, no notable members, and no coverage at all besides some announcements in a couple of metalzines. Sorry, but a Wikipedia article requires more than that. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

So in your opinion, a band that is fresh, has no place in Wikipedia.

If it has no record company, it does not belong to Wikipedia either; I expect you to delete the Smashing Pumpkins and every independent band as well.

Also, how do you rate something as a "hit"? If it's played on MTV then it's good enough for you to keep it from deletion?

What do you rate as an important tour? Is there some kind of an attendance per show that the band should satisfy in order for you to keep the article in Wikipedia?

What sort of an impact do you expect and how do you define it? Is there some RHaworthmeter by which the band should measure?

No notable members? Who, dear sir, do you deem notable? If you know them, then they're notable, if you don't, then they are not? Do you know how insulting that is to people who have bled for their music? Do you know that the people that have worked for this album are some of the most well known musicians in the genre of metal? Do you know who Waldemar Sorychta, Tom Angelripper, Markus Freiwald and Antony Hamalainen are? If you don't, look them up in Wikipedia.

The "couple of metalzines" that you refer, happen to be the biggest online magazines in the entire world. If this kind of music is some kind of "satanic thing kids do", that's another thing. And just to be sure, what more does Wikipedia demand, besides an article about something that might interest some people, that took hours of writing but unfortunately failed to please your measure of "importance"? To be honest, people like you only do harm to Wikipedia and it's a shame. I added an article following every rule. You just were too bored to look them up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palanthas (talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

  • RHaworth, I won't take up much more space, I promise. Palanthas, this is an encyclopedia. It works by way of reliable sources. You didn't have any. That those zines are "the biggest online magazines in the entire world" is one of most ridiculous claims in the entire world--and even if they were, your boys didn't get farther than an announcement. I have looked at the Smashing Pumpkins article, and what I see there are reliable sources, snugly gathered in the references. Your boys have none of that. Don't bring that "oh you're killing independent bands" crap here--we're not here to promote your fresh new metal band, and we're not killing anything. If your band needs Wikipedia to stay alive it's a pathetic band. A true metal band hits the road and wins their fans. And this measure of importance, well, that's how we work. If you don't like it, you don't have to post here. Please read WP:BAND for relevant guidelines. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all BlabberMouth is the primary news network for metal, my error in the above phrase was not adding "metal" before "online magazines". The article was NOT promotional, it was merely informational, stating facts. The article didn't say "they play amazing death / thrash metal you'd kill your parents over to watch live" but merely "the band plays death / thrash metal with black metal elements". Last time I checked, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. An encyclopedia that tries to have information about everything with a varying degree of importance. The amount of weight a dung beetle can carry may be of very low importance to me and of high importance to a dung beetle researcher. Apparently you and some other administrators try to "enforce" the rules according to your own sense of what you deem important. Even so, referring to a band as "boys" on several occasions when you don't even personally know them, not knowing what they've done on the "road", not knowing what kind of work they've done, shows me a couple of things. a) The band is female fronted, and I don't know where you hail from but around my places we don't call blonde women, "boys". Just shows me that you don't even bother to check out what you are deleting. b) You are using personal, demeaning characterizations to reduce the value of this band, as artists and as persons in order to justify the deletion of this page. Is this the role of an administrator? You behave like 20 year olds that just got their first taste of "power" and are fresh out of a forum flame war. Also please bear in mind that this band already has a whole network of promotion, and official website, presence in all social media and unlike your insulting indirect hint, they are not pathetic to need Wikipedia as promotion. Really? You go that low? Only reason the article was added to Wikipedia was because I (falsely) thought this is a place of information and a band that has very notable people appearing in its debut album (people who are major figures in metal music but you obviously do not know since they don't appear on MTV) belonged there. Only reason I continue to question its deletion is not because the band actually needs the article, it's because of the way it was deleted and because you are being unjust. And instead of double checking your facts to see that it's not an article about a garage band, you stoop low with personal attacks, phrases that belong to flame wars between internet trolls and "this is how it works, if you don't like it, don't use it" tactics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palanthas (talk • contribs) 07:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Additionally, besides your personal opinions (and later empathetic behavior), since you're calling the rules: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

BlabberMouth and Bravewords are not self-published and are very well known sources of metal news.

Most importantly (and this is why the article was initially made):

6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

Let's count now:

Tom Angelripper – Vocalist of Sodom (band), does guest vocals in the album. Markus Freiwald – Drummer of Sodom (band), does the entire drumming in the album. Waldemar Sorychta – Guitarist of Grip Inc., did the production of the album. Has worked with Lacuna coil, Tiamat (band) and many other bands. Dennis Koehne – Co-producer. Has done also done productions for many famous metal bands.

So according to this:

"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:"

I think that at least one rule makes the band notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palanthas (talk • contribs) 08:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I suspect that you have a COI and suggest it would be better for you to wait until someone with no COI thinks the band is notable and writes about it here. If you cannot wait, you have recourse to deletion review or to re-submit a better referenced article via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of the Iranian government

Could you please send me the deleted text and explain me why you removed it, having a similar article for Israel? Thanks--JellWaffle (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's done. Could you please send me the text (including the format) of the deleted article to my email? Thanks.--JellWaffle (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  • And e-mail done. To be honest, I was being execesively fussy. If you had asked as wih Ralph carr below, I would have userfied it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

NYC EMS Blacksheep

Sir, We would like you to reconsider you deletion of the NYC EMS Blacksheep Wiki page made today. The Black Sheep are a group of NYC Paramedics, some of whom lost their lives at the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. We have members throughout the world who have moved on to the military, law enforcement and fire services. We would like to get our history out there and thought having a Wiki page would help. Thank You. Kevin J. Dowling US Department of Homeland Security Retired FSNY EMS Lieutenant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.243.135 (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I am not interested in your real name. I want your Wikipedia user name – via a proper wiki signature. Also I want a proper link to the article since NYC EMS Blacksheep has never existed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

NYC EMS Black Sheep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.126.6 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • You provided a link in the wrong format and still did not manage to sign in. So with the greatest reluctance I will say that the amazing thing is that nearly fifty edits were applied after to speedy tag was applied but neither of the editors made any attempt to provide independent evidence of notability nor even that it exists at all. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you need my Wikipedia user name? Going to ban me or something? I won't subscribe to a website that has monitors that act like you. I asked nicely for you to reconsider thats all. If you had waited more than a few hours you would have seen it change to your prescribed format. Sorry we are too busy saving lives while you sit in front of a computer screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.243.135 (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to review WP:N and WP:COI. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It is a matter of basic honesty and integrity that you log in to confirm that you are the person who edited the article. Indeed in this case there were two people who did substantial edits and I need to know which one you are so that I can block the right account! (The last bit is a joke.) My point is that as soon as the speedy tag was applied you should have applied your attention to providing evidence instead of continuing to expand the text. Or you could have userfied it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please consider restoring these two files

The former is in use, the latter is not, so it's not as important. However, I believe the deletion request violates the spirit of G7, which is that it must be made in good faith (not because someone decided to leave Wikipedia and wanted all of his freely released work to be revoked). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Restored. I leave you to watch these images and talk to the uploader. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Carr Music Manager, Australia

Hi, Hope you can help. I just emailed you, however you said you don't read 'why do you delete' type emails. I would just like the article back in my sandbox so I can fix it to your standards. I've never written an article before, I'm willing to re-write and edit until it gets approved. The page is for Ralph Carr – raphlcarr.com. He currently doesn't have a page. Thanks. Lauren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenrcm (talk • contribs)

List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of songs recorded by Hannah Montana. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 117Avenue (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Recreate Talk:French Valley Airport/draft

Please recreate Talk:French Valley Airport/draft it shouldn't have been deleted, only the article for it. It is allowed to be there per WP:SUB. :) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed speedy deletion tags from a handful of pages. If you believe the pages should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  • a) Be specific: about which page are you talking? b) Since when has it been an offence to remove a speedy tag applied by someone else? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I forget what pages they were – but they've been deleted now. Regardless of who created the article, it's an offence to remove a speedy deletion tag unless it objectively doesn't meet any criterion for speedy deletion. But the pages in question were a set of almost identical pages that contained nothing but garbage. Containing nothing but garbage (and having no past good version to revert to) is clearly a CSD, so to untag it is inappropriate behaviour. — Smjg (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Help please

Hi, I have been editing Wikipedia with my current account for only a short time but in the course of my New Page reviewing I came across a highly opinionated, stylistically unacceptable, and wholly useless article called The New U.S. Industrial Revolution. The user who made it (Redsully01) is brand new and, like a lot of the newbies I encounter at Special:NewPages, does not seem to have a firm grasp of Wikipedia's style, the NPOV, or reality in general, and he seems to think that deleting the Speedy Deletion tag from the page removes his article from deletion review. No admins have gotten around to responding to my speedy delete tag, so I was wondering if you could review the article and hopefully delete it, and I also wanted to suggest giving "James Sullivan" a one day or three day block to give him some time to learn how Wikipedia works or at least to discourage him from using Wikipedia as a soapbox from which to espouse his views. It's up to you, you're the admin. -- SlimJimJones (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  • OK, it did take longer to delete than it should have done. Redsully01 has probably got the message but keep watching. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Scottshepherd/sandbox deletion

I created User:Scottshepherd/sandbox (my first ever page) on the chairman of the company I work for as, having searched him out of interest I found his name appeared in several articles (most of which I reciprocally linked to) but did not have a page of his own.

As can be seen from the list of accolades and awards he is one of Scotland's best known hoteliers and as with all who are top of their field deserve a place on Wiki for anyone interested in that field to research. As all but one of the companies mentioned in the article are no longer his (most strictly speaking would be competitors) I fail to see any personal advertising benefits resulting from the article and the fact that i have mentioned all of his career acheivments keeps the article completely objective.

As far as you citing self promotion – by definition any encyclopaedic article on a person alive or dead must list their acheivements or one would argue that they are not worthy of an article. Are you suggesting we all delete all articles on sucessful sportsmen and women as their achievments will make up the vast majority of their entry? Personal promotion or fact? Please explain how the article i created on Ken Mcculloch differs in any way from this article on Robert Barclay Cook a former employee of Ken's (who is mentioned within the article) which also promotes Cooks's accolades and the companies he has worked for.

Admittedly as this was my first article it may have been a little rough around the edges but for you to mark for speedy deletion without any helpful comments, second opinions or perhaps editing to meet your own satisfaction seems to be against the "community spirit" of Wikipedia and more akin to a dictatorship. Yours in anticipation of some helpful feedback . — Scottshepherd (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I did not mark the article for speedy deletion – that was someone else. "Dictatorship" is the wrong word – cabal might be more appropriate.
The unencyclopedic language of your first paragraph was sufficient to trigger the spam sensors of the tagger and myself. We would very much prefer it if you were to wait until someone with no COI thinks the guy is notable and writes about him here. If you must try again, my advice is actually read some existing bios and emulate them: language, layout style (no initial heading, less bold) and above all references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy...

He doesn't seem to have had a go at me yet – his other article was pure spam too (referring to above). Reason for being here: I think User talk:Prof moliterno is a better place to talk about UMass Dining – JMatthews wasn't supposed to have posted in article space and doesn't seem to really take things in yet. The Prof does listen, so far as I can see. I agree about UMass, by the way. Unless there's much more to it than I've seen up to now. Assignments seem to be given via the Prof's sandbox. I'll try to keep an eye on things if I can, but two admins on the job would be better. Peridon (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

David R. Darrow

I removed the Prod from the article as I had already added a Prod. The Prod was removed by the author of the article. The subject of the article and the editor of the article are the same person. I have a feeling an AfD will be in order. The editor left a message after the Prod on his talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Neofuturisme (literature)

Could you explain me, please, where is the problem with this article. Thanks you. e-mail: zsfmraovic@yahoo.fr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.112.222 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/2012_Oct_06&oldid=1173440662"