User talk:RHaworth/2012 Dec 05

{delete}}

Archives

Archives Edit list Up to: 2005 March 2005 June 2005 August 2005 Oct 2005 Nov 2006 Jan 2006 March 2006 May 2006 July 2006 Sept 2006 Nov 2007 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 April 2007 May 2007 July 2007 Oct 2007 Dec 2008 Jan 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 Sept 2008 Oct 2009 Jan 2009 Feb 2009 March 2009 April 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2010 March 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 Sept 2010 Oct 2010 Dec 2011 Jan 06 2011 Jan 14 2011 Jan 27 2011 Feb 09 2011 Feb 23 2011 Mar 06 2011 Mar 18 2011 Mar 30 2011 Apr 07 2011 May 02 2011 May 22 2011 Jun 08 2011 Jun 26 2011 Jul 26 2011 Aug 18 2011 Sep 06 2011 Sep 28 2011 Oct 17 2011 Nov 04 2011 Nov 19 2012 Jan 29 2012 Feb 26 2012 Mar 10 2012 Mar 31 2012 Apr 14 2012 May 07 2012 Jun 01 2012 Jun 23 2012 Jul 06 2012 Aug 31 2012 Oct 06 2012 Oct 30 JWJ 2012 Dec 05 2012 Dec 27 2013 Jan 22 2013 Feb 05 2013 Mar 06 2013 Mar 26 2013 Apr 15 2013 May 09 2013 Jun 07 2013 Jun 27 2013 Jul 22 2013 Aug 06 2013 Aug 20 2013 Sep 03 2013 Sep 19 2013 Oct 11 2013 Oct 23 2013 Nov 09 2013 Nov 22 2013 Dec 18 2014 Jan 11 2014 Jan 25 2014 Feb 18 2014 Mar 08 2014 Mar 29 2014 Apr 11 2014 Apr 23 2014 May 08 2014 May 22 2014 May 30 2014 Jun 07 2014 Jun 18 2014 Jul 17 2014 Aug 09 2014 Aug 27 2014 Sep 04 2014 Sep 16 2014 Sep 28 2014 Oct 11 2014 Oct 28 2014 Nov 18 2014 Dec 18 2015 Jan 10 2015 Jan 26 2015 Feb 11 2015 Feb 24 2015 Mar 11 2015 Mar 30 2015 Apr 20 2015 May 12 2015 Jun 12 2015 Jul 07 2015 Jul 25 2015 Aug 11 2015 Sep 03 2015 Sep 23 2015 Oct 25 2015 Nov 28 2015 Dec 21 2016 Jan 13 2016 Feb 10 2016 Mar 03 2016 Mar 30 2016 Apr 18 2016 May 16 2016 Jun 02 2016 Jul 09 2016 Aug 11 framework 2016 Sep 02 2016 Oct 05 2016 Nov 02 2016 Nov 27 2016 Dec 18 2017 Jan 10 2017 Jan 31 2017 Feb 23 2017 Mar 15 2017 Apr 20 2017 May 18 2017 Jun 21 2017 Jul 05 2017 Jul 25 2017 Aug 15 2017 Sep 07 2017 Sep 30 2017 Nov 14 2017 Dec 21 2018 Jan 12 2018 Jan 30 2018 Feb 25 2018 Mar 11 2018 Mar 28 2018 Apr 16 2018 May 03 2018 May 22 2018 Jun 14 2018 Jun 28 2018 Jul 19 2018 Aug 03 2018 Aug 20 2018 Sep 07 2018 Oct 01 2018 Oct 24 2018 Nov 16 2018 Dec 02 2018 Dec 26 2019 Jan 27 2019 Feb 18 2019 Mar 06 2019 Mar 17 2019 Mar 30 2019 Apr 14 2019 Apr 27 2019 May 16 2019 Jun 10 2019 Jul 07 2019 Jul 26 2019 Aug 16 2019 Sep 07 2019 Sep 17 2019 Oct 07 2019 Nov 04 2019 Nov 23 2019 Dec 09 2019 Dec 21 2021 Jan 21 2023 Apr 08

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

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

J. T. Mahajan College of Engineering

Sorry, am I missing some fundamental change in the English language here? The {{unrerenced}} template specifically states "This article does not cite any references or sources." The template page states "Don't add this template to articles that contain even one general reference, parenthetical reference, or citation-containing footnote." Since this article now does cite a source, how is the template appropriate? Yet it has now been readded twice, the second time by you. If you are using the template to mean any source except the college's own webpage then you appear to be using it incorrectly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Pedant. Instead of moaning at me, it would have be more constructive for you have done this edit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it would actually have been more constructive for you to have done it instead of ignoring my edit summary and simply reinstating an inappropriate tag. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• external links and primary sources dnt count as there still no reference techincally that page coul be afd for notabilty. no user is right no user is wrong. it a very fine line to say which is right or wrong in this case i probally say rhawirth is right but you aos have apoint. as i say its being used as external link so doesnt count as reerence. — Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

super speedy

Is the content in a speedy deleted page (Style of Eye) gone? I could develop it in a user subpage like the msg at the now empty page location says. but I didn't save what I put into the article. can I view the old content somewhere? thanks. skakEL 00:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• There has never been an article called Style of Eye. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

digo Style Of Eye, sorry. I guess I never had time to create that redirect. skakEL 15:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• I am surprised than editor with three years experience would be so foolish as to start an article in the (article) namespace. Restored to User:Skakkle/sandbox. Do the words "independent references" suggest anything to you? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

More like foolhardy. I feel that the article is legit. if my creating it preceded the finding of the references by whomever, then I should not be surprised by the deletion, I guess, right? he almost seems cooler & more underground if he doesn't have an article on en:. anyway, content, like "life" in Jurassic Park, I think, finds a way.

Thanks for dropping the old content off in my sandbox. skakEL 15:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Apologies, foolhardy was the word I should have used rather than foolish. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Martin Port

Hi there. I noticed that you have been involved in editing the Martin Port page before. I have been asked to edit the copy because of inaccuracies, but I have a conflict of interest with one of his former companies, so posted a question on the Talk:Martin Port page. Having done quite a lot of background research to try and find references to clean it up, it transpires that there's a lot of claims made that are difficult to back up and it's also quite self-promotional. I'm wondering if it should have a speed deletion tag instead? Please advise.Theredrocket (talk) 14.16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think I have ever been involved but now you my bring it to my attention … The article has survived nearly two years so, in my view, speedy is inappropriate. But it certainly deserves an hearty {{prod}} or, if you think that might get removed, take it straight to AfD where I will support deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. I wasn't aware of {{prod}} - forgive me, I'm far from being a Wikipedia expert - so will look at your suggestions and go for one of those. Theredrocket (talk) 11.20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Phaidra

Speedy deletion declined: Creating Phaidra (digital repository). Hello RHaworth, could you please give me more details why do you think Phaidra (digital repository) is an article about an eligible subject. In my opinion it has the same relevance as Islandora. Regards Raman2012 —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• There never has been an article called Creating Phaidra (digital repository). If you are talking about Phaidra (digital repository), then I never declined the speedy. I deleted it because it was an hopelessly short article that scarcely began to describe its subject and never got anywhere near providing evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Train Collectors Association

Yesterday I updated the Wikipedia page for Train Collectors Association. I apparently did not provide credit appropriately or was too wordy. Please explain what must be done in order to re-post. Thank you. Carol R. McGinnis, TCA National President, Education Specialist, Wikipedia Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carol.McGinnis (talk • contribs) 23:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting phenomenon which I we see occasionally: an article has survived for some time then someone with a COI comes along, turns it into a piece of spam and it gets deleted. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the association is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No purpose

Hello sir! Actually what happened was At the begining i am an new user in Wikipedia and i don't know that File Talk pages shouldn't be created without a proper reason and if those were created it was only with such as discussing about the Files we have upoladed and Unknownly i have created those all pages with Explicit means unnecessary (or) waste matter. Being an experienced editor now in Wiki, I felt that those File Talk pages were filled with Explicit matter. By this reason i have requested for CSD. Hoping that you will delete all. Thanking you in advance sir. Have a nice day sir. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 10:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all those deletions sir. Have a nice day sir. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 10:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

{delete}}

== Open Food Facts ==

Open Food Facts speedy deleted: getting a copy? Following a discussion with Cindy (see User_talk:Cindamuse for details), she recommended to contact you to get a copy of the Open Food Facts article, which was speed deleted recently. I will try my best to rewrite the article to meet the Wikipedia's guidelines, working first in my user space to avoid repeating the same mistake. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration. Best regards, DavidBourguignon (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Text e-mailed. Saw your note to Cindamuse. Some other language wikis do have an approval process for mainspace edits. There seems to be no need for it on the English Wikipedia, probably because this wiki is so ferociously policed. For example fr:Open Food Facts has survived for three days. The English version with the same lack of reliable sources was zapped within the hour! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Roger, thanks for the quick feedback. I received your email and created a page in my personal space on User:DavidBourguignon/Open_Food_Facts, following Cindy's recommandations. My comment about the Wikipedia policy is grounded on psychological & emotional facts rather than organisational concerns. I agree with you: the current process is very effective for "policing" the English version of Wikipedia, but what about the effect on the poor contributor's mind & morale? Seeing its painfully crafted article, achieved without any WYSIWYG help, "speedy deleted" within an hour, is no fun, really. Therefore, I do think that having an explicit "pending procedure" where articles would remain in user space before approval would relieve most of the stress from the Wikipedia community. (This point was on the list of questions in the recent contributor's questionnaire if I remember correctly). What do you think? I would be very glad to know also the opinion of Cindy and other members of the Wikipedia editorial team on this. In any case, thanks to you all for your help! Best regards, DavidBourguignon (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A "pending procedure" of the type you suggest, exists at WP:AFC. As an additional note, Wikipedia does not have an "editorial team". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the banner on the new article creation page, covers matters adequately. It points people to the new article wizard - which lands up with an AfC option and it gives a warning that inadequately referenced articles may be deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Demiurge and Roger for the info. But frankly, this is the first time I see the WP:AFC page and I have been creating/editing Wikipedia articles for more than five years. I think their is room for improvement in this area, in my humble opinion. As I said before, an obvious idea would be to consider that articles are stored in user space unless considered valid by an editor. This would avoid many misunderstandings on the contributor's side. Of course, this would also force people into creating an account before working on articles, but I personally see this as a good thing, because it tests their true motivation. Best regards, DavidBourguignon (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Curro1

That redirect didn't seem like an attack - more like a naive move preparatory to expanding Jeff Curro, which is why I gave the reason "improbable typo." Am I missing something? -Lexein (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• You are right. I could not find Jeff Curro in the target list The Howard Stern Show#The Wack Pack so I thought it was someone suggesting their friend should be a member of the pack. On further investigation, I realised my mistake. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's okay. I fixed it in the list now. --Lexein (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigma Thêta Pi

Hello RHaworth, I was really surprised to see that you deleted the page Sigma Thêta Pi a few days ago. Can you please explain what motivated you to do so? Cordially, Kheiron STP (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• I too recently noticed that the Sigma Thêta Pi page was deleted. Please consider restoring this article as Sigma Theta Pi is a legitimate and recognized international francophone fraternity. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Please restore the article Sigma Thêta Pi and put up for formal AFD. – Naraht (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I deleted it for the reason stated in my AfD nomination. Interestingly, I was asked recently about my deletion of another Canadian greek sorority - Delta Psi Delta (Canada). I note that the Delta Psi Delta page lists five fraternities but not one of them has its own article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of MGM article

Why did you delete my article so quickly? I didn't even get the chance to express the contest. Faulk (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Kindly provide a link when you talk here about any article. Deleted for the reason stated in the deletion log entry. As you have just been told: please discuss your proposed changes in talk:genital modification and mutilation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Tiruparankundram dargah.jpg

hi, What sort of copyright violation this File:Tiruparankundram dargah.jpg had? As a contributor, why I was not given a notice before deletion? Wasif (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• There is no obligation on a deleter to notify the author / uploader. The image appears in a slideshow on this page and as http://www.ervadi.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Tiruparankundram_dargah.jpg linked from this page so there was ample prima facie evidence of copyvio. However it is significant to note that you uploaded the image on 2009-04-09 and the file path of the second use contains "2010/11" so it is possible that what was found on the web are unacknowledged rip-offs from Wikipedia. To convince me, e-mail me (see my home page for address) one of the following: the original of this image (the camera on the Nokia 6110 Navigator has a resolution of 1600×1200) or, if you originated the image at 640×480, another image taken on the same phone as near to 2008-05-24 10:46:59 as possible. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Another way. You have slightly screwed things up by releasing the image into the public domain but you could contact ervadi.com and ask them very sweetly if they are willing to admit that the image came from here and whether they are willing to acknowledge your authorship on the page that uses it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

OK will mail ervadi.com and get back. Wasif (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Got reply from ervadi.com saying "No where in our website we have claimed copyright for the images or the contents. It clearly means that nothing is of our own." I checked their site, no where in their site they have given a copyright symbol or message. i am damn sure i took in my camera and uploaded. They have took from WP and legally they havenot claimed any copyright. Kindly revert the file.Wasif (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it too difficult for you to comply with my request for e-mails? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Ashford 4XI Hockey

Can you explain how the article did not explain the significance of the organisation, and how it can be amended in the future to make it viable for wikipedia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.223.145 (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't talk to IP addresses. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ashford Hockey Club might be notable enough by Wikipedia's standards for an article. Read WP:42 carefully and consider whether you can find what it requires. You seem to have been trying to make an article about the 4th XI of that hockey club - which I am quite sure is not notable by Wikipedia's standards, in and of itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Keeping the Kibbutz - deletion

Earlier today you deleted my Keeping the Kibbutz article before I had an opportunity to fully respond to the copyright issues raised. Because I am new to Wikipedia and would rather not have to start from scratch all over again, is it possible to restore the deleted article so that I can revise and/or delete the offending material? — ColdNorthWind2 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Actually I never even noticed that the deletion reason was copyvio. What I noticed was a lack of independent references - blogspot is not generally reckoned a reliable source and in any case your link to it was broken. I have e-mailed you the text. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope the additions & changes I've made to the article address your earlier concerns about "lack of notability." I've taken the liberty of removing your tag. Your remark about blogspot.com being not "generally reckoned [to be] a reliable source" is noted, except in this instance I think the blogger's remarks are thoughtful and comparative in nature, and therefore worthy of note. - ColdNorthWind2 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Orange Mike has replied for me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Bullet Raja

You had deleted a page named Bullet Raja (2013 film) but now some reliable reference shows the filming begins.Well then, is it ok to recreate it again. — ---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 09:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. I assume you will create something more substantial than the single, incomprehensible sentence that Kaushik9135 (talk · contribs) created - twice! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Dillon Francis

Hi. You indef protected Dillon Francis after a series of hoaxes. A new article has been created at Dillon Francis (musician) and appears to be sourced etc. If you have no objections I'd like to move it to Dillon Francis. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to see better refs but no objection to the move. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, moved. Tassedethe (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

For All the Tea in China proposed deletion

Dear Mr. Haworth, For All the Tea in China is a work in progress and I have three more groups of undergraduate freshmen working this coming week on improving and expanding the page. Hopefully, their work will be sufficient to address the question of notability, for which the article is proposed for deletion currently. I ask that the page remain in place for the duration of the coming week. In other words, I am asking for a stay of execution in order that by week's end the page may be reassessed for acceptability.

Thank you for your consideration. Renee Bricker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbricker (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• So put work in progress in the proper place! I have moved For All the Tea in China: How England Stole the World's Favorite Drink and Changed History to User:Rbricker/sandbox. Basic thing to fix: state in the first sentence whether it is a book, movie, or what! We do not duplicate info. on the Sepoy Rebellion, we link to the article about it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Please announce yourselves at Wikipedia:school and university projects. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• I have moved The Lassa Ward to User:Rbricker/Lassa and The Big Necessity to User:Rbricker/Necessity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion???

Hi. May I know why you deleted my talk page? Please respond to this message on my talk page. -- Stopthecrueltyfast (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The recommendation {{please stop chatting}} applies very strongly to you. Or in this case, not chatting but talking about non-events on Wikipedia instead of actually contributing to Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Malala Yousafzai

You deleted Conspiracy theories about attack on Malala; the log reads:

“ A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Malala Yousafzai#Public reaction". CSD:A10 reads and I quote "A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. ... ”

Malala Yousafzai#Public reaction is not an article, it is an discussed in only one paragraph is an article sub-section, isn't A10 inappropriate? Or have I missed something? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The speed-ied article duplicated a topic, ie: the section in Malala Yousafzai. OrangesRyellow is on a mission here, as has already been noted at WP:ANI. - Sitush (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• It does not matter whether it duplicates an entire article or an article section. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it common to have sections being expanded to a full article. Secondly there is just one paragraph about "conspiracy theory" in the article section. This clearly isn't a case of A10. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• But this was not a section expansion. It was a very short article which could easily have been added directly to Malala Yousafzai. Text e-mailed. Judge for yourself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I saw it and was going to remove the speedy deletion tag as I thought that A10 was inappropriate. The deletion happened faster than I could act. Mighty oaks from little arcons grow. The length of the article when it is born isn't reason for its deletion as far as I understand. They are called stubs then. Would it be all right if I paste the former article on its creater's page and then request him to put it in his sand box, so that it could be developed, a review done and then the article recreated? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Why two stages? Paste it straight to User:OrangesRyellow/Malala. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • First thank you for the email. Another thanks for the suggestion, I didn't know that an editor could create a sandbox in the name of another editor. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nikon f mount

Hi, I saw that you removed my speedy delete request for Nikon f mount, stating that it was heavily used. Are you sure about this? I mean, we still have Nikon F mount (and many others), and they should stay, of course. Assuming Nikon f mount would be deleted, typing "Nikon f mount" in the search box would be catched by Nikon F mount instead, which I find more desirable since the redirect message would read "Redirected from Nikon F mount" rather than "Redirected from Nikon f mount" then. Cheers, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Viewed 853 times in the last 30 days - says "keep" to me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

;-) Yes, this number is astonishingly high. However, the question remains, if these hits are actually down to external sites referring to the article under "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon f mount" or just people typing in "Nikon f mount" in the search box. In the first case, this would strongly indicate that the redirect should not be deleted, in the second case, the remaining redirect Nikon F mount would catch all these requests once Nikon f mount is gone, so nothing would be broken by deleting it. Can you retrieve a search box statistic as well? Thanks and greetings, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I have no idea how to find search box statistics. But if you find them, please let me know. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea, either, but in the unlikely event that I stumble upon them, I'll let you know. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RHaworth. You have new messages at Legobot's talk page.
Message added 00:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have asked if the bot can be unblocked for now since it has other tasks to do. The task that you blocked it for has been disabled until a solution is reached. Legoktm (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Left another message. Legoktm (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

EPOS

Saw you PRODded Embedded Parallel Operating System; since then, I've endorsed the PROD, the creator's contested it, and I've nominated it for AfD. Point is, the page notes that this software or whatever it is was developed by a company called LISHA, and the creator's name is Manager lisha. And in this comment (re a previous article [successfully] tagged for speedy deletion), they seemed to acknowledge involvement with the company. I know administrators tend to be pretty harsh on COI usernames, so I thought you might want to take a look. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 14:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you know how to handle this

I come to you as an admin who has had past dealings with this issue. Rbricker (talk · contribs) appears to be teaching a class of university freshmen in how to use (or, from my experience of their edits - abuse) Wikipedia. Specifically, he has his class furiously working away on Coffee: A Dark History, The Big Necessity and Edwin Chadwick. Their edits generally break the page syntax leaving large red warnings on the page, and add generally poorly cited "facts" to the articles. I have found myself spending the better part of my day chasing them all with a mop and bucket. If it were just a couple of users, I might try a more direct approach with them, but there appear to be several dozen editors involved in this process. Is there any way to put a temporary hold on these activities until the instructor can bring his class in line? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Revert all their edits and tell them to create user:Rbricker/foo. As you can see above , I specifically created user:Rbricker/Necessity but they have declined to work on it. It is rather depressing when a tutor seems to know no more about Wikipedia than her students. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

{delete}}

== Yo! ==

Hey dude. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but can't a user have rules for his own talk page? Why'd ya' delete the regulations? Then again, I don't know whether it was YOU, or Mediran. But if it was YOU, please answer. Thanks. Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000 (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• This person should get a Barn Star for bullying people who are just trying to do their job! I feel like this person has been stalking my user page! I have reported them on many levels. Jason West Jones (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • RHaworth deleted your page (upon Mediran's nomination) because you posted it in the mainspace instead of your userspace. If you would like to post a page in your userspace, you have to do it as a subpage of User:Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000 or, in some cases, your talk page (User talk:Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000). For instructions on creating a subpage, please see Help:Subpages. More importantly, as a general rule of thumb on Wikipedia, if you have to start by saying "I'm not trying to be rude," you just shouldn't say it. Your comments are rude and uncivil, and while RHaworth has, in his own words, "a well-justified reputation for blunt speaking on talk pages," and may therefore cut you a bit more slack than most editors or administrators (though I shan't speak for him), talking like that repeatedly can land you with a block. (Also, if you want a faster reply to a question you've asked at your own talk page, you can just post this template at theirs.) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 03:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Updated to reflect the following correction: I idiotically just looked an inch up on the screen to see what name to use for the "your user page"/"your talk page" links, and used User:Jason West Jones's since he's the most recent contributor.... sorry Jason! — 04:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    • "I don't know whether it was YOU, or Mediran" - learn to read the deletion log. Your personal user space is all pages with titles starting user:Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000/ or user talk:Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000/. You have far more freedom as to what you put in such pages but remember that you still do not OWN them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Geosworld2011

Don't often get a chance to use Special:Nuke. I have blocked him and said if he wants to be unblocked he will have to convince an admin that he understands WP:V. His approach to Wikipedia is shown by this. I have also blocked Greecity2011 (talk · contribs) which is certainly the same child. JohnCD (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

{delete}}

== The Hard Worker's Barnstar ==

As you can see, conversations on this page are usually quite short. Jason, if you wish to continue haranguing me, please do so at user talk:RHaworth/JWJ. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Some policies

See user talk:RHaworth/JWJ#Some policies

Protect

Sorry folks, to encourage JWJ to use the page I have prepared for him, I have protected this page. Anything you have to say will keep - I shall be asleep anyway. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am leaving Wikiedia, Roger!!!!!!!!!!!! You can get on with annoying a new person now!!!! Jason West Jones (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Boxwars

You speedied Boxwars a few minutes ago but it is back again. Meters (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted move on article Israfel

Hi, User:RHaworth I have seen your reverted move on article Israfil (Archangel in Islam) to Israfel as the proper spelling is Israfil according to sources like britannica and the books linkes Angels A to Z etc. So i believe the name of the article would be with the spelling as it was created with the spelling and later moved to Israfel. Secondly, the redirect link is not used in a useful fashion as here i myself has corrected the link and feels that there is no need for this redirect. Please justify you reason to revert the move back to its namespace. Wating to hear from you. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• You are mis-using the word namespace. A "namespace" is all pages with a specific prefix, eg. Wikipedia: or user_talk: . A crude Google search suggests that Israfil is the more common spelling however Special:WhatLinksHere/Israfel indicates an overwhelming preference in Wikipedia for the spelling Israfel. If you really feel the page should be moved, start by changing the incoming links. Changing a few templates such as {{eschatology}} may have a significant effect. I assume you are happy with a title of either Israfil or Israfel. I see absolutely no justification for anything else such as "(archangel)" in the title. But of course Israfil (archangel) and all the other redirects can remain in place. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually the thing is that i am working on the category Category:Angels in Islam and in the near future i want the names of the archangles in islam with the same suffex such as (Archangle in Islam) because the namespace are already been occupied such as Gabriel, Azrael, Michael (archangel) depecting the views of the angels in Islam. Meanwhile you are right that i should first work with the incoming links and once they are set can take your help in moving the page.

And as far as the speedy deletion of the redirect is concerned i personelly dont like them as they increase the watchlist and it gets difficult to mentain an eye on pages.I believe the search engines is strong and can give suggestion therefore the redirect should be deleted.

As said its ok for now but in the near future i would definately need your help in moving the page. Thanks for helping me out. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

On Similar note if the namespace is changed back to Israfil (Archangle in Islam) it would be easirer for me to work with the incoming link. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Did you actually read my message above? You are mis-using the word namespace. I think when you say namespace, you actually simply mean "title". Are you trying to tell me that you propose to create separate articles for these angels as they are seen by Islam? That is fine. But that is absolutely no reason for putting (archangel in Islam) in the title. (And certainly not for placing a capital A on archangel or a spelling of "archangle"!) For example, I would place the Muslim version of Gabriel on the title of Jibril. How on earth could a title of Israfil (archangel in Islam) be easier to work with than a simple Israfel. I repeat Israfel is the obvious preferred title at the moment. It you swing the weight of incoming links, I would be willing to move the article to Israfil. If you want any title with a totally unnecessary suffix in it, then I would want to see consensus in talk:Israfel before doing a move. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i am working to create separate articles for these angels as they are seen by Islam, and is happy that you have pointed a way out to me. The weight has been transfered to Israfil as here so i would be glad if you move the article Israfel to Israfil. Thanks in advance and hope to see the article in the new namespace with the correct and most common spelling.-- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• How many times do I have to tell you that you are misusing the word "namespace"? If you confirm that you understand the meaning of the word "namespace" and repeat your request without using that word, then I will do it instantly. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for text of deleted article

Hi, I would like to have a copy of the following deleted article: Weave:Web-based Analysis and Visualization Environment. The page is supposed to be about a piece of software. I am part of the team that created that software, and we would like to see the text of the page to understand why it was deleted. Thank you. Adufilie (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• You have effectively answered your own question. You were blatantly advertising your own product. Please tell your team to kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the product is notable and writes about it here. E-mails sent. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Woongarrah

Your deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Woongarrah Wildcats Football Club. I marked this Article for Creation for deletion because of a copyright violation, but you deleted it because of unambiguous advertising or promotion (G11). Is there a reason why you did this? Do you think I marked it incorrectly as a copyvio? (that is really what I am curious about) The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 21:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• No special reason. I was looking at an earlier version, so I was not offered an automatic deletion reason. It was written in such nauseatingly spammy language, I went for that. (In any case it was probably posted by the copyright holders so they could have given permission - not that it would have served any purpose!) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The user name suggests it could have been someone that owned the copyright, but we don't know for sure.

The only problem is that, unlike the article namespace, advertising-like content is permitted in AfC under the condition that it is changed before being moved into the article namespace. I normally would ask if you could restore it, but I am worried about it being a copyvio. What do you recommend? The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 22:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• For goodnes sake! Let it stay deleted. Even if they fixed the copyvio, it would be rejected as nn-amateur club - even though they field a massive 42 teams. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but keep in mind that AfC allows (but doesn't accept, of course) quite a bit of content that you wouldn't see in the article namespace (advertising, non-notable stuff, essays, etc.). Anyway, I agree that this one should stay deleted. Happy editing! The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 22:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)