Jump to content

User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2011 May 22: Difference between revisions

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
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Sousabr (talk | contribs)
7 edits
→‎Ocean*Transfer: new section
Line 186: Line 186:


Thanks, [[User:Barong|Barong]] 08:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, [[User:Barong|Barong]] 08:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

== Ocean*Transfer ==

Hi,

You deleted an article about the band Ocean Transfer -- can you describe how to make this article more relevant? It reads, to me, just like every other article about a band. Isn't 'relevance' subjective in terms of the arts? I am new to Wikipedia, but don't really understand with the grounds upon which you've deleted my post.

Thanks,
Brian

Revision as of 00:46, 9 May 2011

Archives

Jonathan Keltz

Greetings! You deleted an article on the above-referenced topic with a G4 basis. I didn't actually create this iteration of the article, but I added several sources to support the article after somebody nominated it for an A7 speedy, so I am very concerned that the G4 basis was and is very off-the-mark. Yes, it was deleted over a year ago because of a lack of reliable sourcing. A very casual Google search reveals that the sourcing situation has changed (and, again, I had added a few sources to the article prior to the G4 deletion). I'm not going to take this to Deletion Review, because that seems silly and, frankly, because I barely have any idea who Jonathan Keltz is, but it seems very clear to me that the reasons this topic was deleted via AfD 14 months ago no longer apply. The AfD concluded with a "Delete" because there was no coverage suggesting he's notable. This is very much not the case any longer, and the sources I had added to the article prior to its G4 deletion supported this. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  • "Several sources"? You added just two (badly formatted) links and one of those was to IMDb which is not evidence of notability. OK, I should have changed the deletion reason from G4 as tagged by SummerPhD (talk · contribs) to A7. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 10:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually it didn't meet the criteria for A7 either, as the article claimed he had prominent roles in notable TV programs/films. A7 requires only the assertion of a credible claim to importance and/or significance, which is explicitly a lower standard than notability, and does not require evidence to back it up (although in this case such verification was actually provided). When an article makes a credible claim, whether referenced or not, it is not speedy deletable (unless it meets other criteria), and if you do not think the subject notable you should prod it or send it to AfD (although in this case, it was not eligible for prod having previously been discussed at AfD). As this is the second time recently I've noticed you make this mistake you may wish to refresh your memory on the exact wording of the criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing

Came here to ask and found this ongoing discussion. I would like you to take a look at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Jonathan Keltz. There was an article about this fellow that was sent to AFD in January 2010.[1] As I myself commented back then, I felt that while the fellow might be seen to meet WP:ENT, there was simply not enough reliable coverage at that time upon which to build a decent BLP. That has changed. In the intervening 14 months, the fellow has received growing coverage and recognition he lacked originally. And with the new coverage, available only since the deletion,[2] I feel it benefits the project to have this new version of the article return to mainspace to further grow and be expanded. I see no point in a DRV, as there was no flaw in the reasoning for deletion of the original article... but this is not exactly the same as the article that was deleted, due to actor's career and coverage not sitting still over the last 14 months. As time and circumstance and coverage have changed (he met WP:ENT and now meets WP:GNG), I seek your approval in its return AND in it not being speedied as a G4 recreation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Go ahead and publish. I will not touch it. You have gone to the trouble of writing an article unlike the slovenly stub (e-mailed to you) that I deleted. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 21:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
    Apreciations. Having just checked my email, I can well understand your reaction to that quite slovenly stub. Best regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
    And, just to be clear, I, too, can certainly understand an extremely negative reaction to the "article" (punctuation intended to imply derisory attitude towards the two-sentence masterpiece at issue) as it existed when it was deleted. It scarcely qualified as a stub. My concern was that the "article" in question seemed to pass both A7 and G4. I certainly cede that my citation formatting was horrid, and I know full well that iMBD is not a reliable source, but I was dealing with what I perceived to be several editors jumping all over the article to try and get it deleted despite what appeared to me to be a fairly strong amount of sourcing available via little more than a simple Google search, so I was trying to act very fast (and, to be frank, I was literally sitting in a class not paying attention to a lecture while doing this, so my attention was a bit divided...serves me right!). If my comments above were taken to be offensive in any way, please accept my apologies -- they certainly were not intended to be obnoxious, and I have complete respect for the fact that you were doing your job as an Admin. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Please don't apologise! I get comments far worse than yours all the time and give back as good as I get. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 09:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Billy Butlin

I've contested your Speedy Deletion on Commons - The civil thing would have been to ask me your questions, wait for a reply and then consider making changes which I may have accepted, rather than asking and nominating for speedy delete at the same time. However I would ask that you restore the image on the above article whilst the deletion debate takes place, The article is currently a GA nominee and any attempt on my part to restore it for discussion under BRD could be seen as an unstable article and risk that nomination. I don't care either way which version of the image remains on Butlins Skegness until after the discussion is complete but the Billy Butlin nomination should be allowed to continue undisturbed. I do appreciate the catch of the {{main template after the recent rename of the latter article, thank you for that. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Do you seriously think that switching back to the other image will make any difference to the GA discussion? By all means change it if you wish. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 22:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that Timothy Everest failed to get AfD on the first attempt, after a bad faith PROD by an IP user led to the reviewer declaring the article unstable. Whilst I don't think that the choice of image will affect the GA - I do think that a revert for the purposes of BRD may affect a GA. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Schools

Hi RHaworth/Archive to 2011 May 22. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This is for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities.
If you regularly provide advice, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Form and document creation

Can you please tell me why this is flagged for deletion? I am new to this and want everything to be correct. It is my research for my masters class and the prof required wikipedia submission, so I'd really prefer it not be deleted. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwallac (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  • In my view it falls firmly into the original research area. It could also be rejected as an how-to guide. If you would like second opinions, you may raise the matter at AfD. I saw your comment "I spent probably 40 hours researching this for my masters course and the prof required wikipedia submission, so I'd prefer it not be deleted". Please tell your prof very firmly from me that Wikipedia is not a free host and that they should spend time studying Wikipedia to see what sort of stuff is acceptable before they suggest any student posts their essay here. I realise you have spent a long time on the article. I am sure you will find an home for it on Wikia or some other website. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 10:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of PlayStation Network timeline

Hello, can I ask you to look again at the matters surrounding the speedy deletion of Template:PSN outage timeline.

The PlayStation Network outage article has a timeline at the very top of the article, which results in a user seeing a wall of table code before they actually get to the article head. Yesterday to make it easier for editors I moved the timeline text and turned it into a template (Template:PSN outage timeline). It made the edit window clear and easier to understand, and even received a thank you from one editor on the talk page.

Last night the template was Speedy Deleted with the proposer stating on my discussion page that because it is only used on one page the template must be deleted on sight. I know of no such guideline. That user then attempted to move the Template so that it became an article sub-page - PlayStation Network outage/Timeline - this is, of course, not allowed. I suspect at this point the user has tagged the incorrect move as a G8, which is where you come in, all that you see is a correctly labelled G8; a sub-page which you have to remove, and a redirect at the template namespace which was created by the page move.

I believe the other user's incorrect page move has caused the confusion. The template does not break any guidelines, something I sought re-assurance on at WP:PUMP. It is the page move that is at fault. Could I please ask you to re-assess this deletion and, if you agree with me, restore the template to Template:PSN outage timeline. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

[Title width guide]

++++ delete above here if no further edits - already in archive. If further edits, move below here.

blank pages

Hi there. You changed a site from Blank pages to Blank Pages. According to the website, neither word should be capitalised. Do you think it is worth amending?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  • We call it a page or article not a site. Apart from their logo, I do not actually see the company's name in plain text anywhere on their rather silly website. But if you think it should be changed, be bold - change the page text first including {{lowercase title}}. If you are not allowed to do the move, ask at requested moves for an admin to do it. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama Bin Laden

I put a talk page segment and an edit summary to say "Hey, this is a plausible typo". This news story even talks about it. And yet after another person nominated it, it was deleted. Wikipedia:CSD#R3 says that implausible typos are speedily deleted. This is not an implausible typo. I am notifying you and the person who nominated the page for deletion. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

  • What other person? Only one person nominated it for deletion and I agreed with their concern. But if you really want it, have it. Please get into the habit of creating links when you discuss articles on talk pages. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 23:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • "Please get into the habit of creating links when you discuss articles on talk pages" - I do not understand what this means. Would you mind showing me an example?
      • EDIT: I see. I didn't think it was necessarily to link the page itself (it had been deleted), but from now on I'll link the page itself.
    • The edit summary did not mention anything about agreement about a particular rationale - it just said "R3: Recently-created, implausible" - So I had no way of knowing what the thought process was. The edit summary from the user was "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G10)" - So in fact he used a different rationale than the one you used to delete ("R3") - So it would look like you had a different opinion on why it should be speedy deleted.
    • Even if the admin agrees with a particular rationale, the rationale must fit a speedy deletion condition, or the speedy should not happen. If the admin agrees, he/she can decline the speedy but then message the nominator "Hi! Why not make a Redirects for Discussion about this?"
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What on earth are you talking about? What I see is "2011-05-02T15:51:04 ConcernedVancouverite (talk | contribs | block) (48 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD R3). (TW))". True, there is a "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G10)" but that is from 2009 and had been deleted at that time. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 00:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

interview request

Hello, My name is Natalia Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of the motivation of users to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, as a user, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. Your real identity, and wikipedia account will be kept confidential through the paper. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 6st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN, Google Talk or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel. Thank you, -- MulgaEscu (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Happy to participate. I have never used any of the four channels you mention but I could probably manage any other than Skype (that needs special hardware?). You could even try POTS - numbers e-mailed. Needless to say before doing any interview, have a look at the victim's contributions and logs to get a feel for what they do here. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 23:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

blocking of user SKD Marketing

I guess that SKD stands for Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden. If so then this user should own all copyrights related to his contributions in Albertinum. Steffen Kaufmann (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The copied page shows at the bottom "© Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden 2011". SKD, using a proper user name, must: change that copyright notice to a CC licence or give permission via OTRS, or both. Until then, it is a copyvio. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 22:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks for the explanation. Elsewhere I had the feeling to be mixed with this user (because we have similar letters in the name and I got messages about his contributions). So I just wanted to clarify that he is in all probability serious, but not necessarily familiar with the established contribution rules. SK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.240.229.252 (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Algonkian Writers Conference

Dear Roger, On the matter above, I simply followed the format of other writers conferences listed on W for a long time. Please do tell what notability links would work? Blog reviews by attendees? Listings in independent and valued sources like Associated Writing Programs? It's just that writers conferences, as such, are not usually subject to major news articles, any more than an educational institution. Thanks for your time. — RGallison999 (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Blogs are not usually deemed reliable sources. "Listings in independent and valued sources" are exactly what we need. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 23:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Roger, I have: http://writing.shawguides.com/thealgonkianwriterworkshops/ and http://www.publishersmarketplace.com/members/mneff/ and http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nyc-pitch-and-shop-conference-turns-novel-writers-into-rising-commercial--stars-including-algonkian-conferences-alum-ann-wertz-garvin-author-of-on-maggies-watch-120810344.html by PRNewsWire, valued highly by Google. Thanks for your time. A listing in Wikipedia is highly valued. Thank you also for your objective stance. Regards, RGallison999 (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Roger, Here is another: http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/express-yourself/1 Can I take a chance on building the page again. Please let me know. Regards, RGallison999 (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Roger, hi. Okay, gave it another go. Thank you for your patience. Will be more than glad to edit as you instruct. RGallison999 (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Coastal Development Hazards

Hello. I'll try to save the article. I'm not sure that a big red template was the best choice. The editor is new, and this might upset her/him after all that hard work, and just an hour after it hitting the mainspace. Perhaps a gentle message on a talk page would do the trick. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dare (agency)

Hi there. You recently (14 April) deleted an article pertaining to Dare (agency), an advertising agency based in London. I understand that this was considered to be 'unambiguous advertising' and I wondered if you would agree to reinstating it such that we could amend the content to read more in a more encyclopaedic style? As I am sure you are aware, precedent for this kind of page exists with numerous other agencies and similar organisations having Wikipedia entries. Supporting examples:

I would be grateful for your corespondence and counsel on reinstating the page. I disclose that I do work for said agency but am reasonably experienced on Wikipedia with a history in contributing to featured articles in the past.--John Gibbard (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I have seen this phenomenon once or twice before: an article has survived for years, then someone from the company turns it into spam and it gets deleted. Does the name Jemimabokaie (talk · contribs) suggest anything to you? I have e-mailed you two states of the article. I do not need to reinstate it. You simply re-create it (with a lower case "a" on "agency"!). If your new text uses any of the old, and the new article survives for a week, let me know and I will restore the old text behind the new. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 20:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion error

You inadvertently deleted this image that had been used by several templates (e.g the USPTO Issued Patents Template) asserting that it was redundant, but the suggested alternative does not work at small sizes. Is there a way to recover the removed file? — Aldaron • T/C 16:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Deletion was certainly not inadvertent! Taking more time than it deserves, I have created a comparison near the bottom of this page. The fact is that 45px is far too small to show the seal properly. Tinkering with the image is just not worth doing. But if you want it, you might as well have it. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks! — Aldaron • T/C 17:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Fime

You speedily deleted an identical article under G11, Fime international medical expo, would you get this one, too, please? Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, done. Thanks, though. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

PC TSC

Greetings. You recently deleted the PC TSC page, which was a description page for a popular software tool, based entirely on pages for other, similar tools. Is there no circumstance that software tools should be described on Wikipedia? How could the page have been changed, to permit it to remain? Jonathan E. Brickman (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Broadband universal service

You recently marked the broadband universal service page for deletion because of "original research / fork of existing articles". I don't know much about that subject -- which existing articles is it forking/synthesizing? Thanks. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm told that the current ambassador program is basically a pilot, an RFC, and will be running until September. At that point, it will shift from the current Public Policy focus to expand to all of Wikipedia. I can see why some teachers would want their students to create "new" articles. When a student has "contributed" to an already existing article, it can be difficult to accurately gauge their level of contribution (compared with simply accepting the whole article as the "student's" work). It's true, there are many other places that they could have the students focusing instead. Perhaps a topic on this subject could be started over in the ambassador section. :) Banaticus (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Public Policy Initiative research

Hi RHaworth/Archive to 2011 May 22,

Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

K-Delight and DJ Jabbathakut

Hello, you left a note on my page about the speedy deletion noms for the above articles, and I'm a bit ticked off that they've been deleted without giving me proper time to reply. I've created over a hundred articles, with dozens of DYKs, and someone should have assumed that the articles could be expanded (or at least that I deserved the chance to do so) to provide proof of notability. I don't know who deleted, so I'm not criticising you personally, but it was really rather rude of the person to do so with such haste.

That said, would there be any chance of the text being restored to my userspace? Are you in a position to do so? If so, I'd be most grateful :) Regards, Malick78 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  • You kindly created links to the two articles. I suggest you follow those links and you will find out who did the deletion. Creating unreferenced stubs in the hope that others will expand might have worked five years ago. Today we expect the refs to be there from the start. Userfied to User:Malick78/Sandbox. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 22:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you RHaworth for doing that. I would still say that there was no hurry to delete (nothing libelous...), however, so the editor in question could have waited. I'll take it up with them :) Thanks again Malick78 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael Godard

Bro, you deleted my article. I had a pretty solid argument going, I don't know if this is the right way to handle a talk page, so don't freak out on me. I would like you to put back the article. Thank You, and if this isn't the right talk page, I reiterate, don't yell at me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satan12345666789 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Roger Savory

Hi Actually it imparts a lot of knowledge by showing major works of the scholar. The list was obtained via permission through email of a professor in University of Toronto. I think I would like a 3rd opinion as I see no relavent policy of deleting it. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a third opinion. Firstly, providing a complete list of Savory's many writings is not appropriate content to constitute over 90% (by volume) of his Wikipedia biography. Secondly, the list having been obtained privately through email from a professor, means that the information does not come from a verifiable published source and therefore is not suitable for a Wikipedia article.
If you wish to seek a third opinion more formally, you are of course welcome to do so at WP:3O. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Gold Hat/monobook.js

Hi. Please undelete the above; it was just restored per my request at:

And please back up a rev to remove the del-tag; I can't edit it via this account.

Thanks, Barong 08:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ocean*Transfer

Hi,

You deleted an article about the band Ocean Transfer -- can you describe how to make this article more relevant? It reads, to me, just like every other article about a band. Isn't 'relevance' subjective in terms of the arts? I am new to Wikipedia, but don't really understand with the grounds upon which you've deleted my post.

Thanks, Brian

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/Archive_to_2011_May_22&oldid=428168326"