User talk:RHaworth/2012 Jul 06

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.]

Linh Nga Nguyen‎

Where in the world does it say no consensus to move? When one party doesn't talk it is hard to have a consensus. Why are you going against Wikipedia policy per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese)? Her Vietnamese name is Nguyen Linh Nga. As ALL Vietnamese people never go by their surname. — Bgwhite (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am confused. So are you saying the article title should be Nguyen Linh Nga? "Never go by their surname" suggests that you think Linh Nga should be the correct title. I will accept whatever title Shirt58 (talk · contribs) recommends. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Helmy Bahgat Badawi

Dear Roger, Yesterday I created a page titled Dr. Helmy Bahgat Badawi that was deleted a few hours ago. I would appreciate your guidance on how I can have it edited and re-instated. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, Hani Badawi Hanibadawi Hani Badawi 15:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanibadawi (talk • contribs)

• Above all provide links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. An article that is totally devoid of such links stands about zero chance of survival. Other tips:
  • as you already know, work in [[User:Hanibadawi/subpage]] until the article is ready
  • when published the title will be simply Helmy Bahgat Badawi which already has an incoming link
  • state the guy's claim to fame in the first sentence
  • do not write a series of bullet points, write a proper bio
  • learn how to use <ref>s
  • never use naked URIs.

— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed guidance. I will work on the improvements in the User:Hanibadawi subpage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanibadawi (talk • contribs) 05:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I completed my contribution for this subject/person and the article still resides in my sandbox. Is it possible for you to have a look at it in my sandbox before I submit it to the main section? If not, please advise as to what is the best approach to follow. Thanks. Hani Badawi 00:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanibadawi (talk • contribs)

• Is it too difficult for you to link to your sandbox? I appreciate that this guy flourished before the internet age but surely there are some online references to him that you could cite. Probably OK to publish but to avoid disappointment, I suggest you do so via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance. I submitted my Sandbox draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hanibadawi/sandbox to the AfC link that appeared in the box at the top of the article. The article now cites 10 references and is in queue for review. Hani Badawi 14:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanibadawi (talk • contribs)

World Class Manufacturing

Dear Wikipedian, I was about to write an article on an improvement method called World Class Manufacturing. Before I could have some friends joining in, you speedily deleted the article. The reason mentioned (A7) is right. However I claim to have one week before any decision is made.

Here are the first elements of 'notability' I may mention. There is a system of certification by the World Class Manufacturing Association which groups 6 companies involved in the process: Fiat, ArcelorMittal, Placoplatre (Saint Gobain Gypsum), Volvo, Danfoss, Ugitech and Kyoto University (Professor Hajime Yamashina). — Francoisperlade (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• You are simply asking for trouble if you launch an article consisting of just one sentence into the (article) namespace. A week? You may have as long as you like but you must work in draft space. I suggest you launch your article via AfC: go to this page and select "create new article draft". Also, I recommend no capitals in the title - it should be world class manufacturing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge Mercantile

Curious as to why you deleted my page [Cambridge Mercantile Group, sandbox versions, etc]. I was waiting for a specific administrator to look at the page. I know that it has been flagged, but I was told what to fix by a user named ItsZippy and I was waiting for him to overlook it until you deleted the draft page. The page was a violation of G11 before however it was completely rewritten in an unbiased perspective and isn't a violation any more. Before "speedy deleting" my page, you should actually read the content of it even though it has been previously flagged, because it is completely re-written accordingly. Please give me some guidance if it isn't up to a standard so I can fix it instead of telling me to "kindly go away". Thanks Dcapland (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• ItsZippy (talk · contribs) is an admin so they can still view your text even though it has been deleted. (If asked, you may tell ItsZippy that they have my blessing to restore the piece if they see fit.) But from my point of view, I can only repeat my advice to leave it someone with no COI. If you insist on trying to force an article in, read this advice. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Genius Collective

Hi Mr. Haworth, I contacted you in regard to this site last week, but heard nothing, so I though this maybe a better route.

Please can you send me the deleted text for the article Genius Collective. I will copy this into my sandpit and develop it properly, and inform you before i make the article live for you to review. I have an email address attached to my account, which you stated on your profile is the best way for you to be able to transfer deleted text.

I'd really appreciate your help and thank you in advance, Kerry Scott aka Happy In Red --Happyinred (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyinred (talk • contribs) 12:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I never saw your previous message, because as you should have realised from this message you had left yours in a totally improbable place. Text e-mailed. Probably best to submit a new version via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Please read WP:COI and {{uw-coi}} and give yourself an honest answer to the question "should I be submitting this article"? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Confused

Re this edit to file:Bedtime.jpg. Why wasn't this simply deleted (if not F2, why not G6)? It seems to have been created by a bot and serves no purpose, and if a bot is saying it's on the restricted use list, then maybe it ought to be removed from restricted use too? No file exists on commons (at the moment). I'll leave it for now, but I'm just curious about it. — [stwalkerster|talk] 00:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am confused to. But even if it is not a bad title in the potential porn sense, it as a bad title in the sense of far too vague and generic so I see no harm in leaving it "blocked". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Marinaccio

After developing the article Joseph Marinaccio in my userspace for some time, I submitted it to be moved into the mainspace through AfC after I sourced it to meet WP:ANYBIO and it was approved [by an AfC clerk], but speedily deleted. I am aware the article had been posted before, however it was not sourced or written properly and I believe I had fixed that. It was approved, though, so I thought it should stay in the mainspace because it was comprehensive enough, and could continue to be developed. If that's not the case, can I have the text so it can be moved back into my userspace? Thank you. Cards1477 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Restored to User:Cards1477/Joseph Marinaccio. There still seems to be a lack of references to mainstream news sources. You might find it useful to "find a sponsor" for the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I had time today to review the new version, and it doesn't fix any of the problems found at the AfD--still no independent, reliable sources. I've explained that to the editor, and will MfD the draft page at some point (since it has no hope of becoming an article--the problem is that this person just isn't notable at this point). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Appreciation Insurance & Financial Services

Hello, You Deleted a article Appreciation Insurance & Financial Services. Then I hadn't more information and references on that article. Now I collected all and ready to present a resourceful article. Would you please do something to give me chance to create that article in new format and new information? Thanks. Shelley123 (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• I saw your ridiculous statement "the company allowed me to create this page". We do not need a company's permission to write about them here. But of course when you say "allowed" you actually mean "requested" to which I say: kindly have the decency to wait until somone with no COI thinks the company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the article . I appreciate your future support on this article. Again Thanks. Shelley123 (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Do you seriously mean that? Don't you realise that if you try to publish, I shall propose deletion immediately? Thank you for confirming your COI. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Modesto Marathon?

Can u give some reasons why did u delete the page Modesto Marathon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raskarnsingh (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• I was tempted to ignore someone who is so childish as to use 'u' instead of 'you' but I will reply. No attempt made to create a Wikipedia article - piece was addressed to potential competitors. Total absence of evidence, still less links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Custom House FC

Hello. I created a page for a football club yesterday and it was deleted. This being my first article submitted to Wikipedia I have obviously broken some rules as it was moved and then later deleted by your good self. I don't think it is a notability issue as there are plenty of smaller clubs than us listed on your site. Would you be so kind as to tell me where I went wrong so I can make the required edits? Thank you. Deansaliba (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Look at this history. All I deleted was a redirect. But I would warn you that it is very unlikely that the club will be deemed notable and that other stuff exists is never an argument. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Epixtrust

Hi RHaworth, the post I made, Epixtrust, was flagged and deleted under G11 for being an unambiguous promo/ad and I wanted to discuss that decision. The post was detailing the description of a new technological process, not a promotion for products and was written as a series of factual statements from a neutral point of view about what this new tech process does. I read a number of other posts for various other technological processes that were already up on wiki and a host of articles about what constitutes a good post before writing our entry, in order to make sure that it fit the criteria. Would I please be able to get the post re-instated if I added reference links to the US Patents that protect this new unique technical process for securing mobile media? Please advise. Many thanks for all the work you do. EvidencePix (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Linking to the USPTO website and peppering the article with ™ symbols are classic assertions of non-notability. They scream "I have got a patent but I have not sold the product/idea yet". Kindly have the decency to wait until somone with no COI thinks your idea is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Samoo

Hello, I am curious as to why you deleted the projects and other information I added to the Samoo Architects & Engineers page? I sourced the information from different design websites and awards organizations. I don’t regard a list of projects nor a brief description of a company as fluff. I modeled the page after ARUP’s, which has had no such heavy editing. Could you please inform me what I need to do in order to make this page acceptable to you? Vtlarstudent (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• A significant difference is that virtually every project in the Arup article (why do you shout their name?) is a blue link. I suggest you restrict your list in the same way, ie. only list projects which have an article here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There were over ten projects that had a blue link and the ones that had a red link are pages I am currently working on. Also why was the company history deleted? Is this not pertinent information? When I was a design student this information would have saved me hours when I was assigned reports on designers or firms. The brief description of the company was also deleted. What I have added is quite conservative when compared to other design firms on here. Could you please review the information before deleting it? Vtlarstudent (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• OK, so put the history back with a reference. Put back the blue-linked projects straight away and the others a week after each new article has been created. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RHaworth. You have new messages at JohnnyMrNinja's talk page.
Message added 11:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your Experienced advice on the discussion would be much appreciated. regards DBigXray 11:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Purolator

Hi Roger, You deleted the page that I created yesterday regarding Purolator Filters, and I was wondering how I could change it so that it doesn't go against any guidelines. I know you said there was a copyright infringement problem, but I double checked and I sourced everything and put it in my own words. I also just rewrote it to make sure that there are no copyright problems. Apparently there is advertisement problem as well. I am trying to inform people about the brand, and my text is made up of objective facts. What can I do to make sure my page doesn't get deleted? Bobby1379 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• The main problem was the ridiculous set of "references". Don't you realise that references should be links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources? The very first sentence was ugly and spammy: "Purolator has positioned itself as a leading brand for automotive filtration". Try "Purolator is a manufacturer of automotive filtration products". If it is the leading brand, provide independent evidence to that effect. I suggest you omit the Products section altogether and re-submit via AfC. You might also like to consider finding a sponsor. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So, to be clear, do I need to use different references for this article? Bobby1379 (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why do you ask? Do you think that is what I am saying in my message above? Have you actually looked at any other Wikipedia articles? Work through category:auto parts suppliers but be very selective: Ferodo and NKG both deserve deletion for lack of refs, but Lucas Industries is probably OK. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason I ask is because you said that the references needed to be links to reliable, independent secondary sources, and I didn't know if my references qualified in that regard. — Bobby1379 (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• My words that you quote are a link. Have you followed that link and read? Does the word "independent" suggest anything to you? The article should, of course, contain one or two links to the Purolator website but it must also contain independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Have you looked at any of the articles in category:auto parts suppliers? Please reply. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have. Bobby1379 (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Pocket Planes

I note your comment on the related page, and do not understand it. When userfying a page it is usual to place it on the user's talk page, and if the article in question has been tagged for deletion then retaining the {{speedy}} tag in the userfied move helps the editor in improving the article. If the editor then wishes to move the draft to his sandbox he is free to do so. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think we must be reading completely different rule books. In my view, we do not clutter up a user_talk page with non-talk material. When userfying a page it goes in [[user:username/anything]] and we remove any speedy tag otherwise the article will immediately re-appear in CAT:CSD. Please point me to other examples of userfication by your method. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not recall ever being shown a rule book. But although I have been here for pretty much the same time as you, I am always happy to learn. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• For this particular operation it is a metaphorical rule book. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Down Home Music Archives

The Down Home Music Archives is a research project in its 23rd year, documenting musicians primarily in the field of blues, primarily in the Midwestern United States, through the collection of oral histories, photographs, videos and physical materials (contracts, promotional items, correspondence, musical instruments, other memorabilia). In this music genre such documentation is important, historically underperformed, and relevant to music history, black history, U.S. regional history and pop culture history.

Most of DHMA's archive materials are unpublished. DHMA materials have been utilized for educational and promotional purposes (credited and uncredited) by radio stations (WIDR, WRKR), newspapers, blues societies (KVBA, WMBS, more), the Chicago Dept. of Cultural Affairs and Special Events, the Kalamazoo Blues History Project, subject musicians and various unaffiliated web sites. DHMA photographs reside in the Chicago Public Library Blues Archives.

My general position is that any entity performing a music research project deserves its own page in Wikipedia. Such projects are typically small and/or regional - by listing them Wikipedia will contribute to these entities' ultimate survival (documenting the documenters' existence). Interested parties need to be able to find us.

I wrote the Wikipedia page that was deleted and as DHMA Project Director am the most authoritative source for this topic. However, since Wikipedia states that it requires objective third-party authorship for articles, I have never expanded beyond the bare descriptive minimum and no one else has contributed to the page. (Again, documentation of this music genre is historically underperformed...) I am very willing to expand the page information if allowed.

I'm requesting that Wikipedia please consider reinstating and protecting the Down Home Music Archives page. If proof of DHMA's viability is in question, please consider visiting @DHMAhistory on Twitter or Twitpic, or our website (points to a Weebly micro-archive of older material currently) or just search the web to find unaffiliated sites that have listed us and/or republished a few of our interviews.

By the way, links to online relevant visual materials such as videos, especially when rare/historical, should be allowed by Wikipedia at the end of articles. I have tried to supply such a link to another contributor's page but it was disallowed. Audio links seem to be allowed, and video typically does include audio.

Thanks for your consideration of my page reinstatement request. I do not perform much editing on Wikipedia because, due to my own work, I lack time to learn the numerous rules and regs but I do reference the site frequently - so thanks, Wikipedia, for existing and thanks, editors/contributors, for making it a great online resource. — DHMA (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Instead of producing your load of waffle above, your time would have been better spent actually improving the article. It is significant that in the four years of the article's existence no-one had seen fit to expand it significantly or add evidence of notability. Kindly have the decency to wait until somone with no COI thinks the archive is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Roger. I am here as a result of a request for admin help by DHMA. The user clearly did not like either the deletion or the block, and I have explained to him/her why both are fully justified. However, I am less happy about another aspect of your actions which the user raised. It would really have taken little if any more trouble to have briefly explained why the article was unacceptable, instead of your blunt dismissal of the user's concerns. I see from your user page that you pride yourself in what you call your "blunt speaking". However, it is not at all helpful to a user who clearly does not understand Wikipedia's standards to just dismiss their concerns, rather than responding to them. Even if you are unwilling to spend a minute writing a brief note, a link to WP:Notability and perhaps one to WP:SPAM would have conveyed more useful information than the message you wrote. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but given my attitude that this user should not be contributing to Wikipedia on this topic, I consider my comment above together with the deletion log entry was a necessary and sufficient explanation of why the article was deleted. But as a gesture of conciliation I have offered (via the "contact DHMA" page on their website) to go to Chicago and discuss the matter face-to-face. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A question about Special:BrokenRedirects

Thanks for helping with the G8s. BTW, how does a repaired redirect get struck through on this special page? BusterD (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Simply that - it is stuck because it has been repaired or deleted - that is why the unstruck ones have (edit | delete) links after them! How? Because the report checks each redirect every time you run it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd seen the page before but never really used it. I'm not a fan of watching recent changes, so I was wondering how I was going to get CSD tagging experiences. This page will help me get some tagging confidence. BusterD (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Oncolex

Hello Roger, I created a page about Oncolex.org that was deleted. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate your input on the reason/s for deletion. They were quoted as A7 and G11, both of which I attempted to dispute seeing as Oncolex is a non profit, free service (G11), and created by a renowned research hospital (A7). Thanks. HildeErling (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Spammy language: "acclaimed medical specialists", "cutting-edge technology". No attempt made to provide links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. My talk page stalkers are probably getting fed up with hearing this, but - kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your service is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

How would you like it?

How would you like it if I deleted your page because some Wikipedia blowhard decided that it was an inappropriate use of a talk page? It's my talk page, it belongs to me, yet you don't seem to realize that. -- 38.109.25.246 (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please read WP:OWN. Even logged in users cannot be considered to fully "own" their user and user_talk pages. Still less for an IP address - how long is that IP address going to be yours? But stop moaning, create an account then you can create lots of user pages and probably no-one will complain. That is providing you don't do pointless, childish edits such as this one

That was on public territory, a sandbox, you have no right to complain until and unless the government of Wikipedia decides to privatize that area. --38.109.25.246 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have every right to complain about edits which are utterly pointless. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, perhaps I should have only added a little to that sandbox instead of wiping it out and flooding it with my intellectual acumen. --38.109.25.246 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I mean clearly, the intellectual substance that poured out through my fingers was too much for anyone to mentally process. Thanks for the suggestion. --38.109.25.246 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Kool Kid Kreyola

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia so I may have made a lot of mistakes with my first page. I see that a previous page for Kool Kid Kreyola has been created, but since 2010 (I admit I hadn't heard of him then) he's grown a lot in popularity through various projects and has grown to match the notoriety of almost every young contemporary in the SF art scene, including Henry Gunderson (artist) . I am not sure what I can do to get the page back up, but I'd like to try.

I provided a list of notable shows and galleries the artist has had along with publications, but to further prove my point I can just show you the amount of important SF gallery shows this artist has done, along with credible publications since 2010. Thanks a lot for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markasabb (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, I can see no list of notable shows in the article and I certainly do not need it on this page. Indeed it should not be in the article but on an external site to which you link. The article was deleted because we are not satisfied with the reliability, notability and independence of the sources you quote. If you can actually provide links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, then feel free to re-submit via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Greytrix India speedy deletion

Hi Sir, My article Greytrix India was deleted saying that its promotional. I would like to know what content seemed to be so as I had already removed all kind of promotional content on it when it was deleted for the first time. I am trying hard to understand the in and out of Wikipedia (I am new to it) while at work and trying to get the article up. But it just does not seem to be successful. I do not have a lot of secondary sources to mention and that is why I deleted all the awards and other contents that needed some secondary reference. Kindly help me with getting my work up. I will really appreciate that. Thanks, Sonal Singh 05:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSGTSG (talk • contribs)

• No attempt made to provide links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. You yourself admit there is a lack of secondary sources. This is an admission of non-notability. Yet again: kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The RIDE Page Deletion

This is in reference to the deleted stub The Ride (bus tour).

Hi, I'm Jillian, and just wanted to let you know I'm working with the company and also with the Paid_Editors_Help/Wikiproject:Cooperation to improve the page. I understand it was a stub, then was expanded, after which you completely deleted it. I'd love for you to offer your thoughts on improving the information added in the latest rejected edit, but I'd also like to suggest rolling back the edit would have been better than removing the entire page. Creation of the stub was by one or more non-company representatives, and updating the information therein is only natural.

Though the edits might have seemed overly promotional to you, the item itself is a relevant inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm going about the directions in the project & article pages, so please forgive me if I've over-communicated. -- Jilliance (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• If you actually hope to receive payment for your work, you will actually start by learning some very basic thing about Wikipedia, like how to create wikilinks and that articles need links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Unfortunately for you, I consider paid editors as a life forms somewhat lower than IP addresses. I am getting fed up with my own parrot fashion repetition so I will just say: scan this page for the word "decency" and you may get a clue. If you insist on trying to force an article in, I suggest you try deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I do insist on being civil. I'd suggest you consider that too. I'm not interested in forcing anything, only in helping, so insulting me is your negative choice, not mine. I'd also like to point out that I did exactly what wikipedia asks - follow directions that were crafted for company representatives like me, in starting to sort through the situation. I do think the article is relevant. So I'll ask for Editor assistance from people you do like, as you have requested. --Jilliance (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Cape Hill" soap opera hoaxes

...are continuing. FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackspindee2001. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provisions

Disagree quite strongly with your deletion here. WP:A10:

• excludes split pages, which this was
• excludes articles that include referenced, mergeable material, which this was
• excludes articles where the the title is a plausible search term (and which wouldn't be speedily deletable as a redirect under other criteria), which this was.

I haven't been involved in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article, but from looking at the size of it and the ongoing discussion at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Fork? I'd imagine there'll be a consensus to split it at some point, as evidenced by another editor having boldly done so. A good solution might be to undelete it with its history, in keeping with what I think's the relative likelihood it'll be split again, then turn it into a redirect. Thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• The problem was that you had created the new page and left all the text in the original article. Do the job properly, create the new article and then cut the section in the original article down to no more than 4k bytes. But you must obtain consensus on the talk page first. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)