User talk:RHaworth/2012 Dec 05: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:57, 5 November 2012

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Question

The only reason I stumbled upon it at all was because I was perusing our newest admin (Writ Keeper)'s logs and happened to come across Tosy Toop as one of his first deletions... then I noticed you re-deleted it 10 minutes later (after it was recreated) using the G4 criterion—wouldn't this not be applicable, as the material was not "deleted per a deletion discussion"? I assume the other CSD G12 might have still applied, though...just questioning that particular deletion rationale, as it seems inapplicable in this case. Please correct me if I'm missing something, Theopolisme _Boo! 01:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, place just one foot a bit wrong and you are picked up on it. The entire content of the article was "Tosy toop is a vietnamese spinning top toy created by Tosy." So I just reached for the del button. Only afterwards did I see the G4 criterion which, I agree, was wrong. G12 was also inappropriate. To be honest, I cannot really fit it to any CSD - not A1 - the context is clear; not really spam. Perhaps just settle for G2 - test page! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Burkina Faso

Hi there and thanks for your question. I was sort of going through a number of similarly-named articles via Eastern Region and at some point in the future would have theoretically got round to the regions you mentioned. As to having a fight with Good Olfactory I don't really relish the idea so I will have to re-examine the guidelines and take it from there. :) Green Giant (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Noted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Plaintext Players

Hello there, after my recent creation of an article about the Plaintext Players and it's subsequent deletion I have taken the time to review all the valid reasons for it's speedy deletion. I now feel much more prepared to start again and create an article that adheres more strictly to the guidelines. I wondered if you'd be able to WP:Userfy the deleted page so I could review it as User:TEB728 suggested I request. OR do you think it would be more worthwhile adding information about the Plaintext Players to the Antoinette LaFarge wiki itself? Looking forward to hearing your advice. SWalton91 (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you have a COI. My advice is to wait until an established editor thinks the group are notable and writes about them here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response User:RHaworth Having reviewed the COI I wondered what sort of conflict of interest you think I have? As i'm not intending to write promotional material as the group has been defunct as of September 2010 ^[1] merely seeking to add additional information to their brief mention on the established Antoinette LaFarge article. I know that other theatre and performance undergraduates who study both cyberformance and come across LaFarge would be interested to know more about the Plaintext Players. So I seek your guidance, do you feel I should add some edits to the LaFarge page or create the article within my own sandbox and seek advice from there? Now that i've gathered more sources (secondary rather than primary) I feel my article would have more weight to it's notability and verifiability. Best, SWalton91 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

^ "Plaintext Players FAQ".

Perhaps I have seen it too often, but I automatically assume that someone with a limited edit history on a very narrow range of topics has a COI. You have already created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plaintext Players. Since the rejection reason no longer applies: beef-up that page with proper independent references and change the tag at the top to {{AFC submission|}}. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I completely understand how you could have made that mistake. I'm currently reworking it with more appropriate references and I look forward to hearing your feedback.Plaintext Players SWalton91 (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Jennyjwow97

Hello RHaworth, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Jennyjwow97, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Nothing here that violates WP:UP. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC 2544 - Ethernet performance

Thanks for your revision that result to: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RFC 2544 - Ethernet Performance test.

that was decided to be deleted because: "nambiguous copyright infringement

I'm not sure to what which copyright you refer as I wrote this text originally, therefore I'm the legal owner of this copyright that I registerred with ISBN 84-609-5042-5 in 2005 (as José Manuel Caballero-Artigas, my complete name)

The RFC 2544 is quite important to check the performance of Ethernet networks. It has been use since mid 90's for devices and after 2000 for telecom networks (WAN mainly) The new standards such as EthernetSAM also known as Y.1564, ITU-T_Y.1564 mention the RFC 2544 but there is no page in Wiki, this is the reason why I think it is important because nowadays absolutelety every single telecom operator in the world uses this RFC.

The article is an explanation about the RFC, that's all. Not very different to the Y.1564 (by the way there is another page very similar that, under my point of view, should be deleted because is the same and is wrongly spelled Y.156sam.

I'm author with several books published at the UK, US, Mex, & Spain about telecoms

Thanks for your time, Jose Manuel Caballero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose Manuel Caballero (talk • contribs) 15:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jose, the problem was that copy/pasted text was used in the article. That is copyright violation, which we all "copyvio". At this encyclopedia, we either paraphrase or quote, in quotation marks, and we cite individual independent reliable sources which discuss the topic. See WP:42, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:Close paraphrasing. Please consider creating the article in WP:Articles for creation without copy/pasting any text from other sources. --Lexein (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was alleged to be a copyvio of RFC 2544. But this was not the case, the article was about RFC 2544 but it did not seem to be a copyvio of the RFC. However I am unwilling to restore the article because it would be likely to be deleted for a number of other reasons: insufficient independent references, too long, too much original research / how-to guide and some horrible shouted section headings. The subject is probably notable so if you write a proper article, it is likely to be accepted. If you do so, leave a note for Mephistophelian (talk · contribs) who made the copyvio allegation pointing out that your piece is clearly not a copyvio. But before you submit anything new, take the trouble to learn a bit of wiki markup - like wikilinks. See my changes to your message above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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 reerenceAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:51, 31 October 2012 (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.]

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. skak E L 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. skak E L 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. skak E L 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)

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)

[1] "Plaintext Players FAQ".

[1]

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 ** Please restore the article [[Sigma Thêta Pi]] and put up for formal AFD. &ndash; [[User:Naraht|Naraht]] ([[User talk:Naraht|talk]]) 14:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 *** I deleted it for the reason stated in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma Thêta Pi|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. &mdash; [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] ([[User talk:RHaworth|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/RHaworth|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. [[User:Faulknerck2|Faulk]] ([[User talk:Faulknerck2|talk]]) 00:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)