Jump to content

User talk:RHaworth/2014 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
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,547,656 edits
Line 274: Line 274:
: Fuzzster, please suggest a wording for my first message above which you would have considered professional. Using a different IP address would make absolutely no difference. Ordinary admins are not allowed to know what IP address a logged-in editor is using. Please consider this proposition: three users ({{user|Whispering}}, {{user|SFK2}} and {{user|Juhuyuta}}) and three admins are agreed that from a content perspective there is everything wrong with an article. — [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] ([[User talk:RHaworth|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/RHaworth|contribs]]) 12:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
: Fuzzster, please suggest a wording for my first message above which you would have considered professional. Using a different IP address would make absolutely no difference. Ordinary admins are not allowed to know what IP address a logged-in editor is using. Please consider this proposition: three users ({{user|Whispering}}, {{user|SFK2}} and {{user|Juhuyuta}}) and three admins are agreed that from a content perspective there is everything wrong with an article. — [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] ([[User talk:RHaworth|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/RHaworth|contribs]]) 12:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


*Like I said, I know three admins have deleted it, but the content is not the same for each deletion isn't it? You cited your reason for deletion as "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", which is about notability/significance and NOT about content. Now you say it is everything about the content. Which is it, because I am utterly confused at this. I am not going to suggest a wording for your unprofessional message until you have the decency to explain which words/phrases used in the QS content made it not appropriate for wikipedia. You mentioned in your initial message that "As with the IP address above, you are not going to make me change my mind." That means you can know what IP address a logged-in editor is using, am I right? Please clarify if I am in the wrong. @LeProf thanks for explaining the realities of wikipedia, how can I further investigate this deletion? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Fuzzster87|Fuzzster87]] ([[User talk:Fuzzster87|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Fuzzster87|contribs]]) 03:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*Like I said, I know three admins have deleted it, but the content is not the same for each deletion isn't it? You cited your reason for deletion as "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", which is about notability/significance and NOT about content. Now you say it is everything about the content. Which is it, because I am utterly confused at this. I am not going to suggest a wording for your unprofessional message until you have the decency to explain which words/phrases used in the QS content made it not appropriate for wikipedia. You mentioned in your initial message that "As with the IP address above, you are not going to make me change my mind." That means you can know what IP address a logged-in editor is using, am I right? Please clarify if I am in the wrong. @LeProf thanks for explaining the realities of wikipedia, how can I further investigate this deletion? [[User:Fuzzster87|Fuzzster87]] ([[User talk:Fuzzster87|talk]]) 03:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


== Bourbonism ==
== Bourbonism ==

Revision as of 03:43, 20 May 2014

Archives

wikify!

Slovenly is a word I find myself using quite a bit at the moment. Slovenly is what I think of anybody who leaves a message here about an article and fails to provide a wikilink to the article. How do you expect me to read the article if you don't link to it? Even if the article has been deleted, you should still link to it.
I reserve the right to ignore any message which does not provide links where appropriate, has no heading, is in the wrong place on this page, has not been signed with ~~~~, is anonymous, etc.
And if that sounds like a grumpy old man, it's because I am ...

molecular bio databases

I don't feel entirely confident using a7 on databases, and I know it does not apply to computer programs. That doesn't mean the batch of articles is at all satisfactory,and I've given the user some advice to either combine the material into one article or expand the separate articles. I'd appreciate it if you gave him a few days to do it before sending it to AfD. I think that if I were to work on these, I would almost certainly be able to show them notable,, but there's too much work to do on them for me to want to do it myself, when its his job. But guidance is better than deletion.. — DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

user:Douglas Nelson Turner

Why did you delete my user space without talking to me? Douglas Nelson Turner (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@Douglas Nelson Turner: Sadly, The Herald moved your user page and talk page into draft namespace thinking they were drafts, without bothering to ask you. I asked to have those pages moved back. Since you had been using your userpage as a sandbox, the admin foolishly chose not to move it back, but simply deleted it. I'm sorry for what coding you lost. You might ask for that content to be restored. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Since it all began with my mistake, I am sorry for that. Methought it was a draft and carried it right to the draft page. Sorry for that. So, per WP:REFUND, is it possible to restore the content.?? The herald 11:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
@RHaworth: I apologize. I see that you moved what had been his user page to User:Douglas Nelson Turner/sandbox. I didn't notice that. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio needs admin intervention.

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ...or there will be one soon. Why?

Policy shortcut WP:DCV says,

"If a contributor has been previously clearly warned of copyright infringement but persisted, they may be reported for administrator attention to the administrators' incidents noticeboard."

I wrote here:

"... IIRC it's standard, for the article history to remain, for copyright reasons; we MUST give attribution. To the deleting admin, @RHaworth: please restore the history and merge properly in future. WP:Merge: "Merging pages does not require intervention from an administrator", but this improper merge does. WP:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Attribution_is_required_for_copyright guideline too.

Despite the ping and recent activity, the apparent copyvio persists; no history for RAGEMASTER because you deleted it. --Elvey (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it's been >12 hours since you wrote that, and left...? --Elvey (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Biochemic tissue salt

Hi RHaworth, I see the page biochemic tissue salt has been rendered a redirect page after it was tagged for speedy deletion on 21 April. I was not active on Wikipedia that time and could not contest the nomination. As far as I understand, CSD A10 does not apply here because it is not a duplicate of List of Schüßler cell salts. List of Schüßler cell salts is only a list of the 12 cell salts whereas the page biochemic tissue salt was intended to be the main page. The page has a lead; the page discusses the principles of cell salts, and I was going to elaborate the article by including their uses. All these are not covered and cannot be covered in List of Schüßler cell salts simply because it is a list page. The page Biochemic tissue salt is well-referenced, and has the scope to be improved. Now, if someone creates the list page first, it does not hinder us to create the main page. Would you reconsider the move please? I am looking forward to your reply. Thanks. -- AsceticRosé 15:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I could not understand. Please clarify. --- AsceticRosé 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

HNL 15

It's Real. NHL 15 is not a hoax. EA announced it and the NHL are actively promoting the cover vote. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah... and I read Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! Anyway. Yeah, I should've said Electronic Arts & National Hockey League. Not EA and NHL. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The Knowledge Centre for Agriculture Deletion

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

Chris Griffin (Entrepreneur)

Hello. I'd like to contest the deletion of Chris Griffin (Entrepreneur) created by me on April 30th and deleted on May 1st. The article was deleted under A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Chris Griffin is a notable British businessman, who founded Godskitchen, a dance music superbrand in the 90's, and Global Gathering, one of the largest annual dance music gatherings in the world. Latterly, he was a Director of British global clothing brand Superdry and was solely responsible for establishing the brand's presence in over 120 countries. He is also listed amongst the 50 most powerful people in online retail in the UK. Please could you reconsider deletion of this page, or provide further advice on how I can rewrite the article to meet expectations. Thank you. LWight (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read your page of advice and I'd like to revisit the referencing for this article and resubmit for your consideration. Please could you email my text and I'll work on the referencing today. Regarding other subjects, I have an interest in the contributions that lesser-known business men and women have made to the UK, specifically from digital channels such as online retail, media and television. It is likely that I will make several contributions over the following months. For instance, I intend to write about the founder of HIT Entertainment, who brought us Bob the Builder and Chuggington, amongst others. I hope this satisfies your query. LWight (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please could you kindly email me the text as mentioned above? I would like to revisit this in the next few days. Thank you. LWight (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I've now received it. Much appreciated. LWight (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have now revisited the referencing for this article Draft:Chris Griffin (entrepreneur) and have improved both the reference sources and citations. I've submitted for further review today. I hope I've followed the appropriate protocol during this process. Thank you for your help thus far. LWight (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! This is all a steep, but worthwhile learning experience. Hopefully this submission will now be accepted in due course and the next article will be a smoother process. Thanks again for your assistance, it's much appreciated. LWight (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Epigenetics of partner preference

Hi, I am a Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Texas at Austin. I would like to discuss your reasons for deleting the page epigenetics of partner preference. It seems that you think that this article was redundant with the page Epigenetics. However, epigenetics has become a massive field that is touching all facets of biology and behavior. As such, it seems appropriate to have an introductory page and page(s) that focus on specific topics in which our understanding has recently expanded.

The Epigenetics of Partner Preference page was a semester-long project by three undergraduate students. It contains information and explanations that are not contained in the current Epigenetics page.

The reason that the students did not just add to the Epigenetics page is that we thought that doing so would highjack the page and change its focus from a general introduction to a highly focused discussion of one topic.

The students did include a general introduction of epigenetics within their document-perhaps this is what led you to flag it as redundant? They included the general introduction so that the page could be understood on its own. However, the bulk of the article did not overlap with the Epigenetics page. Perhaps, the general introduction should be removed but the page itself kept?

This students were encouraged to write this article to contribute to the common good and advance the general public's understanding of epigenetics. Does the wikipedia community prefer that students not be encouraged in this manner?

None of us are experienced contributors to wikipedia. However, I am an expert, and my students are very well informed, in the field of epigenetics.

Please note that the Epigenetics of Partner Preference page was not a vanity page. My own field of expertise is the epigenetics of alcoholism. Thanks, Theflyelectric (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This is Wiki arrogance. Treat this subject matter expert with respect, please. He is asking a sincere question. Assist him, please. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
* So Prof, what further assistance do you you think I should give them? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
You pride yourself in speaking directly, so I will do the same (as I did briefly above). The issue raised is both about what you should not do, and what you should. The Wikiarrogance referred to was in your responding with "The phrase 'insult…" which violates WP assume good faith. Moreover, I reviewed the material, and it is—from my background with a PhD in a related area—certainly solid scientific material, even if not yet adapted for Wikipedia. Your denigrating him with "publish our essay" and the content as OR (which it is not, for it is better referenced, and more other-referenced, than much material at WP) was done instead of directing this WP-interested content matter expert to the [specific] Help pages that would have allowed him to begin trying to do the necessary conversion to WP format. As well, a kind editor, open to all comers, and wanting to encourage subject matter expertise would have taken him much further in hand (as another editor did with me on the beginning), giving an example short article—perhaps of your own—that has been very carefully constructed to have all essential Wikipedia elements in place (headings, infobox, appropriately formatted references, etc.), and so could have been used as markup template. I know there are other ways, and I know that one can find them if one looks hard enough, but he is the beginner, not us. Bottom line, the whole of this makes me suspicious, in general, of any rapid deleting that you do. Like Huggle and Twinkle-inspired reversions, such rapid steps are only as good as the heart behind them, i.e., the care taken to "act justly" and show "mercy". Merciless responses violate WP policies regarding showing other editors respect (esp. new ones), and regarding assuming good faith on the part of others. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
See added emphasis above. I count 2 pieces of advice on things to avoid (don't insult, don't denigrate with snide comments), and 3 things you might do (assume good faith, point to specific help, suggest/provide templates), alongside the closing general advice to show respect, assume good faith, and avoid merciless, unkind treatment of others (esp. new wikipedia editors, and subject matter experts). But then, you saw all this. What is your game? You are not dim, as you are pretending. You appear to take pleasure in snide, even harsh responses. This is not your club, to turn folks away. It is arrogance to turn away potential future talented Wikipedians, because they do not see this place as you do, do not come to speed at Wiki markup as fast as you think they should, do not prioritize content and format quite as you do. Bottom line, your policies on your talk page are not WP policy, and if you are given Admin responsibility, you need to be reflecting WP convictions over your own (when they are in conflict). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
In your continuing haste to act, did you misstate? I believe you intended to say, given your expertise in the molecular biosciences, you judge the article as not appropriate for Wikipedia, and I assume never will be (a matter about which I have not yet formed an opinion, though I am ever so much more poorly qualified to hold forth). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad Blue Boys

Was deleted with the rationale "May not create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultras Dynamo". However, Bad Blue Boys are supporters of GNK Dinamo Zagreb, rather than Dynamo Dresden - is this a some sort of mix-up? GregorB (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I see now Conformuser is banned, so that could have been a bad faith nom. Anyway, could you restore the talk page too? GregorB (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! GregorB (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

user:71.239.82.39

Please advise me of the WP that is your basis for deleting the home page associated with 71.239.82.39 … you made the change without posting at that Talk, on the seeming authority of a WP. Please provide a link to the WP. Thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I sometimes draw short, and refer to Wikipedia policy, as WP, pardon me. I will try to be more explicit. Use of an IP to edit — which is a fully acceptable way, per WP policy, to edit at Wikipedia, results in a User page and Talk page being generated that are associated with the IP address. You deleted one such page. You did so, saying that such pages were not to exist. I am asking you to justify, with a WP policy, this action taken at the 71.239.82.39 page — which has, by the way, self-regenerated, now with a red-flag that is seemingly was unhappy with your deletion. Perhaps, if I and the red flag am correct, you or a senior Admin can undo the deletion that you performed. Matters little to me; but you seem to find doing things properly, important. Physicians should always endeavor to first heal themselves. — Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Use of an IP address does not result in a user page and a user_talk page - they must be specifically created. Millions of IP address edits are done where there is no user page or user_talk page. "Self-regenerated" - utter nonsense. Every user page for an IP address should be a red link - here is a random example: 79.54.47.134.
As to user:71.239.82.39, NeilN (talk · contribs) applied a {{db-nouser}} tag which was good enough for me. But I could have used another reason: if we stretch a point and say that an IP address can have a user page, then the very strong convention comes into play that user:foo should only be edited by user:foo. User:71.239.82.39 had been created by someone else so speedy deletion as vandalism applied - and the creator of the page should have been reprimanded. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry mate, you seem to regularly extrapolate from limited information, data, and experience, to a sense of very broad certainty that gives you (in your view) justification to act decisively (and rashly, I would argue). First, note, the IP in question is the signature that appears if I work from one of my work sites, between other responsibilities, without logging in to WP.

Extended content
At no time, ever, in my history of working from that site, have I ever created a User or Talk page associated with the IP. If I did not create them, ever, then it is reasonable to assume that they were automatically created. What is more, periodically this Comcast IP changes, and whenever it has, a new User and Talk page have appeared. What is more, yet, after you deleted the page, a new page appeared. Lots of data; bodes well for you to further make your case, see below.

Now, whether this >three-fold observation is true of all IPs, or only those assigned in relation to a cable account, or otherwise—I do no know (or care). The point is, your strident posturing on the matter are at odds with hard data. Still, I'll give you the chance—I challenge you to demonstrate the "nonsense" you purport, by showing me that these pages were created, and by whom. If the are automatically created, or if their creation is part of a standard Wikipedia process—perhaps someone monitoring substantive, new IP activity, to create pages to contact the new WP visitor, to encourage them to continue, and register (my hunch regarding the situation)—either way, I expect you will acknowledge your mistake/overstatement. Because even if a WP process involving an Admin is at the heart of this, the intent is clear: it is the intent of the system that the IP User and User Talk pages be used by people at WP to be in contact with the IP User. Of course, you may still wish to pursue the "reprimand" you referred to, against the WP policy or group of Admins administrating the policy, that tracks and responds to IP User page page creation. Your call. Let me know how that goes.

Second, besides what clearly appears to be ignorance about how some aspects of WP work, I question the wisdom associated with your rapid deletion of a page because you saw a tag. So, "NeilN (talk · contribs) applied a {{db-nouser}}" — he says jump, you say how high? Some report comes automatically to your screen, that NeilN, an editor unknown to you, declares an IP as db-nouser, and you jump at the chance to delete something, with no further due diligence? If no human discernment was called for in these cases, if no judgment demanded, WP would automate the process and have the pages deletable, directly, by the likes of NeilN alone. The fact that another human is inserted in the process implies that WP is calling on you to do something that demands analysis and discretion. Did you do any (analysis)? I'll contact a few Admins, and ask if (to quote you) "NeilN (talk · contribs) applied a {{db-nouser}} tag which was good enough for me" [emphasis added] is what is expected of persons allowed to rapidly delete pages. If doing so is acceptable practice, I will report back and let you know that I was so informed. However, I doubt that deleting such pages, however they came to exist, based on such diligence-free prompting is acceptable; why, then, is there now a red box comment calling attention to a deleted page, at the regenerated IP page? Such a puzzling universe we live in.

Otherwise, note, honestly—you have provided no real basis for what you did. What you have said boils down to, someone suggested, and I did it because I could. I will still await from you the WP policy that has you deleting pages in response to tags from strangers, without due diligence. But I will not hold breath. Rather I will call attention to this and other seeming trigger-happy events recorded here at your Talk, to whoever keeps tabs on the behaviour of rapid deletion folks.

Cheers, will glance back for a better explanation/WP, but I've heard what I pretty much what I expected. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick input, really no response necessary; please read this. I use a netbook and in order to get your entire post on to my screen I have had to zoom out.--Launchballer 08:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Having a user page is one of the benefits of having a registered account. That, and other benefits, are explained at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. --NeilN talk to me 22:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wasting your breath, my close-following Neil. But if it gives you a sense of value, lurking about me, here stating the obvious (to one with an account), have at it. I won't complain. But know, after this, I'll generally not respond in Talk — except, as necessary, forwarding matters for higher review when you are less than "the whole truth" about any matter involving me. Cheers, and best wishes, really. We all need a life that matters. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, still no basis given for the action. Since this involves a matter of principle, and your inability or unwillingness to justify a deletion, yes, I will elevate the matter for review. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Twokinds

Hi, RHaworth, can you send me the versions of Twokinds that existed before the deletions, excluding the one that was deleted with G12, and the talk page that existed before the two deletions? --Kovl (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Defense Acquistion Program Administration

I appreciate your contributions and intensive reviewing work on articles. I just wrote an article about Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), an executive branch of the central government of the South Korea, I am working for. I'm disappointed that the article was deleted for the copyright infringement of some contents of the DAPA's official website. As DAPA different from other commercial firms and organizations provides public services, contents in the official website I believe should be public and worth sharing to anyone. I kindly ask you to reconsider the article deletion. — Judeyoungw (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Being different is no excuse for copyvio also official websites are usually written in unencyclopedic style. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI writes about the agency here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of shortofalength page

Hi. I find the article I was trying to create has been deleted by you. There is no intention of setting up a web page. I'm new to Wiki and was merely trying to draft an article over several days with the intention then of studying Wiki's guidelines and amending accordingly - no intention of it going public yet or allowing it to do so until I'd 'got it right' both from the article and Wiki's point of view. Gaia Dance is a noted ecological writer who should be recorded on Wikipedia. (it's not me incidentally). Please restore the page so I can work on it. I'm quite happy for you to mentor/approve it when I'm reasonably happy with it and before it goes public. It's daft to delete something in mid-draft. I look forward to hearing from you. Peter Lyons (shortofalength) Shortofalength (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Weatherboxes

For the next few days I have the time to revisit this issue. Please do so at my talk. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 02:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Qn magazine

Well, I've done it again, and I really don't think I'm such a Wikipedia "noob". I want to move the article Qn magazine to a new name because Yale School of Management has renamed the publication to Yale Insights. If you remember, the first time that I tried, I didn't italicize the name "Yale Insights", so I reverted the move and asked you to delete the article named "Yale Insights". You decided to nominate the "Qn magazine" article for deletion, which I thought was a good idea. Somebody disagreed. Today, I tried the move again, putting two apostrophes before and after the name in the "Move" dialog box. The result was garbage -- a new article named ''Yale Insights''. Again, I reverted the move, and again, I am asking you to now delete the article ''Yale Insights'', please.

Can I also complain about the "Move" process?

  1. The "Move" dialog box is the only place in Wikipedia that I can think of where a "Show preview" button doesn't exist. Moving an article is serious business, yet I have no way of knowing until after the fact that the move would produce garbage. (Just to be hyper careful, I tested ''Yale Insights'' in my Sandbox before attempting the move.)
  2. I still do not know how to move an article so the name of the new article is italicized.

Thanks for your help. -- LukasMatt (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Why describe the result as garbage? It was exactly what you had specified.
  1. Outrageous suggestion 1: previewing a move may be useful in certain specialised circumstances , eg. a cross namespace move of an article that contains a namespace-dependent template. Try the move as a copy-and-paste (without saving) and preview the result.
  2. Outrageous suggestion 2: italic titles - look at existing articles that have italic titles and see how they do it.
You also have {{DISPLAYTITLE}} for more complicated formatting. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your remark "Why describe the result as garbage? It was exactly what you had specified", I'm a retired systems programmer...I understand GIGO...No need for you to patronize. I have my own "outrageous" ideas:

  1. Outrageuos idea 1: I followed your guidance: "look at existing articles that have italic titles and see how they do it". I looked at lots of them. Apparently, articles can be created with italics in the title. Therefore, why would you expect me to anticipate such a kludge (yes, it's a kludge) as {{Italic title}}?
  2. Outrageuos idea 2: In response to my "complaint", several people updated the "Wikipedia:Moving a page" article. That's a constructive, appropriate response.
  3. Outrageous idea 3: Moving a page is the weakest component that I've encountered on Wikipedia. If it's your baby, RHaworth, then I'm sorry, but...your baby is ugly.

I've wasted enough time on this issue. I would rather work on Wiki Fixup projects. -- LukasMatt (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr Zeus

Hi RHaworth.. You recently deleted Dr Zeus article. He is pretty well known Punjabi language singer and I think is sufficiently notable. Could you kindly userfy it to my userspace. I will fix it with proper references etc and move it to mainspace. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vigyani - I'm sure RHaworth will be answering shortly. I nominated that page for deletion after I responded to your report at WP:AIV about Big9bath. He had made several edits to Dr Zeus (as well as other pages). I attempted to verify that his edits were vandalism, but was unable to. The article contained only one reference, a BBC Review, which sourced a single line in the article. I also did not see anything indicating that this artist was notable, so I nominated it for deletion. Does he meet WP:BAND? Prodego talk 00:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Dr Zeus is definitely notable. He has produced several music albums and is fairly well known in Indian Punjab. But I understood from the deletion that article maybe lacking proper references. So I thought I could fix it. Regarding Big9bath, which I believe is actually a sock of a blocked user. I have been keeping a tab on his edits. This user works in area of Punjabi (Indian) film and music articles and is here only for promoting that kind of stuff. I think he is somehow related to these film producer and creates articles for the projects which are just in pipeline. So his edits are not really vandalism but he simply does not understand notability, neither he responds to any of the talk page messages. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 00:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Vigyani - I'm all for undeleting it if you think it meets WP:BAND and will add sources to show it. Prodego talk 01:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will try to fix it tomorrow and also check carefully if it passes WP:BAND, which I think it will. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 14:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Mishari bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Hello, can I have access to the fol. article pls, Mishari bin Abdulaziz Al Saud . — Learning Humility (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks RHaworth! Oh, and love the pun on Learning Humility (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)learning humility :)

deleted files/images

Hello RHaworth, I am working in IPP ASCR, Prague and I am the creator of these pictures, which has deleted. I can put them as my work, but I wonted to protect them from commercial activity. It should used only for non commercial activity or education. Is there any problem ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamekjiri (talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood the licensing process. I have used bad license of my pictures. I think now, it should be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamekjiri (talk • contribs) 08:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Friendship "Turtle" Park

Well, Friendship "Turtle" Park wasn't my article (even though I did the move from "them" during some Wiki Fixup project work). In any case, I'll give my two halers worth. I moved their article to a better name and I did a quick copy edit of the article because...I looked at their website...it is really nice...and I thought, "If they make such a nice website, maybe they'll eventually put similar effort into their Wiki page". In other words, I thought, why not give them a chance?

Your speedy delete seems very inappropriate for two reasons:

  1. You didn't give them a chance;
  2. The reason that you specified is not accurate. The actual criterion reads, "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves" WP:A7. Friendship "Turtle" Park is a place.

-- LukasMatt (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Did you also remove links to the Friendship "Turtle" Park article.... -- LukasMatt (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The article was hopelessly stubby - could not even manage to give coords. I don't know how you define a "nice" website. Curiously, www.turtlepark.org appears to have closed in the last 48 hours and to judge by Google's cache it was only fractionally less stubby than the Wikipedia article. Restored to User:Donotlook/sandbox. My contribs history and deletion log are available to tell you if I removed any links. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Società Italiana per l'Esercizio Telefonico p.A. ‎

What makes this "bad faith nomination" precisely? 2.27.97.160 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Televersing

I tried to post a article about I term that I created. I had also generated definitions, divulged the science behind the term and showed information relating to the reason for the term. I believe I was told that it was an unproven science or something weird. I can prove the science part, I can show how the science works, this is just a word like any other that gets created. I want to learn how to make the word legitimate and direct people to the website I created to explain it. Since you are the one who dismissed it as a hoax I am telling you now it is not, so help me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mups007 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The article was blatant original research and thoroughly deserved speedy deletion. Unfortunately OR, however bad is, technically not a speedy criterion so the nominator used hoax and I was happy to go with it. Firstly, you need to correct the appalling spelling and grammar of your website. Then, kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your theory is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"Teh"

Hi. Since you seem to commonly deal with redirects, I would like to ask you, do you think it would be wise to put in some redirects of the common typographical error "Teh" for titles that start with "The". The top search results are newspapers and countries. For example, Teh New York Times as a redirect. Hoops gza (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Quantium Solutions

Hi, my article on Quantium Solutions recently got deleted, and I would like to know specifically which part of the content is making this inappropriate to be on wikipedia? I believe the article is already factual and does not have any promotional undertones. I understand about wikipedia's guidelines on notability and have done my part to do a thorough read on it. I have also browsed through several wikipedia pages from other logistic companies to look at their content and credibility, but many are not cited/significant yet are still on the listing. One example is: Express Kenya. Another example Embassy Freight Group is both promotional in tone, and does not have any citations as well. Hence unfortunately I do not fully understand how my article is speedily deleted, in comparison with these other articles. Please help to clarify how I can specifically amend the article to get this up then? Hope you can help, thank you. Fuzzster87 (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What is your evidence, RH, that Fuzzster is associated with this Co.? Is it guilty until proven innocent, with you judge and jury? Just curious (since you state no evidence in your response). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have a very simple mind - I look at special:contributions/Fuzzster87 and leap from there to conclude COI. Yes, I suppose that is assuming guilt until proved innocent. However, I would not be so arrogant as to call myself judge and jury: there are so many ways of appeal. As with the IP address above, you are not going to make me change my mind. You are welcome to elevate the matter at deletion review but before you do so, please bear in mind that two other admins agree with me that the subject is not wiki worthy.
Please read this and set up an email address. I should be perfectly happy to send you copies of the Quantium Solutions and Rakesh Biswas articles so that you can take pity on their poor, abused authors and re-instate the pages. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Was your point that this editor has offered but a single contribution? If so (and even if not, for want of clarity of argument), then yes, it is simple-minded. Otherwise, for response to the substance of your reply, see below (where I respond to both you and the editor you have deleted). As far as access to the deletions is concerned, I can arrange should I need. And I'll not engage you on the WP policy question of requiring email to accomplish work here; let me simply say, I would not think of giving someone such as yourself access to means of communicating with me, off of Wikipedia. That requires trust, the basis of which is mutual respect. No, sorry, not a chance. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, RHaworth, though it came across not quite as professional as I would have expected from a wikipedia Admin. I see that the two wikipedia articles I cited as examples are suddenly deleted after I sent in this query. I am aware that two other admins deleted the QS page previously, what I am asking is "WHAT" is making it unworthy? You mentioned that if you send the copies to LeProf, he can re-instate the page just because he is using a different IP address that is so-called "unassociated" with QS. If this is true, I can use this logic and the solution is just to use a different IP, am I correct? I will no longer be a "poor, abused author". From a content perspective, there is nothing else wrong with the article, yes? I'm asking this civilly and professionally, and I appreciate a similar response from someone who is administrating such a renowned portal as wikipedia. Fuzzster87 (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Fuzzster, first: Professionalism is certainly not required of Wikipedia editors or administrators at RHaworth's level, though you rightly perceive that he takes a much lower view of the social responsibilities of general Wikipedians than many, if not most here. Unfortunately, though you may be in the right—if you are not a paid contributor, with a COI, simply trying to plug your own company, as RHaworth contends—it does not matter much, because Wikipedia is not about justice, it is about consensus. And even when wrong (which I perceive he is, often enough), RH will know more folks, and be able to create a consensus that you will not be able to counter. In this regard, since normative ethics do not come into play (either his personal, or this organization's), I do not hold much hope for this article. But if you ask, and I can investigate and see a case for an article such as this, I will seek an unbiased administrator to review the case. This, simply because guilty-until-proven-innocent is unacceptable, though Wikipedia clearly allows for such practices.
RH, second: Your "suggest wording" to Fuzzster is just so much more game playing, and disingenuous, and so unbefitting an Admin. Save it—it just invites response in an area where you could care less about actual engagement. You have made your decision, and you are confident in it. Just say that, to him. Otherwise, a "near enough" admission is not an admission, and in acting without any prior query, and acting alone, you are indeed acting as judge and jury; as such, arrogant is your word choice, and I cannot argue. Moreover, to act on perception is the mark, I believe, of one who does not belong as an Admin here. Let me state clearly, the opposing opinion: Good editors and administrators investigate before acting. You act, and justify with "when I am wrong, they can always appeal". Only at Wikipedia could such organizational and philosophical nonsense, such a mockery of the notion of due process find any acceptance. I for one abhor this judgmental, guilty-until-proven-innocent approach, and the self-righteous power-hungriness that it I believe it represents. But in your "leap before you look" approach to decision-making, you are in good company here; so in these battles over article deletions, I will likely lose (if I choose to challenge at all). But on the broader point of your being both socially ornery and quick-to-judge, and the question of this bring acceptable in an Admin, there I hold some hope of bringing productive WP policy light to bear. Cheers, until such time. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Le Prof, please note that Fuzzster has near enough admitted the COI.
Fuzzster, please suggest a wording for my first message above which you would have considered professional. Using a different IP address would make absolutely no difference. Ordinary admins are not allowed to know what IP address a logged-in editor is using. Please consider this proposition: three users (Whispering (talk · contribs), SFK2 (talk · contribs) and Juhuyuta (talk · contribs)) and three admins are agreed that from a content perspective there is everything wrong with an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Like I said, I know three admins have deleted it, but the content is not the same for each deletion isn't it? You cited your reason for deletion as "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", which is about notability/significance and NOT about content. Now you say it is everything about the content. Which is it, because I am utterly confused at this. I am not going to suggest a wording for your unprofessional message until you have the decency to explain which words/phrases used in the QS content made it not appropriate for wikipedia. You mentioned in your initial message that "As with the IP address above, you are not going to make me change my mind." That means you can know what IP address a logged-in editor is using, am I right? Please clarify if I am in the wrong. @LeProf thanks for explaining the realities of wikipedia, how can I further investigate this deletion? Fuzzster87 (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Bourbonism

Deletion of Bourbonism: The blending of bourbon whiskey and tourism. Hello. I am new to Wikipedia and this is the first article I had written. Mine was deleted for A11 and one reviewer declared it as a "joke". I assure you that this is no joke and the locals take this name very seriously in Louisville, KY (a city over 1 million people). I have given references and links showing the new term being used in public conferences by the Mayor. I have never met the mayor and I am not even a drinker, but I have a sense of local pride and wanted to share the new use of the word with the world. Thanks. Natomic1 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Your non-standard title pre-disposed people to deletion even before they opened the article. It is felt that the references do not show this to be a well-established term. But your edit to Bourbonism will probably stick so be satisfied with that.
I was amused to see an advert on the London tube today by an American Bourbon distiller proudly saying "we only use new casks" whilst Glenfiddich are saying, equally proudly, "we only use the cast-offs of Bourbon distillers". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Bourbon is required to be aged in new oak barrels. Scotch does not have that requirement. To increase revenue in the USA, while saving money in Scotland, Maker's Mark and Jim Beam sell used Bourbon barrels to Scotch makers. It's a win-win for both. See this article "Things you didnt know about Bourbon".Natomic1 (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

More Prof-essional moans

Re User talk:Launchballer#"Rakesh biswas"PAGE REVIEW: Leprof 7272 has been moaning about comments of mine, in particular my response to the above request. Please tell me if my comments towards Biswas could be considered as incivil/undiplomatic.--Launchballer 18:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, proper procedure is not for you to choose an Admin — certainly not a friendly Admin, and here, one with as many civility issues as you—to sit in adjudication over this issue. In fact, I think you are both specifically prohibited from this sort of politicking (esp. the Admin). Am I not correct? No, I will elevate it, thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • LeProf, what are you waffling about? Was anybody suggesting a choice of admin? I was suggesting that you should report me to the same admin (of your choice) for the same offence. The IP address suffered a worse fate at my end - this message was summarily deleted without any reply.
Launchballer, I had seen the moan and decided to ignore it. You would have been well to do the same. Anything you say to this woman is liable to result in a wall such as this incredible 11k byte essay. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Two notes, and then I am away: First, your use of the asterisk within your talk is your right, I imagine, but it is confusing to outsiders, and confuses dialogs where there are a series of responses. But do as you wish there; I only ever change such things to make the progression of the discussion clearer, not to exert unwarranted control (which is yours, here). Second, your using gender specific pronouns makes you appear ignorant and possibly sexist. The former said because the Fr "le" with this noun is masculine but gender neutral (both male and female Prof most often take the "le", with exceptions possibly in Francophone Canada); hence, the presupposition should be at best, gender indeterminate based on the "le". The sexism will be perceived based on the overall tone of your response, even if it is misperceived. Otherwise, I cannot plead guilty of your "she" accusation, and you misspelled liable. What an editor/admin you are, mdr. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I am always keen to make it clear who is talking, thus if someone had left a message such as this on my user_talk page, I would have slapped an {{unsigned}} tag on it instantly but you clearly prefer to leave things unclear. My apologies, I accept that you are not female. When being written about in the third person are you "he/him" or "they/them"? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
What the Scabeba matter has to do with anything I said is a neurological leap that these tee-totaling neurons are unable to make. Scabeba, a female, failed to sign. I, Leprof, failed to take her to task for not doing so. This relates to my point re: your confusing use of asterisks rather than :'s in your Talk, how? Or re: your mis-assignment of my gender, how? This is side-achingly humourous. But perhaps, as from start ("'Self-regenerated' - utter nonsense") to middle ("what are you waffling about") to finish ("Prof-essional moans"), you simply aim again to insult via humor before an admiring audience, and I am missing it. Some might say that persistence in trying to insult others (whether successful, or in this case, failing) would be unbecoming an administrator at Wikipedia. I could not possibly comment. (Here.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ahae

Howdy, I intervened in a page you nominated for deletion, Ahae. The page as it was seems like it was plain PR written by his employees or followers (or both). Ahae is the alter-ego of a religious sect leader and corrupt businessman who is on the run from the Korean authorities for his role in the sinking of the MV Sewol. He is very, very notable, though not for the reasons the article was created. I have added external news sources (I went overboard on number of citations to play it safe), and I interlinked this page to pages on the ferry disaster as well as his religious sect. I believe this addresses all your concerns. It also means this page might need additional monitoring for the next while as this issue continues. Thanks for your work. Junganghansik (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox island(s)

Please reconsider this. Infoboxes are named in the singular; see {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox building}}, {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox park}}, {{Infobox event}} and thousands of others in Wikipedia:List of infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For patrolling new pages. Btw another deletion required here. Thank you. Jim Carter (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio recreation

I noticed a new copyvio article and put a notification at the user's talk. Searching showed that very similar material had previously been reported at another user's talk.

The article I reported was speedy deleted, but was recreated at Water Supply Projects in Kurdistan, and it appears that you moved that to Water supply projects in Kurdistan. The lead of that article is a copyvio of http://www.oieau.org/IMG/article_PDF/article_a1624.pdf, and the body is a copyvio of http://kurdishcongress.org/data/upimages/subfolders/PDF/Economics%20Heshmati%20Integrated%20management%20of%20water%20resources.pdf

I don't know the best way to handle the situation now, and am hoping you will take any necessary action. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/2014_May_22&oldid=609333342"