User talk:RHaworth/2016 Feb 10

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
< User talk:RHaworth

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TakuyaMurata (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 24 January 2016 (→‎Stop damaging Wikiped). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ten Years

On 2015 Jan 1, I joined the Wikipedia Ten Year Society.
Will I make it for another ten?


Archives

Emotional Speech Blocks Syndrome Deletion

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

Karmanyevadhikarste...

Discussion transferred to User talk:NehalDaveND/sandbox/1.

Question about block of User:Tom Sandow

I noticed you blocked Tom Sandow for abusing multiple accounts with Tommy Sandow. That account was actually the second one he had, the first was Tom 'Slapstick' Sandow. My question is how did they abuse multiple accounts?

There is no overlap from these three accounts, I don't see how they are abusing multiple accounts. -- GB fan 11:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Since I see you have been active since I left the note above, I take it you have no answer. I am unblocking the account. -- GB fan 11:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • You are too impatient - why was there any urgency about this matter? Unblock? You cannot be serious. The only proper treatment for this clown is to block all his accounts for blatant self-promotion. I shall take no action at present but if he pops up on my radar in the future, I will block what will probably be four accounts by that time and hope that you are not watching. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't block people just for having multiple accounts, only for using them abusively. You said in your block that he was abusing multiple accounts. How did he abusively use multiple accounts? -- GB fan 14:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  • As I say, even one account for this guy is an abuse. Creating multiple can be considered an attempt to conceal how persistent his self-promotion is. — RHaworth (talk · contribs)

Blocking needed

Hi, You recently deleted an invented hoax article: Joachim Christian Shah Mridhani Pahlavan-Nassab, but you forgot to block the vandal who invented it, and they also vandalized some related articles. I undid their vandalisms. Please block them. Vandal: ZShahPahlavi. Thanks -- Dolly Cao (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Hopefully they have gone off to play elsewhere but let me know if they come back. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Newbury & Thatcham Hockey Club

Dear Sir, We are a local sporting group, Newbury & Thatcham Hockey Club in Berkshire wishing to generate a wiki page so that the club's history can be documented for all to have access. Current , future and old members. This is the first time I have generated a wiki page and I have no intention of creating a 'sales' or 'promotino' page as per the deletion reason. Please can you advise in greater detail to educate me on what I have done incorrectly. So I can try again to create this page. I have looked at other Hockey club pages e.g. Reading Hockey Club and East Grinstead Hockey Club that are on wikipedia and have taken the same style. Kind regards, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrmitchell (talk • contribs) 06:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Apart from the horrible shouting of the club's name, I could not see too much that was really spammy. But I thought that amateur sports clubs were generally not deemed notable enough for Wikipedia. Feel free to raise the matter at deletion review. Remind me in August about the beer festival. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Chimsnero Goldsmith

Hope you are doing great, i will like to recreate a page you previously deleted chimsnero goldsmith is the name of the page. how can i do that please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realonehqsource (talk • contribs) 13:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks you are notable and writes about you here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User High5Texas

Hi. I don't want to undo your block without writing to you first. I'm an OTRS volunteer answering ticket 2016011410027941. The accounts User:Kamran Nezami and User:High5Texas are indeed the same person, but the Kamran Nezami account should be blocked instead, due to impersonation.

Impersonation was not intentional on the user's part; she created that account for the purpose of writing an article about Kamran Nezami. Realizing this error, she abandoned that account and created a new one that represents herself rather than her article subject. She also now realizes that she made a second mistake in creating a second account, even though she abandoned the first. Now the second one is blocked, and she doesn't want to use the first one.

This looks like a new user trying to learn the ropes, who made some unfortunate decisions without any malicious intent. Would you mind if I swapped the blocks around, and perform a redirect and history merge on the talk pages? ~ Amatulić (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I would say that this is a single purpose, spam-only user and really both accounts should be blocked. But if you want to be lenient, go ahead. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll also notify her about mandatory COI disclosure. ~ Amatulić (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the pages in my userspace

I saw a familiar name in my deletion log. Are you interested in helping to edit or referee a new journal? See: Wikiversity:First Journal of Science and a rather unorthodox acceptance letter at Talk:Timeline of quantum mechanics. One motive was to inspire students in v:Wright State University Lake Campus/2016-1/Phy1060 to strive to get their projects published. But it could be helpful for any young person whose career has not yet matured to the point where they can publish in the established scientific journals. It will be a peer reviewed journal that credits the person's username. At a job interview it would be easy for the author to verify the identity of the article's author. -- Guy vandegrift (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hijabophobia

I just noticed that on 5 January 2016, you deleted Hijabophobia. The article is back now and it's not written in an appropriate way. Should it be redeleted? 64.134.64.190 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Wal deserved deletion

Sir why did u deleted my page? — Hamdan Munir (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Gitmo

Deletion of Guantanamo detainees Ghana transfer controversy article under construction. Hi RHaworth, I saw that you deleted Guantanamo detainees Ghana transfer controversy article I was just into developing. Can u explain why this is is not a controversy? A quick Google search would give you an idea about how heated this topic is in Ghana right now. Thanks —M@sssly✉ 00:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

AlwaysOnVacation

Hi RHaworth, I posted AlwaysOnVacation on the 13th of January and spoke with ubiquity about why it was taken down - he gave me a very good explanation and told me to contact you to get the page so I can edit and repost. See his message here:

The article was deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) on January 13; if you ask him, he will probably copy the page to one of your user pages. Good luck! ubiquity (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I unwisely wrote it in Wikipedia and didn't save a copy, do you think you could help out? Much thanks, Taker91 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 January 2016 (EST)

  • Text emailed but kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Earth's Mightiest Heroes Cancellation

Hey RHaworth. You deleted my third article, The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes cancellation. I wrote that article to help people, like my other articles, and you ruined it. Please bring it back, because I joined Wikipedia yesterday. — MML Master (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The article was not needed. It is not even worth having as a redirect. Anything you want to say about the cancellation, should be added to the main article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Norbert W. Knoll-Dornhoff

You recently deleted several pages involving him. An IP editor claiming to be him made a legal threat here. I don't know that it's worth blocking that address, but you might want to think about at least RevDel'ing the edit. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Borghese Collection

Hi, I don't know what's going on here: "RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Borghese Collection ‎(C1: Empty category)" but the category should not be empty, and is needed. — Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Please learn to provide links when you talk about a page. For categories and images note the trick of adding a colon to create a link rather than actually using the cat or image. Wikipedia's normally obsessive record keeping breaks down totally if you ask it "what articles have been in category:foo at any time in the past". But a few moments investigation on your part should have suggested to you that the preferred category is now Collections of the Galleria Borghese and its sub- and supra- categories. I am not sure about policy on category redirects but a redirect at category:Borghese Collection would probably do no harm. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

How do I link to a deleted category? I know what the current category is, but that is nonsense, as half the collection has been in the Louvre since Napoleon, and much else in other places. Can I just recreate the old, correct, situation? Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  • "How do I link …"? Do you see your message above? Do you see that I changed it into a link to a deleted category. What exactly do you think is involved in "creating the old, correct, situation"? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

DJ Mark Battle

I didn't get to finish my page on DJ Mark Battle, he is associated as a celebrity wedding dj. He has worked with Martha Stewart and other notables. I had no idea that I had to hurry up and finish. I needed to work on all of my references. Please help me get this page back up. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danm2sq (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the guy is notable and writes about him here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Claire Wendling article

I don't believe that the Claire Wendling article should have been speedy deleted. She is a candidate for the Grand Prix de la Ville d'Angouleme, the most prestigious comics award in the Western world. She has an extensive article on the French Wikipedia. I am not an experienced WIkipedia editor, but I believe she satisfies the policy listed at creative professionals, specifically points 1 and 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron Kashtan (talk • contribs) 06:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions on my deleted page?

Hi, Robert; I created an entry for Sage (simulation library) to link from the Sage disambiguation page and the list of discrete event simulation software page. It is a library that I created, and which I have used to help small and large companies alike. It has been in existence for about 14 years (first lines of code laid down in 2002, the bulk of it in place by 2007) and I'd like it to be represented on Wikipedia (to which I am a cash donor as well - not that I expect special treatment, I just want you to know I value the resource.) I tried to make it short and sweet, factual only, and to avoid any adjectives related to quality or other characteristics that could be seen as unsubstantiated, advertisement, or biased. Apparently, I didn't succeed - it looks like you deleted it. I'm wondering what I might need to do in order to get it either reinstated, or to successfully add another one. Thanks for whatever you can suggest. Pete Bosch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cranberryhiker (talk • contribs) 15:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Please post this message on the talk page of the Robert whom you are addressing. But if you actually meant to talk to me, kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your software is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Query about a talk page deletion

Hi, Roger. I see that you deleted Talk:BoxeR as a "Recently created, implausible redirect" (it redirected to Talk:Lim Yo-hwan) but I don't agree, for the following reasons.

  1. The redirect was recently created by move of a page which has existed for over ten years, and in such a situation it is quite likely that there will be editors who know of it by its old title, so that it will not be unlikely at all that someone may look for it under that title.
  2. The article Lim Yo-hwan states that Lim Yo-hwan is known as "BoxeR", and indeed a few quick searches confirm that this is so: he is so called, for example, at [1], [2], and [3], so it is far from unlikely that someone will look for him under the name "BoxeR".

In view of those considerations, do you object to the redirect being restored? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • James, yes of course I object - redirects do not need talk pages. Also I really dislike situations where titles which differ only in case do different things - they are a recipe for confusion for case-insensitive searches. I recommend: create boxer as a disambiguation page for boxing and Lim Yo-hwan and change BoxeR to redirect to boxer. I know you are supposed to have three or more items to make a dab page but the alternative: an hat note in boxing pointing to Lim Yo-hwan seems too "distant". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I understand your point,but I am surprised by the words "of course": it was certainly far from obvious to me that you would object. I'll think about your suggestions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Intrapsychic Humanism

Hello RHaworth, Copyvio deletion of Intrapsychic Humanism (IH) page on 7 Jan. I am bobbcarroll2, one of those that contributed to the IH page. There are academics in our work group and I would be surprised if there were a copyvio, but must acknowledge that your editorial process found something that triggered your action. What was/were it/they? How can we again access the page to make needed edits? We are Wikipedia novices and will appreciate your guidance. — Bobbcarroll2 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • It is an hallmark of spammers and single-purpose accounts that they resent learning wiki markup. Kindly have the decency to wait until your philosophy is actually noticed by the world in general. Then continue to wait until it becomes notable. Then someone with no COI will writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Australian streaming companies

T3 should only apply if there are no transclusions. Otherwise, why not send it to TfD? — Frietjes (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Arrowverse

You moved the Arrowverse page as "uncontroversial", but it actually is. There has been months of discussion about how the information doesn't meet the WP:GNG because it's all about the notability of the individual series and not about the universe as a whole. Nothing has changed there, and the main editor advocating for the move took it upon themselves to request the page change. I'm curious as to the rationale that it wasn't controversial when there are multiple discussions on the talk page about how there isn't significant coverage on the universe itself. —  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I did not move the page. Indeed all I facilitated was a move from The Arrowverse to Arrowverse which, I hope you will agree was uncontroversial. As to whether it should have been move out of draft space, my reply is: no it most definitely should not be moved back to draft space. The correct procedure now is to have an AfD discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would it be to go to AfD? I'm not saying delete the page, I'm saying it's not ready to be in the mainspace because it fails the notability guidelines. There's a lot of work that shouldn't be lost just because we're in a waiting game for coverage.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Whaddya mean "in a waiting game for coverage". What is going to happen to make it become notable? I am sorry, I am just not interested. I am not going to take any action. AfD it, or raise a move request to have it sent back yet again to draft space. I don't mind which. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion question

Hey, I'm very new to the article creation process. I saw that you rejected a draft I submitted Ritter Rules because it included a cut-and-paste of the Ritter Rules from their website. As far as I can tell, I can't access the draft anymore. I'd like to work on it so that it no longer violates the copyright guidelines. Is there a way to do that? Thanks, Ischus (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Did it never cross your mind to provide a link here to your draft or in your draft to the aortic dissection article? Please reply. Non-copyvio stuff restored. The rules themselves are source material - we link to them: we do not include them. In fact I doubt whether this subject is worthy of an article in its own right. Why not add a paragraph to the aortic dissection article instead? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop damaging Wikiped

Are you going crazy? Could you stop actively damaging Wikipedia? I'm of course talking about Draft:Principal orbit type theorem. There is no deadline for the article completion. It is stil my plan to finish the article someday. Please restore the page. Otherwise, you are forcing me to take some appropriate actions. -- Taku (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Who wants to expose RHaworth for who he really is? Join my uprising against the Wikipedians who delete our articles. - MML Master (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I am certainly not going to talk to people who make threats. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Damaging Wikipedia is a capital crime. You really need to understand what you are doing. -- Taku (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth

Deletion review for Draft:Principal orbit theorem

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Principal orbit theorem. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Taku (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/2016_Feb_10&oldid=701368149"