This user is an Online Ambassador on the English Wikipedia
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:RHaworth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ten Years

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

Archives[edit]

Emotional Speech Blocks Syndrome Deletion[edit]

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

Karmanyevadhikarste...[edit]

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

Question about block of User:Tom Sandow[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

  • Sorry, not interested. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hijabophobia[edit]

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[edit]

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

Gitmo[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 06:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions on my deleted page?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Thank you. I believe I understand now that the deletion was based on concern about COI and notability and was based based on the too positive language tone of the first draft. The subject of intrapsychic humanism does meet notability tests. The authors have books on this subject published by McGraw-Hill and Harvard Common Press as well as a number of journal articles published in journals at the University of Chicago and in respected U.S. mental health journals. Their published books have been translated into a number of languages such as French, German, Spanish, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese (Brasil), Turkish, Mandarin and Japanese. This is all verifiable via web search. There are edits prepared to correct the tone and all of the other Wikipedia editorial critiques received prior to your 7 Jan deletion. Would you please place the page in a space where these edits can be applied? We expect that these edits will satisfy your understandable concern about the neutrality of the page's language and reinforce the notability of the subject. — Bobbcarroll2 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Firstly who are the "we" in whose name you are apparently writing and what is your relationship to Rabbits10 (talk · contribs)? Your phrase "have books on this subject" highlights the problem: we don't want to know what the authors have written: we want to know what other, independent reliable sources think about this philosophy. Text emailed to Rabbits10. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not met Rabbits10 (talk · contribs) but I understand she is a graduate student working in a university immunology/microbiology lab headed by one of my colleagues on the board of the intrapsychic humanism society. She was chosen to create the page using the text we provided - because she is more technologically savvy than we are. The other parts of the "we" are a clinical psychologist who is in private practice and on the faculty of a small state university and an artist. There are no financial ties between the authors and any of these people, myself included. One of the authors is now deceased. The surviving author has not been an editor of the page. Our interest in the subject is based upon our time-tested belief in its notability. The society I mentioned has been in existence for over twenty years. I believe the reality that their work has been published by major publishing houses after passing through these houses' editorial process is sufficient to establish notability. One of the edits we have ready to be included in the article is a review of their work by William C. Wimsatt, an eminent philosopher of science. Would you please place the page in a space where these edits can be applied? We expect that these edits will satisfy your understandable concern about the neutrality of the page's language and reinforce the notability of the subject. Thank you, Bobbcarroll2 (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me for omitting this link in my previous - William C. Wimsatt. — Bobbcarroll2 (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I have already told you that I have emailed the text to Rabbits10. If you want a copy for yourself, read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you RHaworth. I assumed you meant that you'd invited Rabbits10 (talk · contribs) into our discussion. Rabbits10 (talk · contribs) has departed the lab and gone on to the next step in her scientific career. I doubt she will be involved with intrapsychic humanism in the future. Would you please send me the text of intrapsychic humanism? I have entered and confirmed my e-mail address to my Wikipedia account per your instructions I have benefited from our discussion and your clear, if somewhat acerbic, guidance. Will we meet again after the improved intrapsychic humanism has been completed and saved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbcarroll2 (talkcontribs)

  • One can only wonder at someone who creates a link to a page that has never existed and creates it not once but three times. I think there is an high probability that we will meet again if you ignore my advice and re-post an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Australian streaming companies[edit]

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

  • Possibly I made a mistake. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Arrowverse[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Thanks Ischus (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop damaging Wikiped[edit]

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)

Deletion review for Draft:Principal orbit theorem[edit]

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)

Deleted page & thanks[edit]

I'm saying thanks for giving me a reason for deleting the MiWay Insurance page, as I believe the link you gave it will help me to craft a better page in line with Wikipedia's standards. Please could you let me know: will it count against me if I keep trying to create the page (with different content) until I find the right angle/sources? Or would it be better to create a subpage and ask Wiki admins to comment on it? — Berecca83 (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  • My standard mantra probably applies: kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong ways[edit]

Hey I want to create a new page shouting redacted. It's a name of local businesses company — Preceding unsigned comment added by India road ways pvt ltd (talkcontribs) 12:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Convection[edit]

File:CFD LED Free convection heat sink design.gif. Did you see my note at the talk page? This was needed for an ongoing discussion at WP:VPT, and by deleting it, you've affected the discussion. — Nyttend (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • OK, restored but I am pretty certain that the fault was not caused by a bum upload. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Philip Pinto[edit]

Hello, I know you probably get a lot of "why did you delete my article" comments, but just wondering why you deleted the page for being not notable. Pinto leads an order of thousands of men. Is that not enough? Just to clarify where my confusion comes from, many other religious orders' leaders have their own pages. Is it that the Christian Brothers are not large enough? — Jgefd (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Restored to User:Jgefd/sandbox. Possibly could be a bit longer and certainly we need better independent references - the Trócaire Lecture is by him not about him. I did a search but neither the Tablet nor the Catholic Herald seem to have done the sort of decent article about him that we need. Get the approval of Reddogsix before moving to mainspace! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Question about WP:F8[edit]

Hi RHaworth. You deleted File:Department of Agrarian Reform logo.svg and File:Department of Social Welfare and Development (Philippines) (logo).svg per WP:F8, so I am wondering if you can also take a look at File:Seal of the National Economic and Development Authority.svg. It's essentially the same file as File:NEDA.png, though there are some slight differences which might disqualify it for F8. Even so it does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCC#1 since these differences are not significant enough to mean that a non-free version is needed. Perhaps a solution would be to move the non-free to Commons? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Note to self: why has this page crashed repeatedly when I simply tried to copy and paste the name of the SVG file? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that Rhaworth. For reference, they were both non-free files. For some reason, I mistakenly thought File:NEDA.png was from Commons, but I must have mixed it up with another file. Anyway, sorry for any confusion I may have caused. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Cincopa[edit]

Hi, I noticed that the option to create about the Cincopa multimedia platform is blocked, despite being used by several leading clients. I understand that previous attempts to create a page about the subject have been deleted due to advertising content. I believe that I can propose a text that is neutral on the subject. Can I share my proposed text with you, so that you can decide on lifting the ban or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rg1912 (talkcontribs) 07:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I shall assume good faith and assume that you have no COI. I am not interested in the proposed text. Submit it via AfC. If it is accepted, then you may come back to me and request that it be moved into mainspace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Khanghar‎[edit]

Thanks for your extremely speedy deletion of Khanghar. I was still writing the explanation at Talk:‎Khanghar‎, and hadn't had time to notify the author, before the page was deleted. Don't know if you want to delete Talk:‎Khanghar‎ or not? - Arjayay (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Talk page zapped. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Guanín [edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing—Guanín —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Anomalocaris (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Swastik 25[edit]

Hi, I just spotted you deleted tagged subpages of blocked sockmaster Swastik 25 (talk · contribs). Do you think all of their subpages should be deleted? Qed237 (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • This user strikes me as someone who might actually be capable of reform. Two "… I've created" pages are worth keeping and the other two are not worth fussing over. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

UUPRS[edit]

Hi. I think an undelete of Union of Employers' Associations of Republika Srpska would be in order. The article, at least at the last time I edited it, stated that the organization represented 13 branch organizations with a combined workforce of 50,000. Thus A7 would not be applicable. --Soman (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • A common failing of mine: forgetting that the rule is 'lack of assertion of notability' not 'lack of evidence of notability'. Text emailed. Restore if you must. But before that suggest to Violet79c (talk · contribs) that they put an article in sr: and wait to see if it gets accepted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Lion v. tiger[edit]

I did not copy the information in "Atlas the Barbary lion versus the Bengal tiger of Simla," from 'Insidehoop.com', rather, someone in 'Insidehoop.com' apparently copied the information from my previous work in the Article "Tiger versus lion," so 'Insidehoop.com' has my work. Hi, I would like to say I when I edited the Article "Tiger versus lion," I added details to the fight between Atlas the Barbary lion and the Bengal tiger of Simla, on or before the 25th of January, please check the History of the Edits in that Article. Little did I know that on the 28th of January, a user of the website 'Insidehoop.com' copied my work.

So the user in 'Insidehoop.com' copied my work, before I created the article "Atlas the Barbary lion versus the Bengal tiger of Simla" on the 30th of January. Eventually, I was told about Insidehoop.com, so I mentioned in the talk page that actually, it is my work, and that the user of 'Insidehoop.com' apparently copied my work, and that I did not copy it from Insidehoop.com, so please, reverse the deletion. Thank you, Leo1pard (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Count yourself lucky: you give this message a ridiculously long title you stuff it full of copy&paste stuff. Have you now learned how to link to an article revision? Please reply. Despite that, I have restored it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks immensely[edit]

First of all, let me simply say thank you immensely for your extraordinary CSD work, certainly always amuses me Face-smile.svg I have considered G13 but apparently others feel it's not entirely applicable because it's not explicitly AfCspace and tags (see also Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 drafts). Also, as for the 200 CSDs, I'm going to sleep when you Brits are awakening so I like to set the pyramid for everyone awakening Face-wink.svg (I'm asleep for at least close to 10 hours) and also because I know you'll make such an excellent job cleaning. Face-smile.svg SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops-i-daisy[edit]

I just AfDd the new Sourabh J sarkar. I now see you speedied it under a slightly different name (see User talk:Deblina Das). A bit of a comedy of errors. I deleted User talk:Sowmit85's userpage with the subject and went searching for "Sourabh J sarkar" elsewhere. I didn't realize that at that exact moment, it was being created by someone else (or maybe same person). I thought it was Soimwit85. Anyhow, it googles, and was not overly promotional, but is not discussed in detail anywhere I could find. I thought I should err on the side of caution and AfD rather than speedy. Sorry to go against what you just did. — Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Nikhilky21c is another one: [4]. --bonadea contributions talk 11:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sourabh J sarkar. I'll mop up and look after things best I can. — Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Jordan Fisher[edit]

I am going to re-create this article about this actor, who since deletion, appeared in Grease:Live in a major supporting role. Please give me a few minutes. Bearian (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be salted. Can you unlock it? Bearian (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Given that it's been deleted so many times and recently didn't survive AfD, it might be a good idea to create a draft first. Or at least you could work on it there until RHaworth responds. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I did. see User:Bearian/sandbox#Jordan_Fisher. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, good. Well then it'll be up to RHaworth to determine if it has addressed the issues from the AfD thread. I can't see the deleted version, but based on the AfD I think this should at least get a new discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

InformNapalm[edit]

Could you please undelete that article you've deleted? I believe your decision to delete was made in error. The resource is notable, e.g. BBC wrote about that more than once:

  • BBC source #1: Volunteer activist group Inform Napalm sifted through more than 35 gigabytes of the data and found what looked like official reports confirming that Russian military servicemen were among the hundreds of people evacuated to Russia after being wounded in Ukraine.
  • BBC source #2: After studying images posted on social media, analysts from Ukrainian military research group Inform Napalm claimed they were members of the 5th Tank Brigade in Buryatia.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Const.me (talkcontribs)

Neither article indicates notability. To indicate notability, depth of coverage is required, not a mere passing mention. Furthermore, as WP:WEB indicates, the organisation itself needs to have been subject of "multiple non-trivial published works". This means that the citation of an "InformNapalm" claim in a news article does not indicate the notability of the organisation. Instead, one needs to find multiple non-trivial published works that are about InformNapalm itself, i.e. describing the organisation and its works. "Volunteer activist groups" are rarely notable. RGloucester 22:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Paul McCartney's step-mother[edit]

Why did you delete the page Draft:Angie McCartney when we have been waiting for someone to approve it? Why didn't you just approve it so we could complete it and continue? Now I have to start all over again. — Lucyconlon (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • You would have had to wait a long time! Articles do not improve themselves! Restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Unsalting The Land Before Time XIV[edit]

Hello RHaworth. Nearly six years ago, you salted the page The Land Before Time XIV. Since there now appears to be an article about an actual film — The Land Before Time: Journey of the Brave — could I ask that the page be un-salted and replaced with a redirect to The Land Before Time: Journey of the Brave? The target article is indeed the fourteenth film of this franchise, and some sources refer to it with the roman numeral, namely Neflix. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Kogama[edit]

So I was thinking of creating a page about the online Kogama site, but I saw you created a page with the same name. Is it the same thing, or were you talking about something else? Please get back to me soon. Signed, TanookiNick (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I did not create it. I deleted it! It was just one sentence in French. I have no views about the notability of the subject but clearly a proper article in English stands a significantly better chance of survival than that which I deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think it'd be good to make a page on it, and I wanted information, so thanks. Signed, TanookiNick (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Deepak Arora[edit]

Yesterday, in response to continuing attempts by Incentive1 (talk · contribs) to publish a promotional article on Deepak Arora, you salted Deepak Arora and Deepak arora. Today he is back with Deepak Arora JMA. It has been tagged for speedy deletion, and I have reported him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but I thought you might be interested in taking action if you're around. — ubiquity (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Wow, it gets deeper: User:Deepakarorajma/sandbox has the jmaindia link and has this file at commons that was uploaded over 2 years ago. Possibly related: The same name is mentioned in this sandbox: User:Arun.pratap89/sandbox and is that user's only edit. -- | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think I have wrapped up Deepak Arora until the next sock puppet account is created. Arun Pratap looks like a real name or else Deepak has a split personality using one group of socks to promote the JMA Group and other socks to promote Webarox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 Toulon Tournament[edit]

Please can you restore the 2016 Toulon Tournament article? The participating teams and dates have now been announced. — TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of my sandbox[edit]

I guess you didn't check the talk page of User:Vctyhj7565/sandbox like you were supposed to. All the info is public domain, as claimed in the original source. Plus, it's my own blog that I was copying anyway. — Vctyhj7565 (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences[edit]

Hi, earlier today you deleted Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, which I had created a few hours before as A7 and G11. Re A7: the journal is indexed in Scopus, which is a clear meet of WP:NJournals. Re G11, I don't see how anything in that article could have been seen as promotional. I'd appreciate if you could undelete this. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • So you are claiming that all 22,000 titles indexed by Scopus are automatically notable? Also, only started in 2015 suggests that it has not yet become notable. I would want to see independent evidence. Text emailed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The point is that this is not your decision to make, and is a gross abuse of admin powers to claim such articles are deletable under A7 or G11. If you think it should be deleted, take them to deletion via WP:AFD or WP:PROD. I.e. the normal processes we have to dealth with articles unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The article should be undeleted immediately. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec with Headbomb) Yep, there's a longstanding consensus in Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals that indexing in Scopus indeed is sufficient for an academic journal to become notable. Thanks for emailing me the text (although superfluous, given that I can see deleted edits myself). In addition, A7 is not applicable to academic journals and where G11 comes into it I really fail to see. Again, please restore the article and take it to AfD if you must, but speedy is inappropriate here. --Randykitty (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I think creating a stub like that and claiming it to be a good article is setting a poor example to less experienced editors. But this is Wikipedia so be bold and restore it. I shall not delete it again. We will see what Rollingcontributor now thinks about it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a stub, nobody claims that it's a good article. And I'm sorry, but I don't think that as article creator I should undelete it if another admin has deleted it. That's up to the deleting editor. -- Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi everyone, I am a fairly new user and may have not properly understood a few guidelines on Wikipedia. Randykitty told me that such academic articles cannot be subject to A7 deletion criteria. Also, I accept that I've erroneously marked it as G11, which might have been totally inappropriate. I will try to avoid such errors again. I also believe it is the discretion of the more experienced administrators to decide whether the article should be deleted or not. Thank you. Rollingcontributor (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This deleting editor gives you full permission to restore it. Do you want the article published or do you want to fuss over protocol? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Done. This has been educational, thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sripunith[edit]

Wikipedia:Sripunith has been created again. I moved the previous version back to User:Sripunith as perhaps suitable for a user page, but I see that you U5'd it. Over to you: please decide whether to move/delete/salt this page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:The Institute For Medical Research Israel-Canada (IMRIC)[edit]

You recently deleted my draft article Draft:The Institute For Medical Research Israel-Canada (IMRIC) due to copyright infringement and COI. I am rewriting the text so that copyright won't be an issue. I am an employee of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IMRIC is part of HU's Faculty of Medicine). I work in a research lab but have recently taken on extra work, promoting the research performed at IMRIC (a non-profit organisation). So while I am not being paid specifically to write the wikipedia article, it is part of my job. If I include a disclosure on my main user page, as per WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE, and also put the connected contributor (paid) template at the top of the talk page, will I be able to create the article? Gillkay (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)