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

Archives[edit]

Your opinion[edit]

Could you please look at User:Sir7 16/sandbox and User:Pierat567/sandbox to determine if they are worthy of deletion? Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit: Draft:Utz Claassen as well please --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Opinion, but I'd say U5 and G1 respectively. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 18:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: @RHaworth: That's the thing Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, the first two linked I nominated for speedy deletion and they were declined by another admin saying that they did not. The one admin, GBFan has seemingly been reverting a lot of the nominations for speedy deletion I have made today (including ones that are for drafts about already existent articles) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit: Please note that I do not intend to accuse GB fan of anything, just stating that they have indeed reverted a lot of my speedy deletion nominations. I have clarified the statement within the original message posted that mentioned this (the above) to clarify --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
See. Well, fair enough- he was right about CSD#G1, because: 'nor does it apply to user sandboxes or other pages in the user namespace.' The problem is that you tagged them both G1, so both were rightfully declined. I suggested U5 though for User:Sir7 16/sandbox. And see what GBFan says :) although, on a slightly more serious note, your previous comment could- at a stretch- be interpreted as an WP:ASPERSION. WP:AN is the place to discuss an admin's behaviour. Just FYI. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 18:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
According to WP:G1, it does not apply to pages in the userspace. The second one U5 definitely applies. The first one may or may not depending on what is "few edits" outside of userspace. Draft:Utz Claassen is a weird one in that it was moved to article space and then copied back to draft space. ~ GB fan 18:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Ah, I see. I will try U5 on that one. What about the other? Thank you for pointing that out, at a stretch is correct. It was not my intention to do that (thanks for the FYI). Also, please don't forget to tag me or I won't be alerted to your response(s). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor, Draft:Subterfuge (game) is an active draft, what reason would there be to delete it? ~ GB fan 18:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@GB fan: Good point, I did not notice the last edited time, I was going by the latest reviewer comment. I removed it from the original question--TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I apologize as I did not see your second to last comment on here GB fan. To clarify, you are saying that U5 definitely applies to User:Pierat567/sandbox, right? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── TheSandDoctor, yes that is what I am saying. ~ GB fan 00:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User:TheSandDoctor - Please explain why you are requesting deletion of so many drafts, both via CSD and via MFD. The arguments that you are using appear to be valid reasons for the deletion of articles, such as duplication of an existing topic (A10), lack of notability (the usual reason for AFD, but drafts do not require notability, and lack of notability is not a reason for deletion of drafts), and being crud (we try to find a valid basis for deleting articles that are crud, but there is no rule against drafts that are crud). Is there a reason why you are working to get rid of so many drafts? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I did not realize that those were not valid reasons to delete drafts. I am surprised that the article already existing is not a valid reason actually. That aside, I am just attempting to help reduce the number of blank drafts that are most likely abandoned as well as abandoned duplicates of existing articles sitting in the draft space as they appear to be of little use. I am also nominating G13 (where draft with an AFC template has not been editing for 6+ months). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
User:TheSandDoctor - I don't know why you think it is necessary to reduce the number of drafts. Drafts are cheap. Deleting anything doesn't conserve storage (because deleted pages are still preserved and can be seen by administrators). The article already existing is a valid reason, and I !voted Delete on one of your drafts for that reason. G13 is a valid (if controversial) reason, but the drafts in question do not qualify for G13. Please do not tag drafts for speedy deletion except for reasons that apply to drafts. Please do not nominate drafts for deletion for notability. If you have more questions, ask here, ask at my talk page, or ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Duly noted. I thought after a period of time that the deleted drafts would be 'dumped' and it could potentially help with storage. I did not realize that G13 was controversial either. I will be more careful in nominating drafts in the future, the notability one in MfD was the only one I think I have nominated for notability, I shan't do it again. But didn't you say in the previous comment that article already existing isn't a valid reason? Or is that an MfD reason, rather than speedy delete? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
User:TheSandDoctor - The relationship between storage and deletion is written here. [] That's an empty box. Nothing helps with storage; it grows. Some editors have the theory that their pages are deleted to conserve storage, and are angry about it. You apparently have the theory that you can conserve storage by the cause of deletion. Nothing helps with storage. It grows. The WMF buys more disks. That is all. You can't help with storage. Stop thinking about storage. As to G13, my comment is only that some editors disagree with G13, and, although it is policy, it is not a universally accepted policy. It is a valid speedy criterion. Already existing is A10. The A stands for article; it is only a reason for deleting articles. Already existing is a reason for MFD for drafts. Please stop taking it on yourself to "help" us get rid of old drafts. They can be gotten rid of by G13, but other than that, there is no need to get rid of crud in draft space. Please stop creating work for us by trying to help get rid of drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Emotional Speech Blocks Deletion Syndrome[edit]

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

huh?[edit]

What business do you have deleting pages from my user space as vandalism? These were my personal study notes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Towers (talkcontribs) 03:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  • (talk page watcher) @Robert Towers: please see WP:NOTWEBHOST for that kind of thing, viz. User pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. You should probably link to the deleted page otherwise a swift- or indeed, any- reply might be slow in forthcoming. Cheers — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 09:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You should definitely link to the deleted page otherwise you don't get any reply at all. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the pages you wrongfully deleted again, as it is impossible for you to discern my intentions for this material. If you must know, I am collecting this information in order to create a new article on Wikipedia. Please restore them, stay away from my pages, and stop abusing your role here. — Robert Towers (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Robert Towers: why are you having the same discussion on Premeditated Chaos's, talk page? — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 10:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Because all of my notes and article drafts were deleted, several by her and another by this guy. She informed me that I was inadvertently duplicating category links and that is why they were removed. — Robert Towers (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Robert, I am not going discuss any deletions that I may have done until you povide links to the deleted page/s. I would also like a reply to the following question: it is now a year since you did any useful edit here. When can we expect to see you making any use off your extensive fiddling about in user space? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. I'll take my work elsewhere. Goodbye. Robert Towers (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That was not a request for deletion, it was a request to leave me alone! You have caused me enough headache, are you done yet? It is not your job to impose deadlines on me or to judge how "useful" I am! All material supposedly in copyright violation was removed. I did not ask you to delete my page. I just wanted you to stop trying to boss me around. That's not what Wikipedia is for, and you are acting out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Towers (talkcontribs) 00:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been easier to just a) remove the inappropriate category tags and b) add a note sourcing the content to the relevant wikipedia articles thereby providing attribution? Seriously. DS (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What Robert forgot to mention is that his sandbox was called User:Robert Towers/Eat my faaaaarrrrt, and perhaps that's why he avoided the request to link the page he was complaining about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes many different naming traditions exist in tech involving delectable tasty treats such as fruits (Apple, Raspberry Pi) or candies (Marshmallow, Nougat) and wishing to do the same, but resorting to gaseous bodily emissions, I followed suit. Thanks for noticing. Robert Towers (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah... this is starting to make sense now! It must have been my crude attempt at humorous nomenclature as well as my sloppy workflow that caused my article notes to be mistaken for a G3 violation, and subsequently a G12 as well... So much confusion, so much sloppiness. Yuck. Robert Towers (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Robert Towers: Well, if crude humour is your thing, introduce yourself to EEng and help us beef up the article on Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators. Meanwhile I have restored your sandbox to the more prosaically-titled User:Robert Towers/sandbox 1. If this is a copy of an existing Wikipedia article, it would be best to say so somewhere for licensing purposes, otherwise an admin is likely to delete it again, this time via G12. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I assume your superb choice of the words "beef up" was intentional and am quite impressed and amused. I would be most honored to receive the chance to prove myself capable of handling such delicate subjects with the utmost sensitivity and precision. Robert Towers (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Hi Robert Towers. Another suggestion you might find help is to use the colon trick (no pun intended) when working on drafts which contain categories and non-free content. This will allow you to see the content in the form of a wikilink, but will not display any images or adding the "draft" to any category pages. You might also want to add the template {{Userspace draft}} to the top of the page so that everyone can see it's a draft you're working on. Finally, try and keep in mind WP:UP#OWN: we are given a bit of latitude when it comes to our user pages, but we don't really have a ownership over them just like the articles we create/edit. Most experienced editors will leave a user page alone unless their is a serious policy problem (e.g., copyright violation, BLP violation, etc.) which requires timely action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Robert Towers[edit]

Hi RHaworth. You deleted User:Robert Towers per WP:G12, but as you can see it seems to have been recreated. It has been suggested on the User talk:Robert Tower#Draft articles that this content might be more suitable for the draft namespace or a user sandbox, but the editor might be misunderstanding what that means. Is there a point in tagging this for speedy again? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Payandehnasser[edit]

Hi, You have deleted my page under Payandehnasser. Why is this? I reviewed the T&C's and cannot see where this contradicts them. Please can you advise further, thank you. (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host). — Payandehnasser (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Payandehnasser, Wikipediaa is not a social networking site. Please publish your bio on FaceBook or LinkedIn. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Shirker[edit]

Hi! I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia (as a poster) but I wanted to know why you took down my Justin Anthony page? For reasoning, you put down "copyright infringement" along with this link (http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=166440). While these two people have the same name, it is not the same Justin Anthony. Is there something I should be doing differently to change this? - 12:48 March 13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirkeab (talkcontribs) 16:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • As long as there was clear copyvio of something, that alone is enough. — SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Vembu Technologies[edit]

Hi. I want to request creation of an article for my organization Vembu Technologies for which I believe there is enough notability. I don't want to create an article myself owing to conflict of interest. Hence, I just want to request an article and cite sources for it (after referring Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations#Why doesn't Wikipedia have an article on my organization?). I found that the page Vembu Technologies has been created and deleted multiple times in the past and finally "salted" in 2014. I am a junior software developer in the company who joined recently and I have no idea of what happened in the past. But it definitely seems like some employees of the organization in the past (who are ex-employees now), have tried to edit the page themselves without understanding Wikipedia policies. I would request you to remove the 'creation protection' for the title so that an independent editor shall create an article for it after looking at the sources. — Santhosh993 (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Santhosh, I applaud your restraint in not attempting to create an article. I hope you read the AfD discussion. Having the title salted is simply not a bar to having a new article: it would be created via AfC and if deemed acceptable, moving the draft to mainspace would be uncontroversial. However I suspect that your company is simply not notable enough to qualify for an article here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional information[edit]

Upon reading the auto response, the link to the former page is: User:JasmineStarshine/sandbox. — Jasminestarshine (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • So where is the original information to which this is additional? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for absence[edit]

I find to my horror that it is nine days since I actually did any replies on this page. The excuses are urgent changes needed to two websites and being dragged off on holiday for a few days. I shall try not to be so remiss in future. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of IFU[edit]

You deleted my article IFU (International Fruit_and Vegetable Juice Association). I want to rewrite the article to show the importance and significance of the subject. — Jan Mathys (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your association is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any IQ qualification in Physics?[edit]

My page physical exercise with resonance in water is still alive in Wikipedia.es. You delete a translation of my work. By the way thank you because I don't want to lose the copyright of my idea best regards. -- Hugo117711 (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, the subjects studied for my degree included physics. But so what? You don't need a degree in anything to recognise your submission as investigación original. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ding-a-ling[edit]

How can I edit my article, when it has called for deletion? -- Dinghanliang (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your app is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs)

Clifford A. Wright[edit]

Wright is the author of A Mediterranean Feast: The Story of the Birth of the Celebrated Cuisines of the Mediterranean, a book on Mediterranean cuisine. I made a redirect to that article but see that you deleted it as "implausible" back in January. However, Wright is named, cited, and the details of his book are given in the article. We can't name him simply Clifford Wright as that's a redirect page. He is described on Amazon using the middle initial, viz "A Mediterranean Feast / 2 Dec 1999 / by Clifford A. Wright / Hardcover". Would it be OK if I recreated it please? All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)