User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2011 Apr 07

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


Request to mentor students

Hi Roger! I'm trying to find mentors for each of the groups in the Energy Economics and Policy course. Would you be willing to mentor this student working on "Pool and Spa Safety" and this student working on "Business Energy Investment Tax Credit"? If so, please sign up on the course page and introduce yourself to the students. If not, let me know so I can find someone else. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi both, thanks for your help. I will work on getting some more independent references to this article and will make the amends (is it fine to this myself or do I need to go through Shirt58 to make the changes?) Once this has been approved by you both I will ask Shirt58 to move it back if thats is OK. Sorry for the hassle, hopefully this will be sorted soon. Thanks again for pointing out what I've done wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieMJohansen (talkcontribs) 18:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course you can change it yourself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi I have made my changes, adding in more references, I have left a message for Shirt58 on my discussion page and the discussion page for user:shirt58/Stageco, but not sure how to alert him to these messages? Is there a way you can get alerted to getting messages or is it just a case of looking back at pages and checking? I seem to have messed the information box up when I made amends and can't work out how to get it back to the little box on the right which looked good. I think Shirt58 originally made this change and I liked it, I just made a few changes to the industry they supply. If you have the time and don't mind helping I'd appreciate some advice on whether the page has enough external links and if I need to work on areas more. I would quite like to upload some images as I think they would make the page look so much better. I have pressed the insert file button and can't work out how to actually insert it in. it comes up with <example.JPEG> but I can't work out how to upload the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieMJohansen (talkcontribs) 09:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't believe it! "Not sure how to alert him to these messages"! What method are you using to alert me via the above message? Do you think there is a remote possibility that the same method might work with Shirt58? OK, fixing the infobox was a bit tricky - please ignore my sarcastic edit summary - but do fix the red links in it. Yes, it is probably OK now for external links. Images which can be licensed under the GFDL should be uploaded via Commons:Commons:upload. Fair use images, such as the company's logo should be uploaded via Wikipedia:upload. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth, to be honest I think that was a bit rude but heyho, thats clearly your style. You seem to respond quicker, so thats why i have written messages on your talk page. I have left a message on both Shirt58's discussion page and the discussion page on the stageco page but have not heard back, so assumed you need to check back to see messages left? I have not received any notifications to alert me to messages left, so I assume you have to just keep checkin back, a time consuming process when you have a busy full time job. Shirt58 if you read this message could you please move Stageco back to the Stageco page if its OK now. thanks both again for your time helping me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieMJohansen (talkcontribs) 10:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, my answer was rude but it did contain sound advice. Why did you not leave a message at user talk:Shirt58? Please answer. I have moved the page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Godhead (polytheism)

Hello. Could you please send me the content of the article noted in the subject line? I've visited the page within the past few months (browser history) and I don't remember it having anything to do with Godhead (Christianity) much less duplicating the information. I could be wrong though… Thanks for your time. Sorry if I've mad any errors in posting this. — Smegmatic (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Text e-mailed. True, using WP:CSD#A10 was stretching a point but I am sure you will agree it needed speedy deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sending the text -- good indeed to delete this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


I guess you are missing the vital point of having a company page in Wikipedia, this is not ONLY for teaching and/or place to publish findings. A NEWS TO YOU, EVERY COMPANY THAT HAS A PAGE IN WIKIPEDIA IS SELF PROMOTING - this is self evident and does not need any explanation. You have put in there that we put OUR OWN copyright information form our own website on OUR OWN Wikipedida entry. Are you for REAL? Does this even make sense to you?

I will start a process with Wikipedia to dispute your "COPYRIGHT" issues and you are correct this is not our own and NEITHER is yours and I will ask for others to join in because I think your reasons are false and your thought process extremely flawed. You have deleted countless pages in short times and you it is obvious by your actions that your process CANNOT be complete and at best whimsical. It is also oblivious, you lack of basic understanding of why companies post here.

And having a decency would be a good idea as a self-portrait for you. To start, when corresponding please start and the end it properly - after all we are civilized society. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

[Title width guide]

++++ delete above here if no further edits - already in archive. If further edits, move below here.

My 'commonwealth realms' series of articles.

With the greatest of respect, these articles do not contain the same material as the 'history of-' articles, thus they are not content forks. They were intended to be 'political', not 'historical', despite the 'historical' nature of the polities in question. My intention was for them to link in with the main 'commonwealth realms' article, just like the present-day commonwealth realms are profiled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talkcontribs) 19:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Self-promotional Coffee Party Wikipedia page

You recently deleted the Wikipedia article about the Coffee Party Progressives. I agree that the group is not particularly notable, but neither is the Coffee Party USA. I suggest you delete that page as well. Even the most cursory glance at it will convince you that it's written and maintained by members of the Coffee Party, who zealously guard it to keep out any negative information about their group -- which has exactly ZERO influence on American Politics. In this regard, I suggest you do a review of the talk page and see the countless objections to the naked POV-pushing done by the page's editors. It's really quite a scandal. Xenophrenic is the worst among them -- and he's a frequent contributor of false and defamatory material to the Tea Party wikipedia page, which of course the Coffee Party was formed in response to.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.NeutralityPersonified (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Please learn to create wikilinks. If you really think it should be deleted, nominate it yourself. Notability standards for political parties seem to be different from those for other organisations: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idle Toad. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your response. Please rephrase it. Unless I'm mistaken, you're the administrator who deleted the Coffee Party Progressives page. But now you say that notability standards "seem" to be different etc., meaning you didn't really inquire into the notability issue before taking your action. And since you don't appear to be an American citizen, I'm not sure how you'd be in any position to judge what organizations are notable in this country. Indeed, I've noticed that when I've tried to add links to the Coffee Party USA page citing U.K. newspapers, they get rejected for exactly that reason.

Furthermore, I'm quite sure you were quite aware when you deleted the article that the very REASON for its deletion WAS its notability -- the very DAY of the deletion request, Politico wrote a story exposing the schism in the Coffee Party due to the activism of the competing Coffee Party Progressives. In fact, Politico even did a follow-up story on the controversy. (You will note, of course, that the proprietors of the Coffee Party USA have forbidden any mention of this reliably sourced controversy). So certainly, if the Coffee Party USA is notable, the Coffee Party Progressives are notable.

I will most certainly submit a request to delete the self-promotional Coffee Party USA page. I do hope to discover that (1) adequate research in done into the request, unlike with prior request, and (2) that a consistent standard is employed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityPersonified (talkcontribs) 16:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • "Please rephrase". I assume my first two sentences are clear. Did you actually follow the link in my third sentence? You will see that other editors seem more willing than me to allow an article for a small local party. So my remark was a warning that you may not find much support if you take Coffee Party USA to AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of

Hi Roger. I'm wondering why you deleted this article about this site. There are many other articles here ( or about similar sites with similar content and nobody deletes them. I think this website is doing a very important and significant contribution to the difussion of chess, giving for free stuff other sites charges for. It has one of the biggest chess games database online with many very useful features. Prior deletions of the article were made in the time the site was very new and it is reasonable to has doubts about it. But now if you search for 365chess here in wikipedia you can see many many references to the site in many languages like english, spanish, russian and even japanese. You can see more than 1,800 wikipedia pages indexed by google making some kind of reference to this site. In my very humble opinion you are commiting a mistake here. Maybe the article can be improved but definitely the site is an important reference for the community. Those references talk by themselves. Maybe we can discuss this further. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masugly (talkcontribs) 23:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes, I read it. That is an advice from 2008 and we are now at 2011 and the site suffered many improvements and it has got many references here at wikipedia and external links during these 3 years. I already mentioned the article was previously deleted so I am aware of that opinion on Feb 2008. Although it is a simple search, of course I can give the link to the google search result. You have it here. There you can see how many references and you can also try this other. Thank you again for your time. --Masugly (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • You clearly did not read the message. It includes the words "articles in Wikipedia need to contain references that assert their notability with quotations from reliable sources". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, the references are taken from the site itself like or Adding the site itself as a reference will be enough? What about the other two discrepancies we had before? I really appreciate your help here. I think the site deserves a page as many contributors think the site is an useful reference for several chess topics. --Masugly (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • "The references are taken from the site itself" - what references? There were no references in the article. "Other two discrepancies" - what are you talking about? Of course you link to the site itself but that does not count as a reference. But why don't you create a properly referenced article in User:Masugly/sandbox and raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Roger. Following your advice I corrected several things and created User:Masugly/sandbox. What do you think about it? --Masugly (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I do not believe it! You simply have not been reading my messages. Did you see the words "independent secondary sources" and "reliable sources"? Do they have no meaning to you? The website itself is, by definition, not a reliable source to establish its own notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is a mere description of the site functionality itself. The article doesn't mention any harmful information or data that should be validated or may be intended as publicity or sales-driven. What kind of information do you think that should be verified by an independent source? The number of games in the database? How come? Is there any site like this audited by a third-party to assure it? You can retrieve all the games in the database and count them. As I said, all the other things mentioned in the article are descriptions of free and public available features anybody can verify. With all due respect Roger, I would really appreciate your help instead of under estimate my contribution and the opinion of many other different wikipedia fans (like myself) who think the site has useful information that should be used as a reference all over the wikipedia in many different languages. --Masugly (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I will make one more try: please tell me in your own words what you think "independent secondary sources" means in terms of your article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

By "independent secondary sources" I understand you are referring to sites completely unrelated with the site being object of review. What I'm trying to say is that is not always taken literally as you can see here or here This guideline says: "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia should avoid articles about web sites that could be interpreted as advertising. For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance." This article is not about material published on the web and it is not advertising either. So I think you are trying to establish the relevance of the information I'm giving here and there are several ways to prove it. For instance: many of the most pretigious chess links sites like or Lars Balzer chess links have references to You can also find recommendations and links to from famous chess players like WGM and member of the Russian Olympic chess team Natalia Pogonina or chess clubs like Kenilworth Chess Club. And the most important: is a reference for many contributors of this site. 327 articles in english have references to as you can see here and Google says that has 1,800 references from the wikipedia in many languages as you can see here. I would really appreciate your help in this. --Masugly (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • The and articles are both very poor examples. "This article is not about material published on the web" - utterly ridiculous - it is about a website. So why did you not put the links in the draft article? The link don't refer to 365chess - possibly further down the site. The two links to search engines do not go in the article but certainly go in the deletion review submission and should carry some weight. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

online ambassador request

Hi there RHaworth. I am a contributing to Wikipedia as part of the USF Environmental Law course on the MSEM program. This is a part of the WikiProject US Public Policy. Our class is contributing articles on environmental laws or key cases that have interpreted environmental laws. As part of the class, we are advised to work with online ambassadors to gain advice on guidance as we develop our articles (especially as I am entirely new to wikipedia other then casual browsing). It would be great if I could interact with you as an online ambassador. I have chosen to revise and expand the article on Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill. I have not started editing yet, but am collecting references. Cheers! Justintaplin (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Fine, I shall watch the page. Any, questions feel free to ask here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Flotsam Jetsam

I've declined speedy and added a bit to it to give it context. It wants more work, but at least it now says who it's by and has a discogs link and a link to a page describing the compilation process. See what you think now. Cheers. Peridon (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


Why have you deleted the photos on my page Malcolm Phipps - I am new to Wikipedia and may have got the coding wrong, but I do have permission to use these two photos. Please can you let me know. — Sfarrer (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Where is the evidence of that permission? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm Phipps owns the photo, and he gave me permission (I know him personally) - again, I ask what coding do I use? I am new to this (this is the first page I have ever done) and everybody seems to want to crucify me for making a mistake rather than offering help to correct things!!! I put the GFDL code on each photo - is that not enough? Surely it would be better to open a dialogue and try to resolve things rather than just assuming I'm doing something wrong and arbitrarily deleting things! Sfarrer (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it COI? Surely people put pages up on people/things they know...? I know other notable karate people and they have pages here on Wikipedia that have been put up by people that know them and nobody seems to have a problem with these pages! All I want to do is put a photo up: is that so difficult? Sfarrer (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

  • There is a continuum between "dispassionate knowledge of" and "COI to the point of spamming". More than one editor feels that you are tending too far in the spam direction. Of course image uploads are not difficult, I have a thousand or so to my credit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a very helpful answer! I have tried to upload a photo again with what I believe to be correct copyright/licences etc, but the system tells me I can't because the file has already been deleted - what do I do now? Perhaps a more useful answer would be appropriate rather than just showing off how clever you are... I am, believe it or not, asking for your help!! Sfarrer (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Have you obtained permission and followed these instructions to register that permission? The copyright owner is, I hope, releasing the image under a free licence, so why are you not uploading to the Commons where you will not get any warning? What licence are you proposing to apply. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Walk of Fame Philippines

It's a crappy stub, but a quick online search revealed loads of possible sources. Filipinos love their TV stars. I promise to work on it, and if I fail, feel free to send it to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you made a oversight with the G4 deletion of The previous AFD did not conclude in a deletion but concluded in a recreation after a deletion review. So I am at a loss how G4 or any CSD criteria apply. Also there is 500+ wikipedia pages linking to the article and in the normal course of deleting an article the deleting admin would remove all the wiki-links. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Refreshing to receive a gentle undelete request compared with the usual ones I receive from people with blatant COIs. I have struck the "not" above because I think that is what you meant. Note that the deletion review concluded: "recreation with sources is permitted". So, three years later why are there still no sources? In fact it is nearly 1500 incoming links but I could have fixed most of them in one stroke by changing {{chessgames player}}. These links are what persuaded me to restore despite the lack of sources. How is it that the editors of that article, of and particularly Masugly (talk · contribs) (see #Speedy deletion of above) all seem to be incapable of grasping the idea of reliable sources? I did a random sample of some chess player bios and found that all five have links to and also to so if you felt like adding some RSs to User:Masugly/sandbox and making it live, I would probably take to action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the swift reply and action. Yeah, my typo/thinko with the not above. I didn't know if the article had sources, not being able to see it when deleted. In all likelhood this article will now be independent sourced or after maybe a month I will AFD it, same goes for some other similar chess websites articles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Roger. I work at IBM and have been charged with creating a Wikipedia page for my product, Rational Automation Framework for WebSphere. I see that you deleted the existing page on 8 Dec. of 2010. That page was created by someone who is no longer working on the product.

Since there are pages on Wikipedia for most of our products, there must have been something wrong with this page in particular. Can you tell me what the problem was, so that I can recreate the page properly? It would also give me a leg up if you could let me see the code you deleted.

The link that led me to the deleted page is at ibm software. Thanks in advance for any help you can give me. — Lshiner (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Please go back to whoever charged you and tell them Wikipedia strongly discourages people with a COI from contributing and that it would be better to wait until someone with no COI writes it up. However, in case you find it by yourself, I will reluctantly tell you that it landed up at User:Chamaecyparis/Rational Automation Framework for WebSphere. Even when you turned it into a non-spammy Wikipedia article, I recommend you to follow this advice rather than moving it into the (article) namespace yourself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

deletion of Mass Hysteria (band)

Hello, why have you deleted this article? It was a stub. I didn't even have the time to improve it.

The group is not new or unknown. You can see there news in 2011(fr), le parisien in 2010(fr), RFJ in 2009(fr), le parisien in 2001(fr), One Shot Not - 4 - Stars und Entdeckungen der Independentszene (de), in 2002 in Premiere (fr) and, in english, you can find a number of specialized website talking about it ([1], [2], [3], etc). There have been a number of articles about the band in the different versions of Rock Hard (magazine) (in German, french, spanish... in german for instance, ). They have reached 50 000 albums sold for "Contraddiction" and "De cercle en cercle" (not a gold of course but still, and they had a support act with Metallica during the World Magnetic Tour)...

I think it reaches the criterias of notability (it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself, I think)... Eleventh1 (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Whaddya mean "didn't have the time"? The article was in place for nearly 24 hours before it was deleted. Fortunately for you, another admin has taken pity on you and restored it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    So the big issue with you deleting an article which blatantly passed A7 is..that the writer didn't fulfil a completely different guideline in time?! Ironholds (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed why do you take it upon yourself to be the arbiter of what should be deleted so frequently? Where is there a rule that says an article has to "perfect" within 24 hours? You should consider changing your User name to "Queen of Hearts'? Silent Billy (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete stuff.

Hey, whoever you are, please stop vandalizing Wikipedia and deleting articles. It is not the right thing to do even if it is a "stub" or "advertising." Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the Bandicoot (database) page

Hi Roger, the page was deleted with the code G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). I cannot see how one could interpret the paragraph written there as an unambiguous advertisement (for an open source project?). I would greatly appreciate if you could let me know what can be improved, clarified or if more content is necessary? Thanks and regards. Ocherkashin (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  • We have speedy deletion criteria for various sorts of non-notable topics, but strangely software is not one of them. So spam was used as a pretext to get rid of this shamefully short article totally lacking any links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Pardon me, again, but you simply shouldn't do that. From WP:Deletion policy: Before deleting a page through the speedy deletion process, verify that it meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion. That article didn't. The correct action here would have been a prod: The proposed deletion process applies to articles which do not meet the stringent criteria for speedy deletion, but for which it is believed that deletion would be uncontroversial. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Again"? I don't recall any previous contact - please remind me. We also have a guideline IAR which, I believe, applied in this case. I have sent you the text. If you insist, I will restore and send to AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifications, Roger. If I understood your comment correctly, you removed the article as it was lacking significant coverage in the reliable secondary sources. I can provide the following links, though not sure if they classify for significant coverage (yet): [upcoming presentation at the LinuxTag ], [Tests at EPFL]. Also, looking at the other database pages, I cannot see why you first choose to remove the Bandicoot page and not some other (older) database pages which struggle to provide the links to secondary sources as well (Rel_(DBMS), TxtSQL, SolidDB). If restoring the page is not an option, may be you could change the shameful G11 code written on the page to the actual reason of the removal? Regards Ocherkashin (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I do not hunt around looking for articles to delete. Most of my time is spent responding to other people's deletion proposals - as in this case. I agree that it is shameful that you as one of the developers of the product should be promoting it here so the G11 deletion reason now seems completely appropriate - in any case it is not possible to change or remove it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


Note that I've restored Manliftingbanner; there's no way in heck it fits A7. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

aaand Mass Hysteria (band). Please try to follow policy. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Funny, I thought we had a policy about significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

We do, it's called WP:GNG. Manlifting banner passed it. We've also got WP:MUSIC, which covers band which have released multiple recordings on major or notable independent labels, which Mass Hysteria passes. We've also (and you'll never believe this) got a separate standard for CSDs! I know, I was surprised too! It's "some evidence of significance" which, funnily enough, could be construed to cover things like "having an entire chapter of a book written about them and being the first communist band of their genre" or even, as hard as it is to believe, "having released 10 albums". Ironholds (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, on Skarhead. Please learn the fundamental difference between A7 and WP:GNG (and take a read of WP:MUSIC and the more specific guidelines). Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

  • OK, in future I will look more closely at band articles. Knuckles rapped. If you find any more, just restore them. Don't bother to tell me. May we now drop the subject? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I sympathize. Good move on Margaret what's-her-name. Deb (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete of DefenCell article

Pleased to understand reason for deletion of Defencell Force Protection Systems article on 22.29 on 30 March and to see content. I only saw the first couple of lines via a Google Alert but as the inventor and UK manaufacturer of DefenCell I'm interesting to know the content and author. I have asked UK colleagues and drawn a blank. Our US distributor is using several social media sites and maybe the source. Jeremymilton (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Different! The question to me is usually "why did you delete my article about my company/product"! Google's cache of the article should be available for a few days but if you miss it, I can e-mail you a copy. The deletion reason was: unambiguous advertising or promotion. The article was posted by Kisschicken (talk · contribs) whose rather curious contributions history suggests that they have no connection with your company. The text is almost certainly copied from advertising literature - you may well recognise it but it does not seem to be on the web. Please do not create an article yourself but wait until someone with no COI decides the product is notable and writes about it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Crazy girl shin bia

You prodded the article Crazy girl shin bia. The PROD was contested - I thought I'd mention you if you want to set up an AfD. I'm not sure about the subject myself, so won't do it myself. See you 'round. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy of Dinosaurs and Its Existence

Looks very new, and looks as though someone's genuinely tried to put some good work into it - how about userfying it for them? Pesky (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

  • If it stands very little chance of becoming an article here, then it should not be userfied. Similarly I am dubious about whether Wikiversity would want it. The author is of course strongly encouraged to publish on their own website. Given that the whole 23k bytes of text were posted in one hit, the author has clearly got an off-line copy so even e-mailing is superfluous. I have just had an edit conflict because we were both telling the author our ideas! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this new editor shows some potential; I've suggested they find a mentor. Who knows what good stuff they may produce in future, with the right encouragement? :o) If I weren't so new myself (re-started after a five-year absence!) I would offer to help them out, but I don't know enough about WP yet to be able to do a good job on mentoring. Pesky (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

BT Games Deletion Appeal

I noticed that you deleted an article that I created, BT Games, a South African video game retailer. I would like to kindly ask that you re-instate this article on Wikipedia. Upon deletion you stipulated, (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

I acknowledge that you deleted this article with good reason and according to proper procedure, but I think you could have had the courtesy to give me due notice before proceeding with this delete. I kindly ask that you give me some time to find more information on this article. I know for a fact that this retailer operates 13 stores and holds a significant (possibly the largest) market share over video game sales in South Africa. Thus far I have have come up with this:

I will try to find more information in the next week and will let you know what I find so that this article can be re-instated. Also, I must stress that I am not an employee of video games nor I am I affiliated with them (there is therefore no conflict of interest) Granted, I have bought games from them, but that is as far as my relationship with this company goes. Kindly -- User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much RHAworth, I will see if I can do some justice to this article. I realize that companies abuse Wikipedia as a marketing tool and I am also totally in agreement with getting rid of them. Your COI test is very effective; articles that promote corporate or business issues are often "one-time accounts" and are often eponymous with the business name! I will alert you to any such articles that I find and flag them for deletion. Hope this makes your job a little easier. Thank you once more. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploading a photo

Hello, you sent me a message about a photo that I uploaded. I can assure you this photo is indeed taken by a professional photographer Mr Alfredas Pliadis. I contacted Mr Pliadis via his website and asked him if I may use the photo in Wikipedia. He replied and gave me permission. If you want to make sure it's true, please contact him directly <e-mail address suppressed>. If I have broken any Wikipedia rules, then please accept my apologies. I am beginner and not yet familiar with all the rules and and customs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eno567 (talkcontribs) 09:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Salvation Air Force

The article was deleted for copyright issues, can you close the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvation Air Force discussion as well. — Haley 09:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deleting of Waynflete Singers

Hi. Could you send me the text of the aforementioned article so that I might improve upon it and re-post? If you have suggestions of how to not fall into the same deletion trap again, I would be grateful. Thanks Edd (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Done but don't raise your hopes too high - amateur groups don't fare too well here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Liberty Meat Market

Please send me the content, so I can work on it. I don't want to have to start from scratch. Thanks. Mudally (talkcontribs) 13:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Done but don't be surprised if, at the end, it is still deemed non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So if I rephrase it in my own words, it'd be fine? -- Mudally (talk · contribs) via e-mail

  • I doubt it very much. What makes it more notable than thousands of other butcher's shops? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange, I just read Wikipedia's policies for contribution, and it states that Wikipedia exists "to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is". And yes, I read the limitations and can't really find anything that wouldn't allow me to write about the history of some German immigrants, who helped shape the city of Ann Arbor, and later, the village of Pinckney.

So you are not allowing certain business to have a page, but others can? For example, there is a page for hundreds of different hotels. What makes one more notable than the other? - Mudally (talkcontribs) 13:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So you changed your reason for rejection. Nice. And you didn't bother to comment on the hotel comparison. This smells like selective censorship to me. So you are saying that because a hotel was mentioned in "reliable, independent secondary sources", it is allowed a Wikipedia page? What if I have Tom's aunt publish an article in the Ann Arbor newspaper, subscribed to be more than 100,000 people? Is that reliable and independent enough to get past your content filter? - Mudally (talkcontribs) 03:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  • "Didn't bother to comment". I am sorry if you cannot recognise that my last message above is a reply to your question. Assuming that Grace Shackman is Tom's aunt, then the article has already been published and Ttonyb1 (talk · contribs) and I both felt it was insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bandwidth Throttling Page

Hi RHaworth. Could you please look at our proposed changes so far on the discussion page of Bandwidth Throttling. We would like to add that information over to the main page as soon as possible thanks. Fishern6 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

MystiCon and trouble with editors

Having a bit of a problem with two people trying to promote their sci-fi convention, MystiCon. See the message one of them left at the bottom of my talk page. The issue may need a little watchdogging from an admin such as yourself. Cheers! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You've Got Mail

You've got mail. @ d \/\/ | | |Talk 20:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Why e-mail me? Why not just request here? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of WGSN (fashion forecaster)

I would have expected an editor with seven years experience to have better ideas about what we need in a Wikipedia article. PSFK are apparently a rival to WGSN. Can you find any better, mainstream references? Feel free to create a draft in User:Glueball/sandbox and raise the matter at deletion review. I can let you have your text if you follow these instructions. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, This is from way back, apologies. Could you please email me the article you deleted? (I have ticked the checkbox about receiving email.) Link about this in your archive: User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2010 September#WGSN. I still feel that an article about WGSN belongs in Wikipedia. But I simply do not have the time to find much else on it. Its subscription-based website is expensive and strictly enforced. Thanks! Glueball (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I would have expected an editor with seven years experience to know how to create wikilinks. Text e-mailed. Does it really cost $20,000 for 5 seats? And what on earth is a "seat" in this context? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
In the software industry, I think a five seat license means that the software can be used by five people (from the purchasing organisation) simultaneously. Bargain! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Savoir Flair

Hi Roger, Hope you're well. I was wondering as to why the Savoir Flair page has been deleted again considering that it is the leading online fashion magazine in the Middle East as well as serving up a considerable fanbase in North America and Europe. The magazine has been featured on several high profile and established print publications (Harper's Bazaar, Mondanite, and others) in the region as well as mentioned on several online sites and blogs.

Savoir flair magazine itself is reputable publication amongst the fashion enthusiasts and has a plethora of original content that includes regional exclusives on fashion items, video and photo shoots with highly influential people of fashion, and interviews with the who's who of the fashion world including Karl Laggerfeld and Christian Louboutin just to name a few. I kindly ask you to reconsider the deletion of the Savoir Flair page as its popularity in the Middle Eastern region is well established. Regards, Othmane Oubrahim — Preceding unsigned comment added by OOubrahim (talkcontribs) 13:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  • "Deleted again"? I can only see one deletion. The version I deleted consisted of: "Savoir Flair is an online fashion magazine founded in 2009. Its editor-in-chief is Haleh Nia." There was not even a proper link to the website. If you were to write a proper article about the magazine, it might stick. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Human Experience deleted

It has been brought to our attention that an article about our documentary film, The Human Experience, has been deleted from Wikipedia. The page was initially created by an intern at our company, Grassroots Films, and was subsequently built up with more information over time by other Wikipedia users. This intern is no longer with us and we would very much like to revise and re-create the page to match Wikipedia's standards. If the page was removed due to copyright infringement, we hope that we can work this out, as we own all of the rights, content and material in the film. We are eager to correct any errors with the page on our end.

Our goal is to create a professionally written, high-quality page in order to make information about the film available outside of our website. As our company becomes more prominent with the ever-growing viewership of our award-winning documentary, we feel that information about our film would be useful, edifying and relevant to all Wikipedia users. To date, "The Human Experience" has been shown in over 17 countries at over 450 screenings, and has just been released on DVD in stores across the USA. We are seeking to add useful and relevant information to Wikipedia and would appreciate any suggestions for remedying the page content and citations. Thank you for your time and contribution to Wikipedia! Sincerely, Thomas Gentry, Grassroots Films Grassrootsfilms (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the Ridgetop Group page

Please explain why you deleted the Wikipedia entry I created for Ridgetop Group. I made sure to put only factual statements that described the company; there was nothing promotional in there at all. I modeled the wording on that of another company that has a Wikipedia entry, "Dolphin Integration". I would be happy to modify the entry if necessary but, at this point, I haven't a clue as to what is offensive about it. Thanks. Best regards, Andrew Levy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Nobody ever said the article was offensive. The deletion reasons are, I admit, slightly cryptic in the deletion log but they were G11 and A7. Rather than attempting to re-create, please have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the company is notable and writes about it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

my sandbox

thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 11:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Riad Michael article

I believe this is the only way to contact you, if there is another please let me know! Your further explanation on deleting that article would be appreciated since I think the significance of the subject has been indicated indeed. Thanks. Uhuruni (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the significance might not have been indicated clearly it is still sufficient to display this article I think. A link to reviews and further relevant sites including the official website has been added in the summary. Is this not the right place to add that or why are you speaking of a "total absence"? Thanks. Uhuruni (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Adding links in an edit summary is pointless. But in any case, a link to the guy's website is, by definition not an independent secondary source. I appreciate that English is not you first language but surely you understand the meaning of those three words? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, so those links should be added as External links, I figure. As to "those three words": On that artist's website there actually is information about independent secondary sources, e.g. multiple press reviews: Doesn't this meet the criteria no. 1 of notability? Thanks. Uhuruni (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

  • So if you have independent references, why were they not put in the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought they would be found somehow via the artist's website but agree that I should have listed them explicitly in the first place. I wonder if you can move that article to the article incubator to add all the references I can find or if I shall write it anew. Thanks. Uhuruni (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I have e-mailed you your text. I suggest re-submit via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


All right. So first I created the subpage and then I'll copy and paste the new list. Clear :) --CamoBeast (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

John Bazbaz

Hi, I'm wondering why you deleted the page titled John Bazbaz citing that (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). The subject is the CEO and President of a large corporation. The precedence for CEO's is as William C. Weldon's page for Johnson and Johnson. Thank you and let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlg718 (talkcontribs) 20:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Unusual WP:USERFY request follow-up

Hi RHaworth - quick note about User:Shirt58/Stageco. Had a quiet word with AnnieMJohansen here, and mentioned you. Was that OK? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I note you've moved the article back into mainspace after AnnieMJohansen's changes. Thanks again for the unusual userfication. A good outcome for all concerned! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

New James Layfield page

Hello, a few weeks ago I enquired about the James Layfield page which had been deleted. You emailed over the original page contents and asked me to look at amending some of the content, re-uploading it and then letting you know once I had done it so you could restore the previous edit history. Just to let you know that I've now uploaded the new page. There is an image I would like to upload to be inline with the content, right now I'm still learning the ropes on how to go about doing that properly. If there is anything you would like me to look at on the page, or any pointers you might have let me know. Thanks. Parbjohal (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  • History restored. I will let others judge the new version. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I humbly accept the NeoVSP deletion :-)

NewB mistakes I guess :-) Anyhow - I was wondering if you put the error in this quote "change his spots nor the leopard his skin" on purpose. — Oded — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdedIlan (talkcontribs) 06:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes. That is why I created the quote as a link so that people could see the correct version. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for restore (or text) for a deleted page

Dear RHaworth, I would like to request your consideration in restoring Queplix article which was deleted by you awhile ago. I realize that I have a conflict of interest in editing the page, but would like your decision to restore the page and open it for editing by others. The Queplix name is referenced in several places throughout Wikipedia and these references appear as stub (red links). Several noted scholars and research engineers in the area of data management where Queplix operates requested to restore the page. Queplix is referenced on many other data management info pages (companies) since 2006. I would like to at least, if possible, request a text of that deleted article. External credible sources which may be useful for you to determine notability of restoring the Queplix article:

Respectfully submitted, Syaskin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC).

First of all, thank you for sending me the text! Secondly, I reviewed the text from the last revision and while it looks informative, properly formatted and for a notable subject, its lacking the credible sources and references i.e. the ones i mentioned above for example. Would you be willing to reconsider restoring the Queplix article, and I will ask credible people in the industry without COI to the article to contribute the references for notability in accordance with Wikipedia policies? Best regards Syaskin (talk)

  • My normal advice is wait until someone with no COI thinks the company is notable and writes about it. Given clear AfD and DRV decisions, I am certainly not going to restore it for you. If you really insist on trying to get an article in, I suggest you read carefully this DRV and this in my talk archive and make another attempt at deletion review. Note in particular the need for: a sandbox draft, proper references and a sponsor. I have e-mailed you the text as at each of the three deletions. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


I am a student at Syracuse University. I am taking a class on trans-nationalism and NGOs. We are doing a wikiproject- making or editing a page about NGO's and US public policy. I am a bit lost and no one this far has been able to help me. The due date is quickly approaching (Apr 26). I have research but idk what to do with it. I do not know if I can edit a page. When I tried before, ppl booted my information. I need my research to stay on until I turn my work in lol. I hate to beg, but you would you please help me. Please.... thx, HattieMichelle (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  • "I do not know if I can edit a page". Of course you can edit any page. "idk", "ppl" & "lol" - on Wikipedia it helps comprehensibility if you spell words out in full - some of us do not do SMS! People booted what information, where? According to your contributions you have not yet edited any articles at all. If you have edited without being logged in, your tutor has a perfect right to ignore any such edits. But I would be willing to look at them if you point me to them by means of links such as: this to a past version or as a "diff". "I need my research to stay". You cannot rely on it - Wikipedia is not a free host. The safest thing is to put it on your own or the university's website. But if you edit an existing article and your changes get deleted, you can always point your tutor to your edits in the manner shown above. I hope you are also aware of our no original research policy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Recessionista for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Recessionista is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recessionista until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Alpha Quadrant talk 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

File talk:REAGANWH.jpg

Hi, this talk page is extremely important to WPConservatism. With our banner there we are able to collect stats from WP 1.0, and track alerts on this image using AlertBot. Please note that talk pages for images that exist on Commons are specifically excluded from G8 per WP:CSD. I request that the talk page be restored and tagged with {{G8-exempt}}. Thanks! Lionel (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  • So go ahead, re-create and this time apply the exemption tag. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
OK! Lionel (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

please be gentle

Hey Roger! Please remember to be extra gentle with the students, such as User:HattieMichelle above; that's what Wikipedia Ambassadors are for, to give a warm and gentle introduction to Wikipedia to these newcomers. Also, it's important to leave talkback notices on their userpages if you're going to respond on your own, because most newcomers won't know to check back for replies. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  • The trouble with gentle for me is that it takes much longer to compose and takes more words. I have toned down my message to Hattie as far as I feel is necessary. If you feel more is needed, specific examples of revised wordings would be welcomed. But certainly, I will do talkback tags. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)