User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2011 Jan 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is an Online Ambassador on the English Wikipedia
Page extended-protected
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Industrial Quick Search

My page on Industrial Quick Search was deleted in November. I was wondering if you could suggest to me ways it could be altered so that I could re-post without it being deleted? The reason for deletion was cited as A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Is this simply a matter of sources? If so, would adding a link to the following suffice? \\iqs-server\shared\GoldMine\MailBox\Attach\ICRREPRINTsales(1).pdf Any help you can offer would be much appreciated. Industry123 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Please learn how to create links both internal and external. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cymatic theology

My page on cymatic theology was first flagged for deletion and now moved. I have reworked it from a previous wiki that I built in 2009. It was deleted for lack of references at that time. It has now been cleaned up, and there are mutiple references to validate the claims made. Would you please consider reposting it to the main page?

Many thanks, Cosmikos (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • What has changed since the AfD closed? The number of Google hits remains negligible. Which of the new refs even mentions the term? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply.

I have found the original published paper by Dr Pretorius on Cymatic Theology to verify the claim made, and given the link for you to check. The term is widely discussed in: Cymatic Theology: A Study on What Is Perhaps the Creative Language of God.

As you will also see, I have included references to journals in the wiki, in which Dr Pretorius has written prolifically on subjects around the science and religion debate. The purpose is to show that this scholar is well published, and not a questionable source for the claims made. I hope that this will now be sufficient verification, and that you will consider releasing the site to the general public. Thanks, Cosmikos (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor matters: are you Mark Pretorius? NB. you are not required to answer! Pseudonyms are allowed here but I would still be interested to know. Given that he is in the University of Pretoria, perhaps Mark Pretorius is also a pseudonym? Why did you not link directly to the PDF? Please clothe naked URIs as I did in this edit. It is not a "site"; it is just an "article".
Producing a published essay on the subject moves it away from being original research but only fractionally. Even if the paper had been peer-reviewed, that would not be enough. We need evidence that anybody outside the narrow world of theologians has read this paper and commented on it. In short, there has been no significant change since the AfD decision less than a month ago. My best advice is: publish on your own website or on the Theology Wiki or Religion Wiki. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I do appreciate your help with the site. The name incorporated in the University of Pretoria and the scholar being Mark Pretorius, is just coincidental. Mark Pretorius (I am closely related to him), comes from a heritage, where his great, great grandfather, Andres Pretorius, was one of the founding settlers that created Pretoria as the capital of South Africa (there is the link). It is a rather common surname though in South Africa. He did his PhD thesis through the University of Pretoria, and is on their research team in a part-time capacity only. I put that in previously, but as you can see, I have now removed it, as there is no reference that I can refer to, as pointed out by the person that assessed the wiki the first time. I do feel that there is enough evidence to consider the wiki as valid, and it would be a little sad to see it disappear. However, I am in your hands at this time. The way the wiki stands now by the way (especially with your changes), I think is quite good. Please reconsider. Many thanks, Cosmikos (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Again, it is a "page" or "article" not a "site". Nothing has changed in the last hour, so why should I change my mind? I have posted the article to wikia:theology:Cymatic theology. I have changed the first few of the wikilinks but I leave you with the tedious job of fixing the rest. Assuming it sticks on Wikia, then you may create a few discrete links to it from here, eg. from cymatics. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, your advice and help is much appreciated.

Cosmikos (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now reworked the article at User:Cosmikos/Cymatic Theology to hopefully conform to the needs required to have the article passed, and to satisfy the concerns expressed in the AfD decision. I have now softened the idea that Pretorius was the originator of the term, and to a degree left it open. I am hoping that it now rather briefly concentrates on what cymatic theology is about. I have also made the necessary changes to the references as required by you. The following were the concerns expressed by the afd and now hopefully dealt with. 1.I am not now saying that it is original research, rather expanded research, or that he ‘coined’ the term. 2.The refs are now substantiated. 3.Dr Pretorius has now been verified. These were the three primary concerns raised. Thanks, Cosmikos (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  • The key words for me in the AfD discussion were "unreferenced to any reliable sources" and "non-notable theory". What have you done to address these matters? But I have transferred the article to wikia:theology:Cymatic theology. Why do you persist in working on it here? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You remark “why do you persist in working on it here” My question is: why do you persist in continuously moving the goalposts. I am astonished that when I give the required information, you turn it around to question the content. There are many wiki pages that have been created which state that there is no scientific evidence for the claims made and that they are of a “non-notable theory”. Yet the information given, has been accepted as a wiki page. I will give you one example cymatic therapy. In fact, this confirms the research done by Pretorius on sound and healing in his essay, with substantial scientific citations. Anyway, it seem as if your mind is made up, which is a pity all-round. — Cosmikos (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Where have I moved goalposts? My view has been perfectly consistent. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:06, 26 January 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.

Somastate

Please restore history of page. I'm from Calgary and Somastate was one of the biggest artists in town and were involved in the music industry. If bands like The Dudes and Azeda Booth are both made available on Wikipedia, then I see no reason to why Somastate is not. All sources were clearly stated and the band is certainly noteworthy. User:darkrider11 (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  • At least you have now managed to find what appear to be independent references but I have no idea about their reliability. Given the clear AfD decision, I think you need to go to deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that, RHaworth. Independent references are reliable and I've processed this article via deletion review. Hope this helps! User:darkrider11 (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Somastate

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Somastate. 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. Darkrider11 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Master Locksmiths Association

Hope I'm doing things correctly as I'm new to this. You deleted the Master Locksmiths Association as I was editing it to make the suggested alterations. Can you have a check to see whether it's now acceptable please and if so remove the "speedy deletion" tag If you have any suggestions on how to improve it then I'm all ears. Thanks for your help Larrylock1 (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • OK, if a legal Eagle has said in Committe that is probably good enough. But please fix those ugly naked URIs like I have done for the first. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that - have made the mods to the URLs as suggested. Any other improvements suggested will be welcome. Regards Larrylock1 (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Israel'sDepartmentStoreboycott.jpg

Hi RH, would you undelete this, please? We're allowed to request that local copies of Commons images be kept. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • OK, Rehman (talk · contribs) was at fault for not orphaning the image. But why on earth could you not do this edit instead of bothering me? Why on earth do you need a local copy? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Commons is somewhat anarchic, with policies changing a lot and apparently not enough admins. Images are hosted that aren't free, and images that are free regularly disappear. For that reason, I keep local copies, as we're entitled to do. In this particular case, the image is not free in the United States, so fair use has to be claimed if it's used on WP. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for restoring it. My apologies about the link. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Paolo (Paul) Benedetti

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paolo (Paul) Benedetti. I get the feeling a whole drawer of socks has suddenly woken up..... Peridon (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Sock puppetry so transparent as to be laughable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

MotionX article

Hello, I have a new version of the MotionX article for consideration. The new version of the article has been re-written with many references and sources. I noticed that the MotionX page is now protected and I thus cannot post the new version there. Where can I post the new article for consideration? Thank you in advance for your help Arthbkins (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Greenfield Health Systems

Why did you delete the simple listing of a legitimate dialysis service provider in the United States? There are 2 monoliths Davita and Fresenius and a smattering of dedicated smaller dialysis providers. Does this make sense to you? We really exist and manage 3500 dialysis patients in the Midwest! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.111.127 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to list the company - your list is WOEFULLY inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.111.127 (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Becker & Associates Consulting, Inc.

Could I please find out why the article was deleted? I posted a number of justifications as to why the company was notable on the talk page. Avedissianc (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Why on earth on the talk page? Evidence of notability goes in the article! We are looking for links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There were none in the article and I could not find a good one in the talk page. Incidentally, putting | at the end of a link usually causes it to become a broken link. Hints: shorter text, one logo not five, use == for sections headings not =, do not need a separate section for each associate. You will have an uphill struggle because the company does not interface directly with the public. And of course you probably have a COI. But you could try again, resubmitting via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

FOSSCOMM

I believe the deletion of the FOSSCOMM page was unwarranted. I described the importance of the article on the talk page, to give me some time to add references, and links. I am one of the organizers of the Patras Wikipedia Editathon and for that reason, my connection is unstable and I wasn't even given the time to add that information. I believe the biggest FOSS conference in Greece with 500+ registered attendants last year is important enough to have its own article on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzikis (talk • contribs) 13:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I still protest, but fair enough. I still need to recover the article in order to move it to my sandbox. p.s. I perfectly know the difference. 'important enough to have its own article' is exactly what i meant to write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzikis (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Now in user:Tzikis/sandbox. You clearly do not know the difference: it's goal indeed. Mnemonic: apostrophe indicates letter omission so "it's" expands to "it is". Does your sentence make sense after expansion? If not, then you have misused the apostrophe. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't have access to the original article so I thought you referred to my comment here. That was simply a typo. I have added more information as well as independent citations. Please review it again and move it to FOSSCOMM if you don't have any more objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzikis (talk • contribs) 14:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Of course I still object - most, if not all, of your added links are not independent. First, find better links. It is unlikely that I will ever feel keen enough on the article to move it back. You can wait until you are auto-confirmed or find someone at your Editathon who does have move rights. Please learn to sign comments with ~~~~. Have you a contribs history on el:? If so, under what name? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: DJ Class

Hello RHaworth. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of DJ Class, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Number 2 on the bubbling under chart is just about enough for A7. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  15:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats

You online? I have a guy making a stink on my talk page. Would you mind taking a look? He is referring to the page Lou Esa. I never edited the article, but removed a G7 speedy request yesterday, since several editors have worked on the page. Thanks, Cind.amuse 16:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Blocked - Barek beat me to it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks anyway. ;) Cind.amuse 17:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Be Art

Hello - I have created the page Be Art and noticed that you deleted it on the assumption it is a group. Please note that I wanted to describe a artistic movement and would therefore appreciate if you could reestablish the page. My reference page is Pop art so it will take time to make the page robust, complete and accurate. Al ashton (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • OK, it is not a group but when I see an article with zero links, external or internal, I have no hesitation in invoking my "shoot first ask questions later policy". The number of Google hits is not very promising but if you can actually supply links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, feel free to re-submit via AfC. Text e-mailed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Might be an idea to start with (or write instead) a sensible bio of Julien Friedler. Even you would probably agree that we were right to delete the text I have e-mailed you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

BeBoz-BeArt

To send me your recent e-mail you selected an option for a "matter which is too confidential". What on earth is confidential? OK, I am suppressing your name and addresses - but we don't don't need those for you to edit - some of the biggest contributors hide behind pseudonyms.

"Do you confirm that I need to create another user for creating French-based content?" But you have not told me your first user name! Absolutely not. People who create multiple accounts end up getting blocked for sock puppetry. Read this about unified login and go and arrange it for yourself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I confirm that I unable to create French content using my old user al_ashton, had to create a new one, guess what: it is al_ashton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al ashton (talk • contribs)

Julien Friedler

Please read the above message addressed to Al ashton. I suggest: go to fr:Julien Friedler and attend to the {{ref nécessaire}} tags then translate the article into English and post here. Assuming that sticks for a day or two, write a properly referenced article about Be Art. In case you are not Al ashton, I am repeating the e-mails of text. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi Roger. Thanks for contribution on the French side. Small question about your deletion. Indeed, I started to insert ISBN reference available on Google Books but noticed that for instance George Simenon's writings were not referenced. I opted to mirror what was in fr:Georges Simenon. Why would it be different for other writers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al ashton (talk • contribs)

On a Wikipedia talk page it is vital that one must be able to see who is talking - please review your last message and see if it satisfies that requirement. The Simenon article does not establish any precedent. If you think ISBN references are appropriate, by all means add them - but do them properly! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

sorry

I don't understand how to move pages, please do teach me... - thornofhate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thornofhate (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • At the top of every page just to the right of "View history" and the "watch this page" star, you should see a pull-down list - a bit silly 'cos for you it only has one entry: "Move". Geddit? See also Help:How to move a page. But as you have been told, please think before doing any move and preferably get agreement on the talk page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Rosalie

The redirect Rosalie is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article or whether it should be deleted. Macr86 (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

? I didn't put the speedy tag on Rosalie (Macr86 did), I put the "hang on" tag there. Look at the Rosalie (musical) talk page - I don't think that what Macr86 did is correct. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No. You applied an utterly confusing db-r3 together with an hang on and an edit summary of Do not delete! There was no need to hunt around finding the correct speedy tag - I cannot remember what it is either! What you should have done was write: {{db|Please move Rosalie (musical) back on to this title}} and backed it up with a comment on the talk page. That is what you were trying to say, was it not? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I did not apply the db-r3 (although I agree that it was utterly confusing). That was Macr86. Please look more closely. But then I did put on the "hang on" tag, as the speedy told me to do. I wasn't sure whether the move should have been reversed or not, so thanks for taking care of it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I humbly apologise. I looked at this history (off-line copy) of deleted edits to Rosalie. I clicked on the diff link highlighted in green and got this diff report which undoubtedly shows db-r3 and hang on being applied together. But it also contains evidence, which I failed to spot, that the report is false: the edit history shows that the previous edit was done by Macr86 and is only 48 bytes long. The diff report alleges that the previous edit was done by Ssilvers and is clearly a lot more than 48 bytes! The diff report has compared the edit of interest with the immediately previous edit to this title (as currently recorded) but that edit is not deleted! I may well report it at Bugzilla. Again my apologies. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate your taking a closer look, and I certainly accept your gracious apology. Would you kindly look into two related matters?: First, Macr86's discussion closes and articles moves seem to be largely ill-considered. It seems to me that he/she is a relatively inexperienced user and should not be making page moves like this, let alone trying to close discussions. Perhaps he/she needs some explanation that move discussions should remain open longer than one day, and that page moves are a kind of edit that usually requires a strong consensus of at least several editors. In this case, I think it was only one or two editors in favor of the move, and one against, which is not yet a strong consensus. Secondly, another editor of the article (who is the person who originally suggested moving the article), has now been adding links from various articles to "Rosalie (musical)", even though it is not settled, as far as I know, that the page should be moved. I have no strong opinion on whether it ought to be moved (most of the existing links seem to be intended for the musical); I just want to make sure that, whether it is moved or not, the right procedures are followed so that readers are not confused, since there are so many articles referenced on the "Rosalie (disambiguation)" page. Thanks for helping out with this. All the best, Ssilvers (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Macr86 is being so thoroughly discussed here at ANI that I feel almost sorry for him/her! I have left a brief note but I think they will have got the message by now. Snowmanradio (talk · contribs) has at least been doing something useful and something that I suggested (though I did not suggest changing links at this stage): analyse the links to see which refer to the musical and which to the film. As a result of his work I am now inclined to approve the move! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Note to self: previous interaction with Macr86 (talk · contribs) was this message about a "redirect copyvio". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. What then will "Rosalie" be after the move - will Rosalie (disambiguation) be moved there? All the best -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not yet seen consensus for any move. But if Rosalie → Rosalie (musical) then it seems logical to do Rosalie (disambiguation) → Rosalie - providing all the links have been fixed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Electronic calculator

What's going on here? We were in the middle of a very reasonable discussion. Are you guys friends in real life? Please see my comments in Talk:Electronic calculator. — InternetMeme (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

Why did you delete my page on Gabrielle Giffords Earth and Space Leadership Fund? How can I improve it to make it acceptable? I want to understand... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicavere (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Protected page

Rosalie_(musical). I do not see any need for this page to be protected. There has not been any vandalism. Please unprotected it, and reply on Talk:Rosalie - - Snowman (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

World Domination Industries

I would like to understand the reason for the deletion of World Domination Industries: the page was essentially created as a child of list of video game developers. Many children of that page, such as W!Games, Torpex Games, TaleWorlds, Tesseraction Games, and many other follow the same template as the deleted page and some provide even less information about the importance / significance of their subject. If you check any of these links, I would like to know why the deleted page (which is a sibling of the links) is considered faulty under A7 while those are not. Once you clarify the matter, I would then be able to know how to make sure to comply with A7, but at this point it is very unclear about why these similar pages comply with it and the deleted one does not. — Thomasd3 (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Dan D. Yang

02:29, 5 January 2011 you deleted Dr. Dan D. Yang‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). It's been recreated again, but I don't have the tools to compare it with the previous version. Could you check it out please? Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Much the same as the previous. But judge the present version on its own merits: far too long, probably autobio, thin on indep. references. I will let you take it to AfD. If the verdict is keep, then slash it to about a quarter of its present length! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll try for a db-multiple first. Further research shows that articles about Rullingnet, the same company, by the same creator, were also speedied on 5 Jan.--Kudpung (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

deleted in Swedish

Hi, I can see you just deleted Adland where I was engaged in a very reasonable Q&A on the talk page about why links were being removed. I was hoping to see a reply so that I might straighten out the articles issues, but with the deletion the talk page is gone as well. 'Deleted in Swedish' seems an odd reason for it to go. Can the talk page return shortly so this may be discussed? — 67.23.5.105 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC) ~/// Orngavk

  • Be grateful I am talking to you at all - see #Greenfield Health Systems below. I propose to restore it to a user page of a proper user with a name. What is your user name? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry about that. Thought my name was Orngavk but can't login, starting fresh here with Orngavk2. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orngavk2 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

SirShill (talk · contribs) made it clear on his talk page he is leaving the matter. I only speak Portuguese and English so those other pages don't tell me anything. Thanks again.Orngavk2 (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Those pages tell you quite a lot! On those pages there is one word of Svenska of which you can probably guess the meaning: relevans. What is more it is given as a link. Follow that link and it leads to you a page with a link back to a page on this wiki. Follow that link and where do you land up? (In case you don't follow: you don't need to know Svenka to see that the pages were deleted for lack of notability.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
For the record 67.23.5.105 is an IP assigned to slicehost, the same host that adland.tv uses (67.23.5.175). GameOn (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Adland

I have been following the rampant deletion of information regarding the entry for Adland. All 3rd party links were being erroneously deleted. The entry talked about the site being referenced by news sources as well as the admins of the site being looked to as experts in the advertising field. And, yet the the sources supposedly "weren't valid enough". This did not make much sense at all. Rather than blanket deletion, please reopen the talk page so that the entry can be properly fixed. It is unclear to me, as a US citizen, what deletion on the Swedish version fo Wikipedia has to do with anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.187.70 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • And the IP address checks out as being in the US. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Robin Hood Ventures

Please email me the deleted text--Marshallyang (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Adventure Activities Licensing Authority

Please see Talk:Adventure Activities Licensing Authority#Proposed deletion. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk 05:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

ISEKI Food

Hi, could you help me to understand why this page is propose to be deleted? What part is wrong? What do I need to change for the article not be deleted? Thank you for helping me with this matter. --Lynnmcintyre (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Please explain the curious "disclaimer" section at the end of the article - whence have you copied this text and what is your connection with the organisation? By an amusing co-incidence, I have recently been looking at an article deleted three times from the Swedish Wikipedia for lack of relevans. Similarly yours has been deleted three times from the Português Wikipedia because relevância não clarificada. But having had it deleted, how come you have not learned the possibility of providing links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources? Your only saving grace is that here you have used a sensible user name. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pyaar Hua Iqraar Hua! (film)

Hi, I re-created this redirect which you had deleted, for 2 reasons.

  • It had been created by a page move I made, and the page had a Speedy, which I deleted and replaced by a Prod, but the speedy generated various links to it which ought not to be broken by deleting the redirect.
  • It could be said that this version is indeed "plausible" in that it's what the editor chose to name the article: if we delete this redirect, a second editor with the same pattern of thought could create a duplicate article at this title rather than find the article at the undisambiguated title.

Given that redirects are free, I see nothing much to gain by deleting this redirect, and something to gain by keeping it. PamD (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Given that the target of the redirect is virtually empty, a redirect seems a bit pointless but both can stay for seven days if you insist. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Girl Unit

Could you email me a copy of the recently deleted Girl Unit. Cheers, Jack (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Could you get into the habit of creating a link when you refer to an article. E-mailed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Dakoha Sadaat

Did you delete the article about the Dakoha Sadaat. It was tagged by an administrator for speedy deletion but I placed a hold on it and was talking to that individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salman A Shah (talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Not that it is important, but it was tagged by Salih (talk · contribs), an ordinary editor not an admin. That editor told you to provide reliable sources. It was unwise of you to post an article totally devoid of external links. I have e-mailed you your text. Salih seems to take an interest in Indian topics so it may be worth asking him for advice. But do not even think about re-posting the article until you have provided those reliable sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the second time that you are proposing my article to be deleted. I got in touch with the administrator and they helped me write (source and reference) as per the Wikipedia standards. If you strongly believe that my article is not up to the standards then please tell me the things which you believe are missing, and I will be more than happy to fulfill the requirement because it will also help me improve the article. What may seem useless to you, may seem important information to someone else. I will truly appreciate your cooperation is this matter. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salman A Shah (talk • contribs) 17:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • No. It is only the first time. Previously, Salih proposed it for deletion. If you give a lineage back to Adam you must a) make it clear that this traditional rather than factual and b) provide a sound reference for the tradition. The two references you give do not seem sufficiently relevant so have an AfD discussion with my compliments. 17:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PUA Training

I think you just deleted the article I wrote on Pua Training. I don't understand what I need to do to make it notable - I've provided reliable sources in which it is cited. — Darcyplant (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • So what were the reputable sources that you added? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Concept2

Hi. You deleted Concept2 a while back. Can you userify it for me so I can see what was there, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Restored - IP addresses should not be allowed to apply speedy tags! But it is hopelessly lacking independent refs. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I can assure you that C2 is notable, now to attempt to prove it. May need a little work William M. Connolley (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Vivekananda Youth Forum

Hi I created this page yesterday, and added the details of the genuineness of the organization on my talk page, I had also added the hold tag on the page as described by the warning, can you please explain (or perhaps help) on what I did wrong. Please understand that this was my first page on wikipedia, and I had copied the format from the page for Habitat for Humanity International, because both the organizations are non-profit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintiyaooo (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

SLASSCOM

We created SLASSCOM page to represent the Sri Lanka's national IT/BPO chamber. However India NASSCOM which represent the same chamber in India is present as an entry. Can you pls let us know the reason for the delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maduratnayake (talk • contribs) 18:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • See my reply to Vivekananda immediately above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You deleted my information from wiki

I am greeting from Tsetsee Gun institute, Mongolia. Few days ago I insert some information about my Institute named TSETSEE GUN. We have web site. Let me know why you deleted information what we inserted about my institute. I know that we inserted regal information without any bad things. We are planning to input more information about our institute both Mongolian and English language.

Regards, B.Erdenebayar "Tsestee Gun" institute. e-mail: erbrmn@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.239.18 (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I do not talk to IP addresses but in any case there never has been an article on either of the titles you give. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

PRo (Rapper)

Any explanation as to why this page was deleted? You say that the page did not explain significance, nor indicate the existence of this person, which is complete bullcrap. He happens to be one of my favourite rappers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.224.94 (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

BSA Ultra

Thanks for helping move / merge the BSA Ultra article. Stephenjh (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Clean up effort

Thanks for your clean up effort of deleting useless pages! USchick (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kuguar03

Is there some reason you removed the speedy delete tag from this page? It would have been deleted long ago, but it was never properly listed. It never got 2 endorsements, and the subject (me) was never notified (I just happened to find it over 1 month later). Kuguar03 (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • If you had given those reasons in the db tag, I would have deleted it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing are out of date then. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Galilee International Management Institute

Hi. According to the deletion log, our page for the Galilee International Management Institute was deleted (16:29, 23 January 2011) due to unambiguous copyright infringement (G12). We copied the text from our own website, so I'm not sure how this would be copyright infringement. What do I have to do to get the page restored? I'm not the original creator, but as an employee of the institute (and the individual responsible for writing all website content), I've been asked to take care of this issue, and will probably take ownership once the page has been restored. Thanks for taking care of this! Lizathewriter (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Please see what I think of people who copy their website and think they have created an article. The preferred way for you to act is simply to wait. When your institute becomes notable, someone with no COI will write about it here. If you insist on forcing an article in sooner please read: copyrights, deletion review and, above all, ownership! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Real names

Hi, with regard to your note at User talk:Beantownpapa, you have chosen to reveal this person's probable real name on the basis of a deleted article talk page. Do you think it would be more in line with the WP:PRIVACY policy to use the COI standard template without doing this? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • If I had received it by e-mail, as for example I did in the case of #BeBoz-BeArt above, I would have withheld it. Since he himself had revealed it here publicly on a page which, presumably, he hoped would be permanent, I saw no reason not to state it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Equally it could be said that there is no particular reason to repeat it once the page is removed from the public purview. Our approaches seem to differ here, so rather than treading on your heels in dealing with this contributor, I'll take him off my watch-list. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I would say there is every reason to repeat it: the guy may well come back and attempt to re-post. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I have had some good experiences persisting with blatant COI cases where eventually they 'get it' and start asking for help rather than just re-posting. In this case I would not have repeated what looks like their real name once it was removed as firstly it might escalate any drama and secondly I could not be fully certain this was not some sort of subtle personal attack against the named person. Anyway he's off my watch-list and I'm sure you can provide any advice should they appear to need it. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

My content

Not sure how to use this site, I thought I was creating a user profile. www.runwiththewild.com is all me and my site. It is all my works and intellectual property. My intention was to create a user profile and Then make a page for my business Gotchaserved.com explaining what it is , when it was constructed and how it came about, Basic history of the Company. I thought I could do that with any company. If this is not acceptable , I need to be sure why and how to do it properly. Im not sure How to use this site without being flagged. I don't intend on spamming, So I guess I need some straight forward answers on how to resolve issue and use the site properly. Thanks. BTW, Thank you for looking out for my copyrights.

11:17, 17 January 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Fawnfoto" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.runwiththewild.com/index/about_us)

That's me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawnfoto (talk • contribs)

  • You seem to be confusing Wikipedia with Facespace, Mybook, etc. This is not social networking. This is not a free host. Please wait. You may be confident that, when you, your websites and your company become notable, someone with no COI will write about them here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I Guess I Goofed, NP, Just Doing understand, I did read the full article, and completely in understanding of wiki policy thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawnfoto (talk • contribs) 12:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well This was an Interesting read: Wikipedia:ORG.

I don't know how I can make a Page for Gotchaserved.com without it looking like spam, The Business itself is brought up in many articles, (forum,attorney,process server,private detective and learning how to, directory, entrepreneur, sharing,hauge international civil process ,legal process ,how toos etc) However It only has membership notability. We are about to be notarized by a larger organization. TAPPS Tennessee Association of Professional process servers. But we have no articles and have not been noticed by NAPPS.

So In Saying all That, From what I understand, I cannot build a web article on Gotchaserved.coms service to the Community because is would be self serving and viewed as advertising. All though we are free. I guess I understand .

I just wanted it there, so when people Google gotchaserved, they would have a full understanding about what it is, how it got there and when it was established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawnfoto (talk • contribs) 12:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Please stop putting a space at the start of a line - it causes page widening. Do you actually review any of your edits? Did you not notice? Of course you are free to write as many web articles on Gotchaserved.com as you like. But you are most strongly discouraged from doing so on Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Josh Sadlon

I am Steven Collier from Blueprints productions and Christian Music Magazine out of L.A, California, USA. I am working with an artist, Josh Sadlon, who is located in Indiana. VP of Productions Jordan Poortenga, wrote the article on Josh Sadlon and his recent contributions to the Christian Music industry. This article follow numerous magazine articles displaying his new chart topping hit "You're Gonna Get There." I logged on today to read the article and found it was deleted. I find it sad that a credible biography of one of the rising influential worship leaders in America has been deleted. I would like to request this article be opened back up for the public to see. Thanks. Buster34448 (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Steven James Collier

  • I find it very sad that someone should ignore our COI recommendations and create an article lacking independent references. I urge you to wait until Josh has risen far enough for someone with no COI to write about him here. If you must, you can try re-submitting via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Check again my topic & don't delete it

Kindly don't delete my topic about Contraception and Abortion an Islamic View because it is important topic for Muslim community rather than it is unprejudiced to any Islamic sects. In addition , I'm new user and I need your support. Thanks a lot — Basmah83 (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  • A common failing of newbies is lack of wikilinks. You have swung to the opposite extreme: words such as human and corpse do not need linking! The reply by Travelbird applies equally to this essay. I am sure that the Islam Wiki would be delighted to accept it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

United For Newcastle

Minutes after I started a page for our campaign it was deleted. Why can we not start an article about our campaign? We have a very large following, have organised a large-scale protest, had interviews with the BBC and Sky yet cannot start a Wikipedia page?

Please contact me, so we can address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmtd1989 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Quite simply, it was deleted because you had blanked the page and left it blank for ten minutes. We would very much prefer you to wait until someone with no COI thinks it is notable and writes about it. But if you you must persist: start with an introduction explaining what the campaign is about; do not be so hopelessly naïve as to use the first person (I,we) and re-submit via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That is what I copied and pasted, that one of my friends wrote on a blog. I was working on it and saved it by accident.

By the time I returned to the page, it had gone. Thanks for your help anyway. Anything that any of us write, will be completely neutral - don't worry.

Is there any way I can get in contact with you, we need help with creating references. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmtd1989 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You could post on his talk page (which you just did), or if there's a requirement for more private contact, you could try the "Email this user" link under "Toolbox" on the left. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Natura Pet Products

RHaworth, Can you provide some feedback in regards to the Natura Pet Products content and why it has been classified as "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Also, can you move this deleted page to my sandbox? Brightonagency (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Brighton

  • What is worse than a company promoting themselves on Wikipedia? Answer: someone who is being paid to promote something on Wikipedia. With the greatest reluctance, I have e-mailed you the final state. But please stay away - Wikipedia should be edited only by disinterested people. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for deleting Club Alpino Fiumano , I can't believe it took twelve hours after I placed my CSD tag though....Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Genco Gülan

Hello RHaworth, I want to recreate the page about a contemporary artist Genco Gülan. It was immdiately deleted although I declared that I would add the references soon. Now I am going to create the article again with references. I'll do my best. I am new in here, still learning. Please at least contact me before deleting. Deleting costs me to do everything all over again. Thank you. Elifm (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elifm (talk • contribs) 13:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  • "Deleting costs me to do everything all over again." But you had not done much in the first place - both submissions were copyvios! So you will need to re-write anyway. To avoid another deletion, re-submit via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't move articles under AFD

pls dont move articles under AFD, regarding churches in CT big AFD. I noticed you moved article St. Peter Church (Connecticut) to a different name.

While i agree that there is need to move it, if the AFD decision is in fact to keep it, I don't happen to agree with the name you chose (I explain in the AFD subdiscussion why i prefer "(City, State)" disambiguation instead). That subdiscussion seems to have been moved to the AFD's Talk page. Please participate there.

Please don't move any of these articles now, while the AFD is pending. It is too confusing, for one thing, and there also needs to be stronger consensus. All the random moves of these articles is what caused a lot of the problems. Note, the AFD tag on the article mentions limitations on moves of articles under discussion. Please obey this. --doncram 16:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you had moved a couple others already. Please don't move any more.

Also, i notice your edit summaries commenting about the arrogance of the article creator. In fact the article creator of one or all of them, Lukascb, started them at sensible names, such as "Our Lady of Guadalupe Church (Danbury, Connecticut)". It was editor Polaron who implemented random-seeming moves, that are arrogant that way, in this move for one example. Please complain to Polaron at his Talk page, in discussion i opened there, and/or in the AFD's subdiscussion about article namings. Again, please don't move any more. It causes more work in the AFD. And, many/most may well be deleted. --doncram 17:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I did notice that the mover was not the original author. I also noticed that the mover had already been told about the moves and had replied. I shall not move any more. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Please do feel free to comment in the AFD itself, or in the subdiscussion about article names that was moved to the Talk page. --doncram 02:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Freeads

Hi, I noticed that today you deleted the article I recently wrote on Freeads. I provided references after the page was marked for deletion and I marked the article with the hangon tag. Please let me know if I need to provide further references to assert it's notoriety, although I thought I had already done so? Please can you also re-instate the article so that I can make the necessary edits? Thanks! Gtebbutt (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

  • You provided references but I did not see much by way of independent, reliable sources. You compared it to Gumtree which did not impress me much because I am a UK consumer and I had not heard of Gumtree. The Alexa rank for Freead.net is not promising - but I do see that they have multiple domain names. I suggest: provide better refs and re-submit via AfC. I would send you the text but read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • OK - thanks. FYI Gumtree are the largest classified ad company in the UK and are owned by Ebay! And the domain name is Freeads.co.uk - it was rebranded from Freeads.net as stated in the timeline etc. Alexa page here: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/freeads.co.uk 86.2.252.130 (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Gtebbutt

Arh22 user page deletion

So, I'm a bit confused why my user page was deleted. I thought the whole point of these was to facilitate communication and shed light on why one might be a content expert in a subject. In the User page guidelines, it states, "User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and drafts, and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content." How did my posting not qualify? Arh22 (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

  • You have given the reason above! Both Athaenara (talk · contribs) and I felt that it went too far over the bounds of "limited autobiographical and personal content". Try again with the company names omitted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. Wouldn't including the names of the companies/organizations with which I'm affiliated be a HELPFUL thing on a User page? As an example, I had posted an article about IMRO, which was quickly removed due in part to COI. Nobody would have known about the COI if I hadn't posted my involvement on my user page. I would think that this would keep things honest, rather than cause problems. I'll post again without the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arh22 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ranatalwar

Hello i am Ranatalwar. I am a new wikipedia editor. I don't know much but I have created some articles. Please help me to unblock some of the wiki blocked websites: I want to create some articles like Taj Agro. Blocked website: www.tajagroproducts.com

The reason to take up this article as students study about various seeds and agro products from this website. I have read the spamming report. But if it can be removed then I can think of taking uo this article. Thank you if you can do something. -- Ranatalwar 19:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranatalwar (talk • contribs)

  • Get your facts right - the website is not blocked but the Wikipedia article is most certainly protected. See User:Deli nk/Taj spam campaign - just in case you are not well aware of it. We are told to assume good faith so just in case your proposals are genuine, you will build up a solid history of edits to other articles before you even think about writing about Taj Pharma. Come back in three months time. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/Archive_to_2011_Jan_27&oldid=1221628424"