User talk:RHaworth/2012 Oct 30

Archives

Archives Edit list Up to: 2005 March 2005 June 2005 August 2005 Oct 2005 Nov 2006 Jan 2006 March 2006 May 2006 July 2006 Sept 2006 Nov 2007 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 April 2007 May 2007 July 2007 Oct 2007 Dec 2008 Jan 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 Sept 2008 Oct 2009 Jan 2009 Feb 2009 March 2009 April 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2010 March 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 Sept 2010 Oct 2010 Dec 2011 Jan 06 2011 Jan 14 2011 Jan 27 2011 Feb 09 2011 Feb 23 2011 Mar 06 2011 Mar 18 2011 Mar 30 2011 Apr 07 2011 May 02 2011 May 22 2011 Jun 08 2011 Jun 26 2011 Jul 26 2011 Aug 18 2011 Sep 06 2011 Sep 28 2011 Oct 17 2011 Nov 04 2011 Nov 19 2012 Jan 29 2012 Feb 26 2012 Mar 10 2012 Mar 31 2012 Apr 14 2012 May 07 2012 Jun 01 2012 Jun 23 2012 Jul 06 2012 Aug 31 2012 Oct 06 2012 Oct 30 JWJ 2012 Dec 05 2012 Dec 27 2013 Jan 22 2013 Feb 05 2013 Mar 06 2013 Mar 26 2013 Apr 15 2013 May 09 2013 Jun 07 2013 Jun 27 2013 Jul 22 2013 Aug 06 2013 Aug 20 2013 Sep 03 2013 Sep 19 2013 Oct 11 2013 Oct 23 2013 Nov 09 2013 Nov 22 2013 Dec 18 2014 Jan 11 2014 Jan 25 2014 Feb 18 2014 Mar 08 2014 Mar 29 2014 Apr 11 2014 Apr 23 2014 May 08 2014 May 22 2014 May 30 2014 Jun 07 2014 Jun 18 2014 Jul 17 2014 Aug 09 2014 Aug 27 2014 Sep 04 2014 Sep 16 2014 Sep 28 2014 Oct 11 2014 Oct 28 2014 Nov 18 2014 Dec 18 2015 Jan 10 2015 Jan 26 2015 Feb 11 2015 Feb 24 2015 Mar 11 2015 Mar 30 2015 Apr 20 2015 May 12 2015 Jun 12 2015 Jul 07 2015 Jul 25 2015 Aug 11 2015 Sep 03 2015 Sep 23 2015 Oct 25 2015 Nov 28 2015 Dec 21 2016 Jan 13 2016 Feb 10 2016 Mar 03 2016 Mar 30 2016 Apr 18 2016 May 16 2016 Jun 02 2016 Jul 09 2016 Aug 11 framework 2016 Sep 02 2016 Oct 05 2016 Nov 02 2016 Nov 27 2016 Dec 18 2017 Jan 10 2017 Jan 31 2017 Feb 23 2017 Mar 15 2017 Apr 20 2017 May 18 2017 Jun 21 2017 Jul 05 2017 Jul 25 2017 Aug 15 2017 Sep 07 2017 Sep 30 2017 Nov 14 2017 Dec 21 2018 Jan 12 2018 Jan 30 2018 Feb 25 2018 Mar 11 2018 Mar 28 2018 Apr 16 2018 May 03 2018 May 22 2018 Jun 14 2018 Jun 28 2018 Jul 19 2018 Aug 03 2018 Aug 20 2018 Sep 07 2018 Oct 01 2018 Oct 24 2018 Nov 16 2018 Dec 02 2018 Dec 26 2019 Jan 27 2019 Feb 18 2019 Mar 06 2019 Mar 17 2019 Mar 30 2019 Apr 14 2019 Apr 27 2019 May 16 2019 Jun 10 2019 Jul 07 2019 Jul 26 2019 Aug 16 2019 Sep 07 2019 Sep 17 2019 Oct 07 2019 Nov 04 2019 Nov 23 2019 Dec 09 2019 Dec 21 2021 Jan 21 2023 Apr 08

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

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

Neofuturisme (literature)

Could you explain me, please, where is the problem with this article. Thanks you. e-mail: zsfmraovic@yahoo.fr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.112.222 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't talk to IP addresses even if they provide an e-mail address and any case there has never been an article called Neofuturisme (literature). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted categories

I just noticed you deleted some "empty" categories earlier today regarding Wikipedia books in X where X = some US states. You might have noticed that they were from about M on. That's because I was in the process of populating them. Rather than create 1 at a time it was easier to create them all and then populate them so deleting them essentially is just a waste of time because now I have to go and recreate them again. Which I will do in the next day or so. I mentioned this to the editor who submitted them but they just ignored me. Kumioko (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you undelete these categories please? I started to recreate them and it occurs to me I shouldn't since they were deleted by an admin. They should be restored not recreated. Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is far better if you re-create them. If I create one while it is empty, it runs the risk of being speedily deleted. You should create them, but only when you have populated each one. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats just a waste of time. They shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. Sorry for the bad attitude but I'm tired of using my time to create something only to have some deletionist who doesn't respect my time come and submit it for deletion. I created them once, I see no reason to do so again so I'll just work on something else until that gets deleted. It just means when I create the books they won't have a category associated to them. I'm tired of having to redo my work 3 or 4 times. Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• You seem to be missing my point that categories should not be created until they are about to be populated. How many of your categories have been deleted while that had items in them? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of SmartArtMovement

SmartArtMovement page got deleted because of copyright infringement "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 08:54, 30 August 2012 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page SmartArtMovement (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of this on Myspace)" Totally untrue! As a matter of a fact; The article was first published on Wikipedia!!!! weeks later on Myspace!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozef vercrusse (talk • contribs) 10:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• So why does not the Myspace page acknowledge that the article was first published on Wikipedia and provide a GFDL licence for the text? In any case we could also delete the page for total lack of references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

SmartArtMovement was a GRASSROOTS organisation Active for 7 years on a voluntary context. Not even ONE single official reference is existing on that matter. Wikipedia would be the first.

So you are stating that not even one story of an organization without official status can be published on Wikipedia? If so, i can post here a lot of pages about organizations/persons/music or whatever with no official status. In other words.. Wikipedia allows only well known stories to be published?

What the point of that? Extremely boring, that is! So it comes to the point we have to realize that Wikipedia is offering no new stories at all? And that all the information written on Wikipedia is officially approved by references? References by who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozef vercrusse (talk • contribs) 04:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• WIkipedia offers no "new stories". Correct. This is firm policy - we say: no original research. "Official" is an inappropriate word. The key word for Wikipedia is "notability". Notability is determined by reliable sources. Since you admit that the SmartArtMovement lacks reliable sources, then it must remain outside Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And "reliable" is not an inappropriate word in this context? Everybody knows who writes history. It always comes to the point that the strongest rule, and they & no one else will write history in their own benefit, with or without massacres. The word "reliable" is wrong. I hope you get that.

To put a long story short. Wikipedia is just another brick in the wall, repeating everything exactly what the big boss is saying. Probably repeating lies, on and on.

Now its getting clear to me why Wikipedia is so scared to be stealing something from someone else. Because the only stories they publish are stories they didn't write themselves in the first place! If you have nothing else to say on this matter, then you can also delete my profile because its a fake to call yourself FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA when you're only spreading unfree/one sided historical facts written by a conqueror. Good Bye OpenSource Ideology, period. Good bye Neutrality, period.

Besides all this: The SmartArtMovement Facebook and the myspace pages are full of evidence for the existence of SmartArtMovement (old flyers, posters, stickers, drinking, tickets,... more on Facebook than on Myspace). Or do you really think, people will make all these graphic designs to be on Wikipedia? But yeah, you say thats not a reliable source! :D of course! How could i've been thinking something else!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozef vercrusse (talk • contribs) 15:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has biases and the process are not perfect, but as an encyclopedia, the policies of WP:OR and WP:V and their expression through WP:N in almost all cases serve the creation of an encyclopedia very well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Waffle by Jozef noted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Arsion

I dont understand why Arsion would be nominated for speedy deletion, I have made numerous articles in the past that were less important than this and I also dont understand what it mean by "does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant". I would have at first dismissed you as a troll but you seem to be a long time wikipedian.

Can you please at least stop the "speedy" deletion while we discuss, after all I have no idea how long "speedy" is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• So apply an {{hangon}} tag to the article and make a good case on the talk page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you try help my what you mean because surely I don't just write "this is important because...", this situtation is quite confussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Better to word it: "this promotion is notable because", but that tis exactly what you do say - obviously. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I understood that but the phrase "does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant" is , to me, saying that importance should be implied on the article, and I wouldn't know how to do that... if I write Arsion again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps my suggestion was misleading. Notability is best established by providing links to reliable sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

San Juanico disaster

Thanks for taking care of that. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 23:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Skapoula

Hello. You deleted a new page called Skapoula which I started and was developing. I would like to know the reasons why, and how I can further develop it and re-create it in a way that will avoid speedy deletion. I have been developing pages on Cyprus' alternative political organisations for some time now on Wikipedia (Occupy Buffer Zone, ELAM (Cyprus)). Thank you for your time. --Tco03displays (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Provide sound evidence of notability from English-language sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I apologize for the excessive posting, I have not been very familiar in contacting people through Wikipedia. Do the sources have to be only English, or mainly English. There are subjects on which it can be hard to find many English sources.--Tco03displays (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) While English sources are prefered, non-English sources that meet the reliable source WP:RS requirements are certainly usable, and sometimes the only ones available. see WP:NONENG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I used excessively the magazine's own publications (I could also add links to actual PDFs) when discussing the ideas they express through their magazine, and used the Greek Indymedia as a source for other things. While I have found some English sources for their activities, and could add them or replace them, I do not see how my sources did not fit the criteria, within the context I used them. --Tco03displays (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) The sourcing needs to be primarily based on content from third parties about the topic, not from the subject of the article directly. A source cannot be the basis of its own notability (see WP:N), nor can it be relied upon to produce the full commentary about itself in a neutral manner (see WP:NPOV). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, so I can use Indymedia Athens (which is a third party) and my English third party sources to set it up again? --Tco03displays (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)The use of primary sources (such as fliers or home videos) is frowned upon. (see WP:PSTS). Particularly content for which we cannot verify the historical accuracy. (see WP:V) Unlike a research paper, Wikipedia does not do anything new, we just collect what other scholars have already published. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

YOLO principle

Hi, I had put the speedy deletion tag to the page YOLO principle by taking into account the content and reference provided there. I have to mention that I am new to wikipedia so I am asking (for learning purposes only ) based on what criteria do you suggest that this page should be considered to have encyclopedic information? Thank you in advance Khadkhall (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC).

• You tagged it for deletion as spam which it patently is not. Although I have never heard of it before, it seems a sound principle of comparable imprtance to the Kiss principle. But if you think it is not sufficiently widely used, since there is no appropriate speedy category, raise the matter at AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Watermark revision deletion

Howdy. Because of your edits to File:2008_FA_Cup_Final_programme.jpg, you might be interested in a discussion I started on Nyttend's page.--Rockfang (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Luka Stojanović deletion

Hi. Concerning Luka Stojanović deletion, the page shouldn't have been deleted because the player made his debut on a fully pro league, the portuguese Segunda Liga, this past weekend. Thanks in advance for reverting the information. Joaommx (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• It was a really slovenly article. You had done a minimal amount of work. I have restored it to User:Joaommx/sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yellowism

Please restore - especially as this seems to have been undiscussed.

This is a timely redirect, although I can't see the page view stats and the target is still poor. Following recent vandalism of a Rothko in the UK, the defacer has put forward a defence of Yellowism, as a strand in an obscure art movement claiming a heritage through Duchamp and his readymades. Their principle appears to be that "things fall apart" and so defacement of a work is a natural stage in its artistic evolution.

I know nothing of Yellowism. I'd like to read this article, not to write it. However it's certainly a plausible term, particularly at present. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Whaddya mean "can't see the page view stats" - you have not even tried to look. What are these very interesting stats? The last state of the article was "#REDIRECT found object" and since the found object article does not contain the word yellowism, deletion seemed reasonable. I have e-mailed you the history and the version which was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowism. Re-create at your peril! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, once again your ability to be an utter WP:DICK surpasses itself. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ignoring your gross incivility, please explain slowly (because I am a bear of very little brain) why my reply is dick-like. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Article on Adopt-a-Pet.com

You deleted my article on Adopt-A-Pet.com. The note says for copyright violation - yet, there was no copyrighted material at all - I wrote it all by myself. There were references to external sources that are copyrighted, but this is not a violation. Please send me the article back, I can't seem to recover a final version. Please also explain specifically what do you think the violation is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galkaha (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Why should I have to make assumptions? Please provide a proper link to the page about which you are talking. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mbunda people

Hello RHaworth: I just discovered you blocked the Mbunda people page. The probleme here is that user:Libingi is a newcomer and has enormous difficulties understanding how things have to be done on Wikipedia. On the other hand, he is (like nobody else) in possession of a wealth of information on the Mbunda. The proposed solution now is to prepare an appropriate article on my personal sandbox page. Libingi's text is already there, and when I'll be back from a two week travel, I shall develop the article out of that (plus some other) material. When it is ready, it should go to the page which at present is blocked. What do I have to do in order to have it unblocked? -- Aflis (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Both User:Libingi/sandbox and User:Aflis/sandbox seem to be too long for a Wikipedia article - but even the simple trick of providing section headings might make them seem less ponderous. If you are submitting a short (say 8kb or less) article, I would say: ask me or any admin and we will move it to the protected title. If you wish to be long winded, I suggest you get a second opinion by submitting the article via AfC - move the article to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mbunda people and add {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I have not made myself understood: the text on my sandbox page is not my text, but Libingi´s! When streamlining it, I shall of course shorten it considerably: this is not the first article on an ethnic group I am writing! Ok, when the piece is ready I shall contact you again, but that will not be before the beginning of November. --Aflis (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

ITM Power - CSD A7

Hello, I have realized that you deleted the page I was working on, without responding (and maybe not reading) the message contesting the speedy deletion situated on the talk page. I do not feel that I need to explain my reasoning here. I quote the talk page. " This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because I have mentioned how important the involvement with the Isle of Wight is, and I think it should be given a chance to properly develop, before being pounced upon for deletion. I understand CSD and do not believe that this article meets CSD A7, and if by some reason, it does, then I think that this should be allowed for further development. Not all articles start as perfect." W.D. 09:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• So if it is not yet "perfect", why are you starting it in the (article) namespace? I have restored it to User:W.D./sandbox but I would warn you that however much you work on it, I cannot see it meeting our notability criteria because they are selling such a specialized product. And if the Isle of Wight is important, why is there absolutely no mention of it in the article? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this what happens now? We don't consider an article might possibly get better, we simply delete it? How in any way is that fair? If it isn't perfect, it'll get better, CSD has become ridiculous, if someone doesn't like an article in the state it starts in, they just delete it. It's like killing a baby at 3 days old because it can't run. There is a mention of it in the article. 'Green Energy Project' section. If the article cites few sources, rich in information, why not? I do not believe that "they are selling such a specialized product" is a valid argument. The company is notable enough, there are independent reliable sources for what ITM power does. I am making an undeletion request. W.D. 09:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Stop waffling. Have I deleted it? No. I have restored it. Did you actually read my message? Have you looked at User:W.D./sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry for that, I knew that you'd restored it, but I didn't know you were intending for me to move it back to the article namespace.W.D. 10:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I am intending that you should move it but not until you have beefed up the article considerably with assertions and evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Why can't it be in the main namespace? If you notice, articles in the main namespace are were usually given time to develop and not removed immediately by some crazy deletionist who doesn't like the sight of any article being worked on by more than 1 person. This is ridiculous. And no, I will not stop 'waffling', I will stand up for what I believe in. W.D. 10:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• You have answered your own question: because in the main namespace it is going to come to the intention of crazy deletionists. Being in user space does not preclude collaborative editing. But in this case, it don't matter - there was not much collaboration when it was in mainspace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for being rude to you. I am sorry, it is just a habit I sometimes have. W.D. 16:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

File:PorterZywiec2005.jpg

How are you Roger? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC) I would be fine but for the horrible image you have used here. Yesterday I went to a beer festival which was serving proper beer. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC) And what is your favourite beer?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Any porter, preferably 5% abv or more. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC) A real man eh? Better? I'm rather fond of Guinness myself, I get it from my grandfather who used to drink about 7 or 8 pints of the stuff daily, although I'd be lucky to drink that in 2 weeks, I don't drink much! Always claimed it "thinned the blood", he lived to 93 so..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Better image. Ever thought of coming to Penderell's Oak and not drinking much in the company of other Wikipedians. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Bit far for me I'm afraid, I live in rainy Wales.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Undelete

Hi there. I changed my mind. Can you possibly restore the article Hōkyō-ji? Thank you in advance either way. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Hey, RHaworth. I just wanted to apologize for the way I spoke to you when I first joined a few weeks ago. Reading your talk page has made me realize just how much you do around here, and you deserve a lot more respect than I gave you back then. Thanks for being understanding, and hope you're doing well both here and offline. RunnerOnIce (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Two apologies in one day! Thank you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Anytime. :-) Mind if I continue to talk-page stalk you? For some reason I enjoy reading talk pages. RunnerOnIce (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

G4

You really should not G4 recently userfied articles as you did at User:Jaunjaun/sandbox. At MfD we give them a reasonable amount of time to make improvements before deleting as a stale draft. Gigs (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Given that the original has been restored, I see no harm in restoring the sandbox. Actually I though that full profs were deemed automatically notable and controversial ones should have no problem with notability so I am a bit surprised the origianl got deleted at all. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I also am questioning the application of WP:PROF in this case. I don't think that we should automatically keep full profs, but it is more or less the current practice. Anyway if the sandbox version sticks around without being improved, we can take it to MfD. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please restore Abhay Kumar Dubey page.

Abhay Kumar Dubey is a well known writer and journalist in India. Requested you to restore the page which is deleted without drill down of information. With time page will be more informatics. Gokulchandola (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Restored to User:Gokulchandola/sandbox. It needs a lot more text and, more importantly, independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please restore AbanteCart.

Dear RHaworth. I am not quite sure why AbanteCart was deleted as G4. This was not just resubmission. It was completely new article with new references. Original deleted was half a year ago. In addition, we have checked other commercial projects that are similar and got approved with similar references and content. I quite do not understand motivation for deletion. Please help us understand what is needed in order AbanteCart page for our open source project got approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.75.115 (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• You have a blatant COI. Kindly wait until someone with no COI thinks the product is notable and writes about it here. If you insist, you can raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. We will wait for someone else to create it, but I still not clear why it is COI. I wonder how IzzoNet is approved then. It is more obvious COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Projkov (talk • contribs) 18:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Who are "we"? Surely that answers your question re COI. A glance at the contributions history of Johnmoor (talk · contribs) who created the Izzonet article suggests a much broader range of interests than your contribs. history suggests! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks as if this users back and recreated it(Abantecart) using sock accounts;

Projkov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Oscwriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Eccommercewisdom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

I created Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abantecart before realized there was much more history involved here. I have no bias against a speedy deletion, and have created a spam report here. --Hu12 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Rav yissacher Meir

The page was recreated with poor content (I can see a small amount in the google search) at Rav yissacher meir. I'm not 100% sure he's notable, but he seems to meet the threshhold of not being speedy-able. Can you undelete the page so the other can be redirected and the information can be combined? Ryan Vesey 19:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

35,000 attended his funeral so I'm certain that he has a claim of significance (I'm not saying the article you deleted did). Ryan Vesey 20:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Rav yissacher meir had a speedy tag of {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141476#.UHsZzMVpfQI }} applied by you. So I have left it deleted. I have restored Rav yissacher Meir to User:Fortheloveoftorah/sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

(Re)creation DinghyGo article

Dear Mr. Roger W. Haworth, Today I tried to publish my first article about DinghyGo, the inflatable sailboat, by moving it from my sandbox. It was tagged for speedy deletion and after your review deleted. I tried to understand why and read some documents like "my first article" and learned about Wikipedia policy (NPOV, verifiability & no original research).

I'm now trying to comply to these policy criteria for my updated article and like to request some pragmatic guidelines/feedback.

What I did for the initial article was to use the Optimist (Dinghy) article as a reference format, since it's a similar subject/object. From what I understand now 1. the DinghyGo article lacks references, 2. might include some links to potential "advertisement" perceived links like the original web-site and social media sites like Facebook, Twitter & Youtube. 3 the writing style might also be perceived as not neutral enough.

Am I correct in my analysis and if I rewrite the article by changing these 3 items, would it then comply to the Wikipedia policy guidelines? Meaning add references, remove external links and rewrite in neutral style.

Best regards, Michiel Troelstra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.212.206 (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Kindly sign in as Mtroelstra (talk · contribs) before doing any edits to Wikipedia. As the article states you are the developer of DinghyGo so I will give you my standard advice: kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the product is notable and writes about it here. If you really insist on trying to get an article in, finding a sponsor might do the trick. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

WMUK limited donation

Hi there - I'm getting in touch on the suggestion of my colleague Stevie as he said you had some thoughts on donations to specific projects/areas of Wikimedia UK's work.

The short answer is that Wikimedia UK doesn't current accept gifts to be spent on a specified area - 'Restricted gifts' - if they are for less than £1,000 - please see the recently agreed section in our Donation and Grant acceptance policy.

However, I would like to see WMUK develop particular funding streams supported by limited fundraising campaigns - while not wanting to undermine the flexibility and therefore organisational ability to adapt and react to changes in the demands we meet, I think there is a place for occasionally raising the profile of projects like Toolserver in a targeted way. I'd be really happy to chat about this and get any ideas you or others' have - so feel free to suggest a meeting, or catch me at the next meet-up in London as I will be there this time! Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, not that I ever make any

About User:Ghazan Salim Amirzadah/Khan Amirzadah Khan's House. I think there is a duplicate of this in my userspace, and I nominated the wrong page. People might even be led to think - gasp! - that I'm not perfect. Shome mishtake, shurely?--Shirt58 (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Laurent Mettraux

Can you really not see how this disaster can be reasonable called spam? Look at the referencing. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• I saw a lot of refs and did not bother to wade through them. I also saw that it was more than two years old. AfD is the more appropriate treatment. To judge by the contribs history of Fairfieldstation (talk · contribs), it is not self-promotion. I suspect Fairfieldstation is an impressario based in Brisbane, Melbourne or Sydney! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Why did you call it bad faith? A glance at the references shows they were innapropriate and given the number, extremely questionable? Where did self come into it? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• I said "bad faith" for the reasons already stated: the article had an OK feel - lots of refs and two years old. I mentioned "self" simply because I was musing over the origins if the article - it has hall marks of self-promotion but other evidence suggests not so why was it so spammy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Lots of bad refs. Which gave a very bad feel. It stinks of promotion. An article whos few references that actually had anything to do with the subject were puffy qoutes sourced only by the subjects own page. Lots of sources that has nothing to do with the subject. No OK feel, just trying to hide behind a wall of "references". duffbeerforme (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone independent of both of us has looked at this article and has removed most of the spammy bombardment and has supported inpart my claims about this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurent Mettraux. Still think my nomination was bad faith? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• I am not sure why you are bothering to talk to me. You have sent it to AfD. What do you expect me to do? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Trying to understand why you chose to libel me. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• OK, you consider the words "looks like a bad faith nomination to me" are libellous. I don't. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

V Empire

Hi Roger. Just responded to your message about the V Empire mess on its talk page, but wasn't sure if you'd pick it up there --- "V Empire or Dark Faerytales in Phallustein" IS the full title - the second half isn't an alternative title - or rather, it IS, but it's part and parcel of the full, main title, and written that way all over the CD booklet (yeah, I knw, it's stupid and annoying a bit pretentious, but...). I personally don't have a problem with just calling the page "V Empire", but I just think it's asking for trouble - we'll constantly have people creating redirects to variations of new pages that include the "or" portion. Also, do we REALLY need all these redirect pages? Don't they just clutter everything up? I can't see that anyone is likely to type in anything other than "V Empire" or "Vempire". Do we need EVERY single possible variation, with and without parentheses, as a redirect? --- Genuinely interested in this redirect question - if you think they all need to be there then fine. But... really? Cheers! Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

But would the one with the brackets not still be getting hits because it comes up as a suggestion when you type a search? (Also, it was until very recently the main page for this article, and the one with the ellipsis was the one before that). If you start to type "V Empire" into the search box, Wikipedia suggests both the correct current title AND the one with the brackets, so I'd kind of suggest that if the bracketed one is still getting hits, that's the reason. I honestly don't believe a single person looking up this album is typing in the entire title. Which is why I don't think all these redirect pages are necessary. I reckon keep redirects for "Vempire" and "V Empire", and ditch any other variant. Surely the hits that those dead pages get will just be transferred to the others? I raise my hands, I don't know how that stuff works - if traffic is considered a reason to keep them then I guess we keep them. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you editing in my sandbox?

File:The tenor Ernest Pike standing in front of a Sheraton gramophone.jpg

A sandbox is supposed to be a private area for writing new articles and yet you have changed an image size and caption in my sandbox. Please explain what this is about - this is not yet a published article! Richard J Myers (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The image which existed to begin with was deleted due to it's existence on common under a different name. He changed the name of the image so it would exist in your sandbox. In addition see "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding" for the reason he changed the size. Finally, nobody has a monopoly on their own sandbox. Everything on Wikipedia is released, it is common practice to refrain from editing other users' sandboxes, but this was a perfectly reasonable situation. Ryan Vesey 15:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan. So Richard, you would actually have preferred me to leave the page with a red image link such as the one above? And, for the record, I did not change the caption. Incidentally, many would say that because this image is so tall, even the default width makes too large an imge. I have used the upright= parameter to scale this example. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Category: Sport in County Derry

Good morning. I just noticed that yesterday you recreated the deleted category:Sport in County Derry and I was curious as to why? I've just nominated it for deletion again along with the rest of the recently created County Derry catgeories. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 11:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• The category still contains Derry GAA. If that article is recategorised, there will be no problem about deleting the category. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete of Extreme Reality XTR3D page

Hi You have decided to delete my contribution of Extreme Reality page because I did not create a redirect to Extreme Reality XTR3D. It is OK, but why did you delete also the "Extreme Reality XTR3D" page? The reason there were two pages is because I didn't know how to delete the "Extreme Reality" page or create a redirect on it after I created the more updated and correct page which is the "Extreme Reality(XTR3D)" page. Can I get back our page "Extreme Reality (XTR3D)" page or do I need to create a new one? Thank you Osnat Lidor OLIDOR (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• You do not need anything at Extreme Reality (XTR3D) nor at Extreme Reality XTR3D. The article is now at Extreme Reality with a redirect at XTR3D. That is sufficient. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nefertiti

[Transferred to User talk:R.azz.miligi#Nefertiti and replied there.]

Hines Interests Limited Partnership

this article was created more than two years ago, and recently deleted for a blatant copywrite violation. however, someone must have come along added that copywrited material after it was written. 1) wouldn't it have been more prudent to just revert that material? 2) can we go back into the history and restore it before that point? thanks --emerson7 17:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Partially restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• thanks. --emerson7 18:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• one more thng...would it be possilbe to restore the talk page? cheers! --emerson7 19:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

WayneDuncan

Their userpage looks suspicious as the person promotes themselves on their user page but have only edited their userpage and have not edited in 2 years. Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 16:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• On rlection, I agree. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Viewtron speedy deletion tags

You recently removed speedy deletion tags from File:Burdines on Viewtron.jpg and File:Viewtron Bal Harbour Shops map.jpg on the basis that the files are freely licensed. Perhaps you didn't see my rationale (which I mistakenly added to the files' talk pages rather than below the speedy deletion template) explaining how the source's licensing claim is almost certainly spurious. If so, perhaps you could reconsider the speedy deletion proposals. (I've already relisted the files on WP:PUF, but you could always short-circuit the process if you agree that the copyright infringement is clear-cut.) —Psychonaut (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yellowism redux

They are back. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

*** disambiguation issue

I left a response to your move reversion on Talk:***#To move or not, see also the earlier "discussion". No response necessary if you think it's too pointless to discuss. Choor monster (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Even you admit that the novel is obscure which clinches it for me to leave *** as a disambig. Feel free to try again - put a link in the db-move tag to the talk page discussion. I shall stand back and take no action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ntv7

Hi RHaworth, if you have occasion to undo one of my non-admin closures again, I'd appreciate being notified of it. I think you could have just as well tried a new RM in the opposite direction, since silence is the weakest form of consensus. If you thought my close was procedurally invalid, I would have liked to know to avoid similar errors; if you thought it was substantially invalid, I would have happily reopened to allow for further input. I've done that before. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I assumed you were watching the page. I am totally uninterested in procedural validity; I mere though the article title was OK. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. I don't watch pages where I've closed discussion; situations like this rarely come up, and it's much more common an involved editor will contact me on my talk page. But I suppose I can't complain if I'm no longer paying attention, so I'll defer to your judgment here. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Egyptobabble

(For 2 Wiki users) - Pharaoh Name - [ Neb Kheper Ra ]. I'll send this response to you and User_talk:R.azz.miligi. I just looked at the sandbox history you suggested.

The only item of interest to me, was the Hittite reference to the individual pharaoh named Nibhururia (letter sent to him), with the Hittite spelling for the pharaoh of Nibhururia. or Nib hur-r -ria.

Many pharaohs used as one of their 5-names: Neb-Kheper-Ra. I can't speak for the various spellings of the name by the Hittites, (in probably more than one reference), but here, Neb Kheper Ra, is the Egyptian hieroglyphs.

(King created (of the) sun (god))

What is more important-----an individual, a person has to study or know the source material. A translation will not do. After one studies, or learns Egyptian hieroglyphs, a student of (E. hieroglyphs) is forced to learn the 1350-1335 BC Amarna letters, written in the pre-Arabic, Akkadian language, and "Canaanite", (the Akkadian being the lingua franca, the correspondent, official language, for scribes).

Neb-Kheper-Ra means Lord-Transforming-Ra, King-Transforming-Sun. (In cuneiform lord is a different word than King. In the Amarna letters the Pharaoh is referred to as King-Lord-mine, then Gods-mine, Sun-god-mine, etc.) So... Lord/King-Transformed-Sun is something along the lines of: King-Manifested-(of)-Ra, King, Manifested of The SunGod. The later Greeks, the Ptolemies of Egypt used the word "manifest" as the word "epiphany", the thing that "appears", and in hieroglyphs using the walking feet

----, now used (partially incorrectly) in Wikipedia as epiphany (feeling). It is more an Epiphany (ideation), an Idea appearing, arising in the Mind.

I personally do NOT participate in the Big G, God, or small "god", but it was used in Egyptian hieroglyphs, and cuneiform, and is part of HUMAN history. I also don't partake of the religion game of Agosticism, or Atheism. I am more a member of Homo sapiens sapiens, not the more common, Homo sapiens religiosum. And the Common Man, or Common Woman, in all cultures, eventually in thier personal lives, or at times in their lives, leave H. sapiens religiosum, to become H. sapiens sapiens, part of a lot of people, crowds of common people, the "citizens"-(also represented in hieroglyphs, in more than one word; the 2nd script on the Rosetta Stone is the "citizen script" of Demotic Egyptian), the common man. (Thanks Ron; this helps me understand my last 6 months understanding of the H. sapiens religiosum; I now see the part related to the "Common Man")-Cheers to all....Mmcannis (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. But what are your views on R.azz.miligi (talk · contribs)? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The Space Show

IRC, not being able to check The Space Show anymore, I don't think that this article was advertising (the show is networked in America and is run as a charity, so it would be hard to see how it simply being in Wikipedia constituted advertising).

Would it be possible to restore the article and run an AFD instead?

I don't think it was advertising, but it may or may not be notable (although a lot of very high powered engineers and space guys were interviewed on it, so I would suppose it would be notable), but I would think that would be better decided under an AFD.GliderMaven (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• It had survived three years so it does deserve better than speedy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - could you restore the talk page as well? I have the feeling it's going to be kept, due to the sources I'm finding. --Lexein (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• It did not have a talk page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking - I could have done that - doh. --Lexein (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for the recent revert of vandalism at my user page. --Lexein (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The Day Is Brave

The album art actually has all words in lowercase. In that case, we defer to proper punctuation/capitaliziation, don't we? The billboard listing shows it as "The Day Is Brave". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't really care. I will stand back and let another admin decide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

The only reason I stumbled upon it at all was because I was perusing our newest admin (Writ Keeper)'s logs and happened to come across Tosy Toop as one of his first deletions... then I noticed you re-deleted it 10 minutes later (after it was recreated) using the G4 criterion—wouldn't this not be applicable, as the material was not "deleted per a deletion discussion"? I assume the other CSD G12 might have still applied, though...just questioning that particular deletion rationale, as it seems inapplicable in this case. Please correct me if I'm missing something, Theopolisme _Boo! 01:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oh dear, place just one foot a bit wrong and you are picked up on it. The entire content of the article was "Tosy toop is a vietnamese spinning top toy created by Tosy." So I just reached for the del button. Only afterwards did I see the G4 criterion which, I agree, was wrong. G12 was also inappropriate. To be honest, I cannot really fit it to any CSD - not A1 - the context is clear; not really spam. Perhaps just settle for G2 - test page! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Burkina Faso

Hi there and thanks for your question. I was sort of going through a number of similarly-named articles via Eastern Region and at some point in the future would have theoretically got round to the regions you mentioned. As to having a fight with Good Olfactory I don't really relish the idea so I will have to re-examine the guidelines and take it from there. :) Green Giant (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Noted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Plaintext Players

Hello there, after my recent creation of an article about the Plaintext Players and it's subsequent deletion I have taken the time to review all the valid reasons for it's speedy deletion. I now feel much more prepared to start again and create an article that adheres more strictly to the guidelines. I wondered if you'd be able to WP:Userfy the deleted page so I could review it as User:TEB728 suggested I request. OR do you think it would be more worthwhile adding information about the Plaintext Players to the Antoinette LaFarge wiki itself? Looking forward to hearing your advice. SWalton91 (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I suspect you have a COI. My advice is to wait until an established editor thinks the group are notable and writes about them here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response User:RHaworth Having reviewed the COI I wondered what sort of conflict of interest you think I have? As i'm not intending to write promotional material as the group has been defunct as of September 2010 merely seeking to add additional information to their brief mention on the established Antoinette LaFarge article. I know that other theatre and performance undergraduates who study both cyberformance and come across LaFarge would be interested to know more about the Plaintext Players. So I seek your guidance, do you feel I should add some edits to the LaFarge page or create the article within my own sandbox and seek advice from there? Now that i've gathered more sources (secondary rather than primary) I feel my article would have more weight to it's notability and verifiability. Best, SWalton91 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps I have seen it too often, but I automatically assume that someone with a limited edit history on a very narrow range of topics has a COI. You have already created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plaintext Players. Since the rejection reason no longer applies: beef-up that page with proper independent references and change the tag at the top to {{AFC submission|}}. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Don't worry, I completely understand how you could have made that mistake. I'm currently reworking it with more appropriate references and I look forward to hearing your feedback.Plaintext Players SWalton91 (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Jennyjwow97

Hello RHaworth, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Jennyjwow97, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Nothing here that violates WP:UP. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC 2544 - Ethernet performance

Thanks for your revision that result to: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RFC 2544 - Ethernet Performance test.

that was decided to be deleted because: "nambiguous copyright infringement"

I'm not sure to what which copyright you refer as I wrote this text originally, therefore I'm the legal owner of this copyright that I registerred with ISBN 84-609-5042-5 in 2005 (as José Manuel Caballero-Artigas, my complete name)

The RFC 2544 is quite important to check the performance of Ethernet networks. It has been use since mid 90's for devices and after 2000 for telecom networks (WAN mainly) The new standards such as EthernetSAM also known as Y.1564, ITU-T_Y.1564 mention the RFC 2544 but there is no page in Wiki, this is the reason why I think it is important because nowadays absolutelety every single telecom operator in the world uses this RFC.

The article is an explanation about the RFC, that's all. Not very different to the Y.1564 (by the way there is another page very similar that, under my point of view, should be deleted because is the same and is wrongly spelled Y.156sam.

I'm author with several books published at the UK, US, Mex, & Spain about telecoms

• http://www.amazon.com/Triple-Play-Building-converged-Explained/dp/0470753676
• http://www.amazon.com/Installation-Maintenance-SONET-Synchronization-Networks/dp/1580535259
• http://books.google.es/books/about/Redes_de_Banda_Ancha.html?hl=es&id=FI-2sZNIdFUC

Thanks for your time, Jose Manuel Caballero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose Manuel Caballero (talk • contribs) 15:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Jose, the problem was that copy/pasted text was used in the article. That is copyright violation, which we all "copyvio". At this encyclopedia, we either paraphrase or quote, in quotation marks, and we cite individual independent reliable sources which discuss the topic. See WP:42, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:Close paraphrasing. Please consider creating the article in WP:Articles for creation without copy/pasting any text from other sources. --Lexein (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• The article was alleged to be a copyvio of RFC 2544. But this was not the case, the article was about RFC 2544 but it did not seem to be a copyvio of the RFC. However I am unwilling to restore the article because it would be likely to be deleted for a number of other reasons: insufficient independent references, too long, too much original research / how-to guide and some horrible shouted section headings. The subject is probably notable so if you write a proper article, it is likely to be accepted. If you do so, leave a note for Mephistophelian (talk · contribs) who made the copyvio allegation pointing out that your piece is clearly not a copyvio. But before you submit anything new, take the trouble to learn a bit of wiki markup - like wikilinks. See my changes to your message above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

J. T. Mahajan College of Engineering

Sorry, am I missing some fundamental change in the English language here? The {{unrerenced}} template specifically states "This article does not cite any references or sources." The template page states "Don't add this template to articles that contain even one general reference, parenthetical reference, or citation-containing footnote." Since this article now does cite a source, how is the template appropriate? Yet it has now been readded twice, the second time by you. If you are using the template to mean any source except the college's own webpage then you appear to be using it incorrectly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Pedant. Instead of moaning at me, it would have be more constructive for you have done this edit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)