User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2010 June
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:RHaworth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives
Glanfield Hospitalité Trust
Please can you provide me with the text, and I'll make sure it's not direct from the website. I'm a Trustee of the charity, so was still in the middle of editing it. THANK YOU. Matt (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you please give me a more in depth explanation as to why this was a speedy deletion? I placed a hang-on and felt that my reasons were rather solid as to why the A7 rule did not apply here.Tdoyle42 (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have just been talking to #Makaruk. I was interested in the {{hangon}} messages you both left. I have e-mailed you copies. Can you see any difference? But the advice I gave to Makaruk applies to you also: wait until someone with no COI writes about your company. I laughed at your mention of Amazon: every two-bit self-publisher uses Amazon. Publication by Amazon demonstrates nothing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but what is the point of being insulting here? I asked an honest question and expected a respectful answer. I appreciate the information and the advice, but to laugh at someone or their work seems cruel and with no value to any of this. Just because someone isn't paid for their work or presents it via a group like Amazon doesn't mean they have put any less work, effort, or personal depth into it than anyone paid or working through traditional channels. Again, I appreciate the advice, but I'd also appreciate it if it were done with respect in the future.Tdoyle42 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Interrad Medical
You deleted the article I created for Interrad medical because of "(A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)" I thought I had clearly described why Interrad medical and its proprietary technology were important and significant to the medical field. Please consider restoring the article. pefozzy (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- You had made absolutely no attempt to provide evidence of notability from reliable sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
True, but Interrad does not yet have published study data. A presentation was given at the WOCOVA conference on the results of a 50 patient prospective trial by Gail Sansivero, MS, ANP. It seems that requiring published papers to provide notability is a rather high bar. If it would satisfy wikipedia's requirement I could certainly include links to newspaper articles, etc mentioning the company and technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pefozzy (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Who said anything about published papers? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If published papers are not required, what is the bar for inclusion? I've been digging through the wikipedia how-to articles and this one in particular seems to be germaine: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) If you reinstate the article I can add links to reputable, verifiable, third-party sources as described in the guidelines. pefozzy (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Restored to User:Pefozzy/sandbox. Given that: a) you probably have close COI with this company and b) the product is very new; do not expect much joy with getting an article added. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Soundpond
Hey mate, not the original writer but I dont think the soundpond page deserved to be deleted, sure the history section the original author put up looked atrocious and i was in the middle of doing a rewrite of that, but it was deleted due to it not showing its significance, i had just edited the intro to say why this site is unique and also put something up in the discussion section but it still got deleted straight away, if you won't restore it and let a few of us fix it what should we do so that its not speedily deleted when it clearly states its uniqueness? Cheers Justin JTMILLER (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Take your pick from various historical versions at User:Jakeeftw/draftSoundpond and, for goodness sake, start by providing evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Why did you remove parts of the draft from my subpage, it was to my understanding that I could draft on my own subpage Jakeeftw (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was a suggestion of a pretty obvious change that is needed. That is why I used the words "take your pick from various historical versions". If you are not capable of using an edit history, I suggest you should not be editing here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Ghalib's ghazals
Ghalib was a 19th century poet, his works are all over the place and cannot be a copyright violation. Smriti.com has a compilation, so should wikipedia have some. The formatting etc can be improved upon. However to call some language nonsense just because you don't understand the meaning is crass. I guess new editors in Wiki are not supposed to be pounced upon. SP 02:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramanick (talk • contribs)
- New? When was your first edit? I was very surprised to see this since your other contributions are OK. Quite simply, what you posted belongs on the appropriate Wikisource for its language. We already have an article on Mirza Ghalib. Feel free to improve it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
My first edits were mere line insertions and not articles (this I am learning recently and would require help from experts like you). Anyway, have added links to the Smriti site on the article. I still feel all Ghalib's works should find some place in Wiki. There is no copyright issue since I have permission from the authors (on mail) as long as its referenced. SP 10:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramanick (talk • contribs)
- There may be no copyright issue but there are major issues that contributions must be in English and we do not publish source material. Do you understand what I mean by "the appropriate Wikisource for its language"? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No. However before you answer plz consider that Ghalib wrote in Urdu which has an arabic script which I also can't read. Thus these poetries are being written phonetically in English (for people who can't read but understand Hindi/Urdu – their number is sizeable – eg. 'Namaste' is a salutation known to lot of people knowledgable about India/ tourists – although they may not be able to read/write 'Namaste' in Hindi). Thus putting this in either Hindi (didn't find a wikisource hindi) or Urdu Wikisource would be out of context – people won't search there since they can't read the text and wouldn't expect an article in English there. I hope I convey.SP 06:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramanick (talk • contribs)
- Firstly, let me repeat: the text of these ghazals does not belong on Wikipedia; not any language Wikipedia. I note your imprecise wording in this edit: the texts at smriti.com are most definitely not "written in English" . They are transliterations of Urdu into the Roman alphabet which is utterly different.
- I looked at Wikisource to try and find somewhere for you to seek advice. It is difficult to find ones way about and there seems to be absolutely no community discussion of anything going on! As long as the texts are available at smriti.com, why do need to copy them to a Wikimedia project? But if you insist on trying to do so, I suggest you seek advice at one of: Talk:Mirza Ghalib, Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics or Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Also bear in mind that whilst Ghalib's work in Arabic script is clearly public domain, the person who created the transliterations at smriti.com may also have some copyrights. You would need to get a clear statement before you copied them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The latin phonetic method of Shanghainese
[Title width guide.]
Hey. You're comment is absolutely correct but could have had a little less bite. Just a suggestion; please don't be offended. Take it or leave it. OlYellerTalktome 13:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Be specific: which message? But in any case why should one be gentle with blatant self-promoters and spammers? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
CHMM
Page deletion – Certified Hazardous Materials Manager. Hi...I worked to improve the subject page this evening/morning. As you can see, I am new to editing Wikipedia. The CHMM is of interest to me because of my profession. I added content that I believed was relevant and pertinent to the topic. Near the end of my edits, I noticed the "speedy deletion" code/language.
I added the "hangon" code to the page and wrote supporting comments on the page's Talk section as instructed. However, it appears the page has already been deleted. Please re-instate the CHMM page and let me know what language needs to be removed/modified to comply with Wikipedia.
Thanks for your help, Lane Garwood Ugagrad (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your edits were close to vandalism. You showed total contempt for the existing article by doing a complete re-write. You used SHOUTING and put external links in section titles. You used unencyclopedic language: "can benefit your career or your business!". You added lots of stuff irrelevant to the subject – eg. you do not need to define hazardous materials – you just create a link!
- I could send you a copy of your text – read this.
- I have placed a copy of the text in User:Ugagrad/sandbox. The {{Orphan}}, {{Primary sources}} and {{Notability}} tags indicate there is work to be done. Address these matters in the sandbox and let me know. Keep your edits strictly on-topic. If OK I will incorporate them into the article.
- I recommend that you write short articles about AHMP and IHMM and see if they stick. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Please don't BITE
This was obviously a request to be unblocked, and not simple vandalism. You should have corrected it's formatting (or at the very bare minimum put a helpful edit summary with the removal of the request), rather than using rollback. Peter 10:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies. I thought it was an hangon message re the deletion of User:PingYiSS. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I changed the speedy tag I placed to a prod, mainly to give editors a chance to provide refs and notability. Feel free to change it back if you wish. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The creator removed the prod and other maintenance tags, so I just restored the db-spam and others. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Second opinion needed
I deleted SEEM (disambiguation) because we don't actually have any articles titled SEEM. User:Stybn who created the disamb has contacted me, saying that if the page isn't allowed to exist, then where should SEEM redirect to. I was about to reply that we don't have articles called SEEM so no reason for disamb page. But on thinking about it, we have articles called Serially Electrically Erasable Memory and Social Enterprise East Midlands with acronyms SEEM. Second opinions can be helpful (either way), and your advice is sought. Moriori (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Did you really need a second opinion? Seems obvious to me that we create a dab at SEEM. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
AfD
Hi. You AfD'd From Microcosm to Macrocosm. You might want to think of joining Maurice & the Pharaoh , an almost identical article by the same author, to this AfD. andy (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
{subst:adw|Maurice & the Pharaoh}} andy (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Requesting undeletion
In the last day, you deleted Shaw of Rivington Heath Charnock and Anglezarke, which that Rovington had tagged with db-author. As you can see here, Rovington is attempting to revoke the CC license under which he copied this text to Wikipedia, so trying to have it removed is clearly a bad-faith move. Since db-author only permits deletion in good faith situations, would you mind if I undelete this page? Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Given that Rovington is not apparently seeking to earn money from his writing, I find his remarks about "constant and repeated copyright breaches – on advice of lawyers …" pure petulance. The edit history credits the article to Rovington. What more does he need? In any case it is too detailed for Wikipedia. I think it should stay deleted but if you re-instate, I will not interfere – but Rovington will almost certainly do so! I assume you have looked at his talk page, especially this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Curious about that one... why not just speedy it (as a duplicate that it is) instead of adding to the AFD? Just wondering. — Timneu22 · talk 12:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is not a duplicate. In fact it is a longer version than Straight Up (photography). So in case it contained a few clues to help someone rescue it, I sent it to AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
I notice that you tagged the page Child of Eden for speedy deletion with the reason "article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because the page is about an X360/PS3 game; these are not A7-eligible. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, or using the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Orange Caramel recreation
Hello, RHaworth … It looks like Krnboy96 (talk · contribs) has not learned their lesson, an they have recreated Orange Caramel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after you Speedy deleted it a few hours ago … I think that they need a Time Out. :-) See this list of some of their other deleted articles about this Korean girl band. Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) 22:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Done Thnx fer the quick response and WP:SALTing those articles. — 70.21.13.215 (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Your PROD got removed by an anon with no comment. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
He was part of the U-17 England squad who just won the European Championship![1] A quick Google before applying BLPPROD would help. Fences&Windows 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- The prod prodded you into action. If I had not tagged it, the article might have laid unreferenced for ages. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I see where you deleted In Touch Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At first I was a bit annoyed, but upon looking at the deleted revisions, I see it cited no external sources and understand your reasons. In Touch is the ministry of Charles Stanley, the former head of the Southern Baptist Convention. In a 2010 study of the most influential Protestant pastors, Stanley was #2.[2] They are on TV basically everywhere in the country on Sunday mornings. They used to own FamilyNet,[3] before selling it earlier this year.[4] Salon has profiled Stanley and In Touch.[5] I would like to ask your permission to restore it. --B (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Put all your references into the article first. Then I will have no objection to your re-instating it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
How can a user page violate {{db-band}}?
In regard your deletion of User:Unknownman123. It doesn't seem appropriate unless it had been untouched for a while. {{db-author}}, perhaps, but not {{db-band}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was way out of line with what is acceptable on a user page. You can choose what would have been the best deletion reason to use. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I created a page yesterday for Leon Collins and today there is a delete tag from RHaworth because there are no references. Every single bullet citation is referenced!!!!. The information is from his resume. So what is the problem????? --The Stroll (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do the words "external links to reliable sources" suggest anything to you? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Would you be so kind and provide the Wikipedia documentation that states an external link is required to be provided for a reliable reference or footnote?
Thank you --The Stroll (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- True, WP:RS does not insist that references must be links. But your question is irrelevant: which of your references is actually to a reliable, independant, third party source? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you educate yourself, since you are apparently not familiar with US newspapers or magazines or organizations. Every one that is listed is a reliable 3rd pary source. If you don't know any thing about these US sources, then you should not be editing US Wiki pages.
Yodel Australia
Hello RHaworth, I see that you deleted my article on Yodel Australia for reasons of advertising. As I am new to Wikipedia and was unaware of the rules, I want to apologize for that. Since then I have re-written the article, with some help of other Wikipedia users and would like to request you to please review it once again. The article has been written to be unbiased, well-sourced and provide genuine information about Yodel. Currently the updated article is on my user page User:Natkolk/Yodel Australia. Could you please review, and let me know what you think. I am happy to perform the appropriate changes. Thanks Natkolk (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- The hours you have spent would have been better spent on other activities. I suspect you have a COI and am unwilling to offer you any assistance. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean Conflict of Interest? I have tried really hard to write this article correctly and without bias. I have searched the internet and found the necessary sources. I would really really appreciate your help and apologise for any inconvenience caused.. Natkolk (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Are you trying to tell me that you have no connection whatsoever with the company? Pull the other one. Deletion review is available to you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I was indistinct – the page was a work in progress, and I'd noted that on its talk page. Probably should have started work on it in the sandbox but did not. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkendr (talk • contribs)
- I have moved it to User:Dkendr/sandbox. The list of English monarchs already contains details of dynasties. Please explain how your list is going to differ. Please confine your edits to the sandbox until you have obtained consensus at talk:list of English monarchs that there is justification for a second article. Please go to Special:Preferences; click the Editing tab; tick "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" and start to provide edit summaries! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, and thank you for the consideration. I intend to provide a streamlined reference by dynasty, where the existing list of monarchs arranged chronologically contains, in my opinion, too much "meat" if you will to be a simple list -- one with no detail, some organizing, and sortable, which the existing list is not. Dkendr (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Need some advice
RHaworth, Thank you for the advice below. I'm writing to ask if you can look over a page I edited to see if the issue of advertising has been resolved. I have read the Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia section and made several improvements such as adding sections, links, and changing the layout for easier navigation and understandability. I have also tried to write only facts and left opinions out of the article. I would appreciate any suggestions you can offer.
"If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below." 13:12, 16 June 2010 RHaworth (talk | contribs) moved User:Tswelch to User:Tswelch/ManagePro [without redirect] (revert)
Tswelch (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Tswelch
- See this load of waffle. You have not explained why you need Rbrim (talk · contribs) and Scanplan (talk · contribs) accounts. You have declared your COI very clearly. In 2009 I gave you this advice. Was it good advice? Have you followed it? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Chester – "Recommended vs. Required"
Thank you for all your unsolicited help on this. Perhaps discussing my 'waffle' with me before your unilateral actions, would have been at least polite, if not elucidating for both of us. There is no requirement for images to be displayed as thumbnails, and for architectural and art articles it is common for them to be larger. Similarly there is no requirement to remove galleries to the commons (although I agree they are a coat-rack that blight many articles) – you might prefer it that way, I do not. I'm well aware people like to have images on commons – but I'd rather the images I upload are kept here so I can keep an eye on them, unless you know of some way whereby a commons watchlist can be added to my own here at WP?
What I was trying to do here was to stretch the medium a little – when it's complete, the idea was to have an encyclopaedic photographic survey of a building to complement the main article. I'm aware that's something new, and in due course I was expecting to offer the page to the community for a consensus view of whether it's the type of article they might want at WP. The hat note was supposed to encourage discussion with me, to give me a little time to get a reasonable working version finished to aid that discussion. I shall however, bow to your better judgement and complete the thing in user space. Perhaps I might ask you though, to fix the links, should it ever gain consensus? Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
PS. No Man's Heath, Cheshire should be at the redirect location of Nomansheath, Cheshire – needs an admin to delete the redirect and then move the article to preserve the history. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- First we seek a consensus at talk:No Man's Heath, Cheshire. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK – I'll pop down and photograph the road sign – there is a vast confusion at CW&C about the name and there probably isn't a 'true' spelling, so it's not a huge deal. If you are about, would you mind giving me a hand with my admin help request on my talk? thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Alexandra Jicol
I am requesting a restoration of this article you recently deleted to my sandbox or something so I can tidy it up & more importantly add reliable sources as requested. Thanks in advance. --Jsmithson22 (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi RHaworth. I came across this deletion of yours as I was looking at 92.4.10.127 (talk · contribs), who was making a number of mistakes with speedy-deletion tags. Would you be willing to restore? Many admins, in my experience, believe that having a biography at Allmusic is enough of an assertion of significance to escape a speedy. Furthermore, this group has released multiple albums on Om Records, so it might well meet WP:BAND criterion #5. I'd be happy to add some more sources, including citations to The Times, the Edinburgh Evening News, and Now. Thanks, Paul ErikPaul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Restored. Not so much for the Allmusic link but because the article had survived four years. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Tom Moeskops
Hi. We would like to see the Tom Moeskops page undeleted. We are gathering additional input, but want to have basics up. Check Rayo Salahadin Withanage for example as reference, or google 'bmb moeskops' or alliance moeskops. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subliminal98 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Putting "the basics up" is wiki suicide – always wait until you have a sound well referenced article. There was absolutely no attempt made even to show that the guy exists let alone that he is notable. I can e-mail you the deleted text – read this – and you can then raise the matter at deletion review. (Don't tell me to Google anything – provide a proper link to the appropriate Google search like this.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for feedback on Tom Moeskops. I find weak reasons to NOT include this person in the encyclopedia. Both to business and community perspective, this self made man is able to create added value where large groups benefit. Your reference can only be the www, I understand, but there is no mass published data with his name string, beause of political importance (which not influence Tom Moeskops, but the politicians). Maybe you can understand why some fortune/Quote 500 members do not want their names linked to e.g. unicef and International Secondary School Eindhoven etc.etc. Please reconsider and/or let me know how to reach all requirements. Thank you. John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subliminal98 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, I do not understand why people should not want their names linked. Obviously, addition of more specific references is what we need. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I tried to imagine your job, but cannot. Same is that you cannot imagine any further. This matter is not about how many records in the white pages, but about real things in life, such as affordable housing, alternative engergy and financial fundaments. Subliminal98 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Subliminal98 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Re: Withanage, what do you think about turning that bio into a page on BMB Group Ltd instead? A page on it was speedied as spam in 2008, but I think there might be enough coverage to put together an article. Could then smerge in Moeskops. Fences&Windows 19:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Child of Eden
Hi. There seems to be consensus on the articles for deletion page. May I be bold and remove the consideration for deletion tag from the article? Squogfloogle (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Makaruk
You have deleted the article Makaruk for A7. Can you please justify the presence of other articles about bands or artists (real persons) present in Wikipedia documenting their work and sometimes subjective contribution to culture? Emade, Tede, L PRO and Basia. — Makarukdariusz (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Stop trying to promote your own band. Have the decency to wait until someone with no COI writes about it. Other stuff exists is never a valid argument. Basia seems well referenced but the other three would probably all qualify for speedy deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Horner Sports Flooring
You have deleted the article Horner Sports Flooring for not having significance or importance. In our area, this is one of the few businesses to provide a national product. The original poster included a history of the company, and tried to upload some original photos that she took of the place. It is obviously not an advertisement, as they sell sports floors to National Basketball Association teams, which does not require them to advertise.
I believe that you deleted this without a personal understanding of the importance of this company to our (admittedly) small area of the world. I would request that you reinstate the page and allow the uploads of the pictures. Since our area is rich in recorded history of the copper mining industry, I believe it would be useful to researchers who are looking for information on our concurrent timber trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwdragon (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Unlike the last two people to whom I have been talking, you are clearly not an SPA. In your case I suggest: go to User:Aareende/Horner Sports Flooring and add the links to independant, reliable sources. It was their absence which caused me to zap the article. Then raise the matter at deletion review. Nothing is preventing you uploading images. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey. I'm afraid I have to disagree with your deletion of said article. Before I launch into a defence of it though, can I just check you were looking at the most recent version of it? There was about a five minute period between the last edit and your deletion of it, which seems unusually short for a {{hangon}} - which makes me think you were looking at the pre-hangon version. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I was looking at the most recent version. Every restaurant gets newspaper reviews. Does Wikipedia actually accept that one Michelin star is evidence of notability? Wikipedia is not a travel/leisure guide? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that not every restaurant even comes close to meeting our notability requirements. Times/Telegraph/Guardian reviews and Michelin stars are not easy to come across; consequently they ought to contribute to the notability requirements – unless restaurants are somehow different from other entities. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, to clarify, I understand your NOT reference, but if we say "no restaurants", we really ought to have some sort of discussion before deleting any more. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Restaurants are a clearly defined class for which we should have defined notability criteria. Do we have such? If not, why don't you start them? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- The last attempt got shot down in flames in a reasonably expedient fashion. In starting again, I would want to know that the default (the GNG) is not accepted for restaurants because of Wikipedia's need to not be a directory (etc). I'd be happy to follow that up somewhere – perhaps restore and AFD. I thought this article in particular would be a good test case. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
List of phoenix clubs
I understand why you may have deleted list of phoenix clubs, but why semi-protect it from creation again? A better version could easily be put through Deletion Review, which I wasn't aware of when I recreated the page. The deletion discussion for List of Revival clubs says Phoenix clubs is a well used term as it was sourced with 2 separate sources. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was not semi-protect, it was full protect and was done because of flagrant defiance of an AfD decision. But why does it matter? You have your userfied draft, take it to deletion review. If the review says re-instate, then then unprotect is uncontroversial. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
modo (software)
I see this article was deleted. I am requesting the text from you as I want to re-build it. Thank you. (Bbennett27 (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC))
- Re-instated. The speedy tag had been applied by an IP address. I am surprised the article is still in such a poor state after five years. But since it has survived that long, it deserves an AfD if it is to be deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Jamali Fine Art
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jamali Fine Art For the two Wikipedia pages that I am entering, the author Donald Kuspit is a notable art critic, writer, and contemporary art historian who has written two published texts on the artist, Jamali. Kuspit's major essays, on Jamali's contribution to contemporary art history, mystical expressionism, have been published in several editions by Rizzoli international publications inc. For your information Rizzoli is the most significant publisher having on his list major museums all over the world and also being known to publish only the most important artists of all time. Mark Strand, who is a contributer to Jamali's art history is also is on Wikipedia along with Rizzoli international publications. Philip Bishop is a contributer to Jamali's Art History is published by Prentice Hall has published "Adventures In The Human Spirit" prescribed in schools all over America. Also, the artist has been creating art professionally for the past 40 years. Also, can I share with you in the last 100 years some of the most note worthy art movements in western art history have been French impressionism, abstractionism, German expressionism, american abstract expressionism. Mystical Expressionism which is Jammli's contribution to art history, is the latest in this history. As such, I hope you can appreciate the note-worthiness it its lineage; again for your information please know that is is indeed the writers and important publishers who make the final decision of what is art history. Please share your thoughts on my comments and please let me know if there is anything else I can help you understand Jamali's historical relevancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTHISTORIAN2010 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Proposed deletion
No offense intended here, but did you read Church of Christ (Assured Way) before you proposed it for deletion for "no evidence of notability"? If so, would you please inform me precisely what comprises a "lack of notability" with regard to this article? I've been editing on this encyclopedia for about three years now, and have created more than one article before this one, and I'd be really interested in knowing. Thank you. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Where are the independant, third party references? Evidence that it is registered is not evidence of notability. How many members does the church have? References to "some other idiot" are not exactly civil are they? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, they are not, and I apologize to you for that. Please feel free to delete the article; I have too much stress in my life right now to worry with this nonsense anymore. There ARE no "independent, third party references" available on this sect as of yet, but I went there in person, interviewed two of their apostles, and photographed their headquarters. Oh, wait; I forgot: that's "original research". No problem. The "notability" issue was addressed (I still believe more than adequately) on their talk page. Oh, wait, they're too small, or too new, to be "notable". I guess being a distinct, separate religious denomination is NOT "notable" enough. It really doesn't matter to me anymore. I just buried two of my very best friends, and I've decided to begin reducing stress, starting with my involvement in this encyclopedia. Nothing personal, and I do sincerely apologize for the personal slur, which was uncalled for. You're doing a job--I don't have to like it, but it's your job to do, and I respect you for it. I hope there are no hard feelings, and I wish you all the best. - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Why was my page deleted?
I am new here and I am not sure how this all works. The page still shows on my contributions page as waiting on review. But when I did a google on the title, it shows deleted. I am not even sure if this is how I should be asking for help.
Can you help? You are the admin listed. Below is the article submitted. I had another admin move it earlier because they thought it should be in another section. To be honest I am just confused at this point. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kevin B. McDonald Inducted into Martial Arts Masters' Hall of Fame Thanks. McDonald Fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by McDonaldfan (talk • contribs) 22:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Never mind..it looks like it is still in for review. I am confused about the deletion, but I am assuming that it is because the location changed and it was done for clean up. In the interest of my not asking questions in the futures, can you tell me if my assumption is correct? (McDonaldfan (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC))
- For goodness sake! Don't use Google – the mediawiki software has ample tools. Look at the revision history – do you see moves listed? Look at the deletion log – all I deleted was a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Jackdaw with Crowbar
I have removed the proposed deletion template from Jackdaw with Crowbar. Please see my discussion at the talk page. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Speech and Debate Tournament Champions
FYI, your PROD of List of National Speech and Debate Tournament Champions was contested at WP:REFUND. If desired, you may wish to take it to AFD. (I am half thinking about doing it myself. The only redeeming value of it here is that it stops the endless edit wars of people wanting to list the latest champs in the main article itself.) --B (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The article Rhythmic art has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- A search for references did not find support for this article as written. The two words "Rhythmic" and "art" are often used together but usually in the context of music or physical activity (marital arts,etc). No significant coverage of Rhythmic art as style of art was found in Reliable sources. This article is substantially the work of a single author who made no other contributions to Wikipedia. Fails WP:V, WP:N
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Image
You rightly deleted Daniel Paul Morris, but the page had an image on it that should also be nominated for deletion. How can I find that image? (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 13:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is already nominated – see commons:File:Daniel Flamed 3.jpg. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Cool. What's the best way to get my username to work universally on all these projects? I forget where to get that info. — Timneu22 · talk 13:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Surely it is now automatic as long as you tick "remember me" when you log in. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm confusing things. When I go to commons, I have to create a login. I thought there was a way to use my Wikipedia login? My credentials from here don't work at Commons. Isn't there a way to do that? — Timneu22 · talk 14:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Try meta:Help:Unified login. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I needed. Thanks alot! — Timneu22 · talk 14:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Cariris
Hi, Your recent delete and hist merge of Cariris has left the page redirecting to itself. What is the best way to fix it? Astronaut (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- By editing the article! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, seems I was a little too hasty in leaving the message here. Astronaut (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of user:Natejp24/Bartab
Hey! You deleted my page? It's not even publicly viewable. I was working with other admins to rewrite it. Natejp24 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was fully publicly viewable. You re-instated the speedy tag that C.Fred had deleted, so I assumed you wanted it deleted. In any case you probably have a COI so my best advice is find a "sponsor". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Natural User Interface / Controller-Free Motion Control
Natural User Interface was a term introduced to me by Wikipedia today. I know about motion control gaming (controller free, specifically), and as it's all relatively new, different people are using different terms, but generally some combination of motion-control and controller-free (as the controller-free distinction is important to delineate a departure from Nintendo Wii and the new Sony Playstation Move).
In any case – another Wikipedia contributor immediately suggested my article "Controller-Free Motion Control" for deletion, and so in my haste I found an article on Natural User Interface and tried to associate the two as a means to appeal to that user that this term too belonged here. As it turns out you have gone ahead and redirected the term completely to NUI.
Natural User Interface appears to be exclusively used by Microsoft in describing their new Kinect system (I have found no mention of it anywhere unassociated with Microsoft and never heard of it in any of the big E3 announcements made recently by several video game companies breaking new ground in the area). Natural User Interface is also marked as trademarked by Nuiteq – and so cannot possibly be the term to describe other technologies not under the control of Nuiteq. It's for this reason I've deleted the redirect.
I'm new to all this, but it seems some people, yourself included, are very quick to "correct' other people's work. When these "corrections" are incorrect, it sure makes for more work for those of us that are trying to build a knowledge base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Znarky (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Znarky (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for moving this. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Star Camp deleted?
Could you please help me? Why did you delete Star Camp page as it's a big event in Germany? It was also co-created by huge German Pop singer..and there are many American Camps, so why not a page about a German? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Tames (talk • contribs) 00:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely no attempt made to demonstrate notability by means of links to reliable sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palaeoarchaeology, as the article has changed considerably. Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 10:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Haha
Looks like the editor of this page addressed the page creation to you! — Timneu22 · talk 12:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
On another note.... Hey, on WT:CSD, you said we shouldn't userfy a foreign language article because it may be an attack or copyvio. I'm confused as to what you're saying... in that case, we shouldn't leave the article in the main namespace either, should we? (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 20:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Did I say anything about leaving it in the (article) space? For me the preferred choices is delete. Sorry, I threw my remark in without reading the entire thread. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- The whole thread is difficult to read. I also agree that things should be deleted. I may go reorder the thread or otherwise strike up the conversation again. — Timneu22 · talk 20:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
BasicATOM
I'm not sure I understand your quick delete of the page? We edited per your suggestion and were getting ready to add new relevant data? The BasicATOM page is linked by several other page. The page was about a processor that has been around since 1998 and is well accepted in the robotics community as the defacto standard for inverse kinematics.
I would of thought that several other pages linked to the BasicATOM page it would have relevances? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.45.50.237 (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please log in before talking to me. The subject received a reasonably clear delete decision in December. Yes there are incoming links but they are little more than "see also"s. Given the AfD decision, I was amused at the edit summary "creating new page with correct content for the subject" – surely providing references to reliable sources would have been highly desirable "correct content"? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm logged in now. So what do we need to do? Yes its a commercial product but so is a Basic Stamp, PICAxe and Arduino which all have simliar pages. As to referrences material what do you need? If I understand it correctly a simple example would be a youtube video of a robot called A-POD. It has over 800,000 views and was made using the BasicATOM See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jyBiECoS3Q . Then there is this video using the same processor with 27,000 views. If you go to google.com and type in "led display" its one of the main videos google cites. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nILHGU1qJzY
If these aren't relevant then help me to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicmicro (talk • contribs) 21:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Also the pages that do link. How does the "See Also" get generated? If this is user based, why would someone link to something irrelevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicmicro (talk • contribs) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Writing "if you Google …" is sheer idleness – read this. No, youtube videos are not reliable sources! My point about the two incoming links was that neither page says very much about your product. But feel free to create a new draft in user:Basicmicro/sandbox and raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I don't understand what you mean by referrence. When I see what Basic Stamp or PICaxe has for refference or links, its not much more if any? Do I need a link to some websites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicmicro (talk • contribs) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Taguzgalpa
I've removed the deletion for now, and explained this in the article's talk page. Please get back to me there or on my talk page if you want to discuss it further. I plan to expand a bit more on it, but perhaps not in the next seven days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepsie (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- If you ain't going to fix it quickly, it would be better userfied. I have moved it to User:Beepsie/Taguzgalpa. Your first task is to provide links to on-line RSs. Incidentally, please learn about redirects – you posted the same text to three different spellings. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. Since when are on-line RS's the ones we need. I gave a printed, published university press source, which strikes me as reliable as any on line source. Certainly this stipulation (an on line source) is not in the RS page, indeed just the opposite, the idea of a published source is what is critical.
I can add some more paragraphs and references, but they will also be from printed, published sources, mostly scholarly articles and university press sources in Spanish and English. Can you look at the revised product and sign off on it's retention for me. Sorry about the other spellings, I was deciding which one to use, and entered one in error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepsie (talk • contribs) 12:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have modified the article and included several new references including on-line ones. Please let me know if you are convinced that this place existed, and that it is not simply another name for Tegucigalpa. Beepsie (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Mizraab
You deleted Mizraab page. I want to start it again?? It was a band page and it was recently deleted. I have checked with the website www.mizraabianz.com and there is no copyright of any kind there. They have given permission to freely use the text anywhere. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by RamEEz (talk • contribs) 23:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I call it an insult to Wikipedia to copy&paste from another website. If you are not prepared to write a proper article in WIkipedia style, then don't bother, The page it is copied from says " © All Rights Reserved 2003 – 2010" at the bottom. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hey, can someone get my back?
I was just attacked on this AFD, basically being accused of liberal bias sockpuppetry. All I did was patrol a new article. This attack was unwarranted. — Timneu22 · talk 14:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)