User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2011 Mar 06
 | 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
Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs
[Title width guide]
++++ delete above here if no further edits - already in archive. If further edits, move below here.
Tonny Rutakirwa
I create a page titled Tonny Rutakirwa and I found it deleted in speedy deletion.Since I'm new I make accidently by placing spam tag on my own article.I try to delete the tag and finally found the article was deleted. It was my mistake and I hope the page will be undeleted as soon as possible.FIRELORD767 (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, you did not place the spam tag yourself. It was written in a spammy tone and is probably an autobio. Please do not shout. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I have restored this article as you deleted it under G12 and we had previously confirmed OTRS permission for the text. I have no opinion on the notability of this company as I have not checked the references. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Flux Pavilion
Why did you delete the Flux Pavilion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.8.7.21 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't it say he deleted it because it was an "article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't talk to IP addresses so be grateful that the Demiurge has answered for me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Medline Industries
Why did you delete the User:Nalytics/Medline Industries page? I was under the impression that this is a sandbox area that I can use as I please. Nalytics (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, we don't understand why you deleted our race driver's page, this guy is a star in Spanish and Turkish racing and is really famous now. He races together with Emilio de Villota, whose page IS in Wikipedia, and we are surprised by your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.146.147 (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Sorry forgot to log in the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The7studios (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- International marketing agencies are not welcome as Wikipedia contributors. When Isaac becomes notable in the English-speaking world, you may be confident that someone with no COI will write about him here. de Villota has been racing since before Isaac was born - is that a possible difference? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Pete Carr deletion
I noticed that you deleted the Pete Carr page. I do have documentation of permission to use the materials, but am not certain how to get those to you. Should the owner of the rights to the materials email those directly to you or to Wikipedia? If you approve, then could I please have access to the original material? Thanks CAPSHKC 19:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charprice102 (talk • contribs)
- Please read this. In your case, the insult was not too great. You had done quite a lot to create a proper article but it still had too many peacock terms and seemed overly long. So a re-write for Wikipedia would be better. If you reproduce anything from your website, at the bottom of http://www.alamhof.org/petecarr.html reproduce the Creative Commons licence as in "text is available …" at the bottom of this page. Make sure that you point to that licence in the Wikipedia article's talk page and by way of HTML comments within the text of the article. See also donating copyrighted materials. Text e-mailed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppet cat
Regarding this category, I know you successfully got the software changed, but I'm wondering if it's actually been implemented yet as to safely delete this without search result repercussions. VegaDark (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh dear! 404 Not Found is now being returned for never exist pages in the Category namespace. But a deleted page, eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Brendan_Heron is still returning 200 OK without even any meta name="robots" tag. I will let you raise the matter at WP:VPT but let me know and I will lend support. Use Web Sniffer to check for yourself.
- Complications! I had to use a naked URI above because Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Brendan Heron encodes as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Brendan_Heron&action=edit&redlink=1 and that URI behaves differently depending on whether you are logged in or not. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Definitely not fixed. Here are two Google caches, both refreshed within the last few days: Southside and Zlarin. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- (Note to self. I have just spent half an hour tracing the previous: this page Jan 12, VPT and User talk:VegaDark.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've started a thread here. You clearly understand the issue a lot better than I do so any further explanation anyone requires would probably best come from you. VegaDark (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Temp. userfy?
Hello, I guess I created an article called Blue Links a while back (or so says a note on my talk page) and you speedied it yesterday. I've a very vague recollection of doing so, but would appreciate being able to see it (and it's history) for a bit so I can understand what exactly was going on and if I wanted to contest it. I _think_ it was part of a discussion/joke but that I thought the topic was notable. But I also think it was years ago and my judgment may have been pretty poor (if it was deleted as a hoax I'm pretty sure it must have been poor). In any case I'd like to see it. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Restored - redirects are cheap. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I don't think it was outrageous. Hobit (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Possible Copyvio
Can you please check this photo that you deleted File:Fugazi denver 2001.JPG against this new photo uploaded by the same user. Both photos use the same caption and uploaded by the same user. If that comes out clean can you please post the link to the photo's source for me. Cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 15:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:Fugazi denver 2001.JPG was a copy of http://www.cornelia-k.com/pics/images/Fugazi_denver/1.jpg . File:Fugazi live.jpg is http://www.cornelia-k.com/pics/images/Fugazi_denver/6.jpg . Both images can be found via this page - links 1 & 6 respectively. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I though so. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Gonabit page
Just saw your response. Honestly I don't work for this company so I can barely be bothered to argue with you but it's the principal now and I am trying to get started writing about Dubai/UAE articles so the data is finally acurate here. If you will please read through my article one more time: The reason the word "our" comes up is because I referenced text from the company's website...which is properly referenced at the bottom of the article. I am not a member of this company and so it cannot sound like advertising. To be even more acurate I referenced the structure and wording of the sister company's wiki page.... Please tell me what to change to get my 1st ad live on wikipedia. Thanks mate. — D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewskimillmills (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually pull your finger out and make the piece read like a Wikipedia article. Also make it look like a Wikipedia article - you had made no attempt at proper wiki markup, etc. Then re-submit via AfC. What does "ad" mean in your last sentence? Is this actually an admission that it is an advert? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
NPP
Hi RHaworth. You do a lot on NPP. I was wondering if you could take a look at this technical problem we're having and if you have a suggestion, please join the discussion. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- I do my NPP via an RSS feed. I very rarely look at NPP itself. I got a shock today to see that, for a few minutes, CAT:CSD contained just two items! So it is possible that NPP is getting some keen patrollers as well.
Joy510
I notice that you deleted Joy510 two days ago. It's back. Not knowing if it's improved its notability, I thought I might just throw it to you for a look. Cheers. Acabashi (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You recommended this article for speedy deletion based the fact that it "does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject".
The notability requirements for the messiah article were achieved by the discography. Having legitimately released albums is a good way to distinguish from no-name garage bands. Surely there isn't a requirement for all music-related articles to be on easily recognizable or popular artists. Would it have helped if I indicated the albums were released by major publishers? I know there wasn't a lot of detail, but is this not the point of the stub tag?
In any case, it was a speedy deletion, and I didn't notice it on time, so now the article is deleted. Thus I do not have the article's talk page as a forum to argue any of this. Please advise on the appropriate channel to un-delete the article. Thanks. expensivehat (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi RHaworth. User:Expensivehat contacted me off-wiki and said his article met notability requirements and that he would document them. I have undeleted on his behalf. -lethe talk + 04:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Sam Botta
I see you protected Sam Botta after multiple recreation. Thought you might like to check out Sam botta as it appears to be identical. Thanks LordVetinari (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
And now we have Botta Sam. How long before he tries Botta sam, Samuel botta etc? LordVetinari (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- No attempt made to change it into a Wikipedia article is one of my grounds for deletion. Botta sam salted in anticipation! www.imdb.com/name/nm2835841 also looks as though he wrote it himself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The PSFS, as clearly stated in the article, is one of the oldest such organizations in the United States if not the world; it was not an appropriate subject for an A7 nomination.
It has been suggested in a recent article in File 770 that you and RadioFan are part of some kind of vendetta against science-fiction-fandom-related articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)--Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Any article that is totally lacking independent references is a candidate for some form of deletion. Do I have to use AfD to get those references added? I have commented at file770.com - like a politician, I would rather be called a jackass than be ignored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- You would do yourself, as a self-styled "ambassador from Wikipedia", a lot better if you stopped causing AfDs on articles the topics of which you clearly are ignorant. Nobody who is knowledgeable about science fiction fandom is AfDing the topics you favor, which are so far as I can tell unknown in the United States, simply because we don't know about them -- you would be a more diplomatic "ambassador" if you gave the same courtesy to others. Or you might consider asking another admin who is familiar with these topics of which you're ignorant rather than just deleting the hard work of others out of that ignorance. -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think here is perhaps the problem in one phrase: big-frog-in-small-pond syndrome. -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Kindly place your comments properly instead of breaking up mine. I do not need to know anything about the subject to nominate an article for deletion. It is the job of an article to establish the notability of its subject. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Queplix
Hi RHaworth, just wanted to ask you for a favor regarding the reasons for AfD for my article Queplix. I work for a large company in NY city and we use that software from this company. I am in IT department and dozens people keep asking me about the information on that software. So I decided to create a wiki article. I see all other companies we use, which have Articles. After the article was removed I noticed that it has been there since 2006 and then someone removed it... Not sure what is going on. Would be nice if i can point my colleagues to Queplix. Is there a specific reason you deleted it without giving anybody a chance to edit the article? The current reason "was not notable", but it is notable to thousands of people at my company. Also, I was trying not to be blatant and just have some facts about the word we use every day... As far as I know that company has many users as I personally attended their user conferences in several countries in Europe and US.. Sincerely Lanie S Lanie318 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- By "reasons for AfD", I assume you mean reasons for deletion. "Dozens of people" - "thousands of people at my company" - really? You can still point them to the Queplix website! I deleted it for a shortage of independent references. It is only now that I see that it did actually have this AfD discussion in 2006. It seems to be a very specialised software suite of little interest to people other than a few of its users. (If it works, most users will be scarcely aware of its existence - they are only interested in the data it throws at them!) Your contributions history does not suggest to me that you are a person with a general interest in software and I have to consider that you may in fact be someone from Queplix. To be re-instated, the article will need deletion review and it will greatly help your case if you follow this advice and find a "sponsor". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. With all due respect - I don't work for that company, but I am one of their customers. Being in HR department we have thousands of people using their software now, indeed. I wouldn't pursue it any longer as its not in my primary interest and I respect your opinion, but something's just odd here. Anyways, if you would be willing to reinstate the article I will provide external references, as I have many over the years I've been their customer. The advise you sent me calls for me to discuss the request for reinstatement with admin first, so I decided to give it one more chance. 173.200.182.194 (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- No. My advice says that you have discussed it with this admin already, there is no need to come back to me, I am not going to change my mind. Please always log-in before editing. I can let you see the appalling spammy previous text if you set up an e-mail address. If you want to proceed: create a draft in user:Lanie318/sandbox with decent references, preferably follow my advice re a "sponsor" and raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Cisavectorflatlines.tiff
Would you consider undeleting this file and marking it as {{subst:npd}} instead? It looks like it might be the president of the association that uploaded the file - or like it might be {{PD-ineligible}}. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- The file was a ridiculous 3,915,218 bytes in size and at 1,309×638 pixels was too big for a fair use logo. The image was the same as File:Cisavectorflatlines.jpg so why do we need it? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Alright. I guess undeleting and putting it through FFD would be process for process' sake. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Cakeboy
- re: 18:11, 27 February 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Mattgallop/Cakeboy" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
I bet you get a lot of these. You recently deleted my article on a music artist within hours of me starting it in my user space. It was by no means finished, had not had discography or citations added, awards etc. You seem to have forgotten the advice given in the "starting an article" section: "Another option if you plan to take time to construct a page is to start creating the new article in a subpage of your user page. This allows you to take as long as you need to complete a presentable article. When you feel it is good enough to not be deleted, you can then move it to the main article space."
Could you please re-instate this article and allow me to finish it? Thank you. PS. I do know what a watch list is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattgallop (talk • contribs) 08:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- You have caught me in a gentle mood! I have re-instated the article. Obviously you must provide evidence of notability and completely re-write the text but you are allowed a couple of days to do that. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
AfD of Psyche 8:34 (play)
Hi. You prodded Psyche 8:34 (play). It was contested, but it seems to me anyway that it's part of either a hoax or at the very least an attempt to big up a totally nn person (so nn he's in stealth mode) with a series of unreferenced articles, so I AFD'd it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Hershaw. andy (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Icelantic
Would you mind explaining the reasons behind deleting the Icelantic Skis" page as of Feb. 25? As far as I can tell, there were no quality problems or issues with it. Also, the page is very similar to other pages on Wikipedia in terms of content. So, please explain a bit more in-depth as to why it was deleted. - AnnaDreiling — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaDreiling (talk • contribs) 19:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- This found its way onto my page (Deepseediver)
- The article existed on three different titles and you have quoted none of them! The article which landed up at Icelantic was written in spammy tone - "you" used about six times for example - and contained just one independent reference which mentioned the company only in passing. If a) you have no COI and b) you can create a userspace draft with decent references, then you may raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Applause Publications LTD (London, U.K.)
In reference to this speedy deleted page: Applause Publications LTD (London, U.K.)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
This is the first time I attempted to author a Wikpedia page, so I apologize for not yet knowing all the ins and outs and adhering to proper protocol. On that topic, please let me know if my signature is not executed as requested. I have enabled my email address for anyone who wishes to write to me about this page and the issues I raise. The only detail in this page that I was not completely sure of was the exact year of the publication's demise. I do know that it was sometime in the mid 1990s and was hoping that someone else would eventually offer that detail; perhaps the editor and publisher, Martin Hedges. As stated on the talk page I created in defense of the Applause Wikipedia page, this was one of two major music industry trade publications. There were regular news articles about law suits between promoters and artists for cancelled shows, new venues opening, touring logistics, procedural disputes between U.S. industry practices versus those in Europe, features on major concert promoters around the world, etc. Applause never promoted itself to the general public when it was in existence. It was not even available at the newsstand. It was a magazine about the inside workings of the music industry made for those insiders of the music industry. So how could it or anyone associated with it be accused of self promotion to have a simple Wikipedia page? For some reason, no one has deleted Pollstar's Wikipedia page found here. Pollstar is also an industry-specific publication with the same blueprint as Applause. With that established, why is Pollstar allowed to exist as a matter of fact while its former rival on the other side of the pond is not? What is the basis for claims of "advertising," "self promotion," etc and how can such subjective intentions be vetted by Wikipedia? Couldn't we argue that any person or group of persons mentioned on Wikipedia are indeed enjoying their free publicity? Wikipedia is not a traditional dictionary, after all. It's much more than that. If thousands of writers of periodicals can and do have their own Wikipedia pages, then why can't the publisher/employer of that writer have a Wikipedia page? It seems to me (and please correct me if I am wrong), that shameless self promotion IS what Wikipedia serves, at least in part. For instance, why are there actors and musicians featured on Wikipedia who no doubt have plenty of other references to them on the internet? These are people who hire the services of professional publicists, after all. If the actor him/herself does not author a Wikipedia page, then isn't it exactly the same as if that person's fan club authors it? Isn't it all a conspiritorial alignment of self interest somewhere deep down? I hope that you and others more closely working on behalf of Wikipedia can offer some hard evidence for what appears to many as arbitrary, baseless decisions. Thanks for your help!
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepseediver (talk • contribs)
- Re your comment on the Icelantic message above: which, pray is your page? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Re Applause: do you seriously expect an article devoid of external links to survive? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello RHaworth: NO, the Icelantic page was put in my Applause talk here by someone else. I simply cut and pasted it into the Icelantic talk page. Sorry if I overstepped my authority. On the topic of not having external links: what kind of links would be required for a magazine that existed prior to the internet age? Also, I thought I signed my name. I will keep reading up on all the procedures. Thanks for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepseediver (talk • contribs) 20:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello again RHaworth: Still trying to understand the signature procedure as to exactly what I personally should type into the signature box. About the Applause page, I have looked online for links/references but can not yet find any. This doesn't surprise me as there was no internet back then. Hence, even more reason that this international magazine should have a presence on Wikipedia... I personally have 13 copies from 1990 until 1992. I'm willing to scan the covers and submit to Wikipedia somehow as evidence of the existence of the magazine. Please advise. Deepseediver 20:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was mainly your use of the phrase "my page" that I automatically reacted to - read this! The correct phrase was "my message" One problem was that your utterly unnecessary use of <p> had caused AnnaDreiling's comment to attach itself closely to your comment - see this state - a quirk of wiki markup that I have never seen before. No, you did not overstep your authority - indeed you could have done the tidying up job properly! Re your signature: you are the second person I have encountered recently who is having difficulty (this is the first one). You type ~~~~, ie. you hit the ~ (tilde) key four times. Why is that difficult? Try it and click "show preview"!
- Like many people, you confuse the internet (started 1960s) with the web (started circa 1993). I agree that Applause is a bit to early for extensive mention on the web. But I suggest that lack of references confirms that it was of little interest outside the music industry and that since it its demise it has been forgotten. (And it is a difficult subject to Google for - but keep hunting there must be at least one ref somewhere.) Scanned covers would be a copyright violation but putting them on your own website would be a start. (Strictly speaking linking from Wikipedia to a known copyright violation is also forbidden but it would be worth trying.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- References don't have to be on the internet. A citation to a published work is just fine, so long as it's a reliable source. It worries me when we risk giving newcomers the idea that only internet links are suitable as references. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks also to Demiurge for your helpful comment regarding external links and citations to published work. I will look into it. How do you suggest I provide Wikipedia with a citation to a published work? I understand the situation your administrators are in trying to decipher fact from fiction. Many thanks! Deepseediver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepseediver (talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- How do you provide a citation? You do just that! Provide a citation! See WP:CITE! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Well. there is no longer an Applause Wikipedia page for me to add citations to, and Wikipedia has copyright restrictions for images of work that would normally fall under the U.S.A.'s "fair use" laws for educational purposes. That's what I was referring to. Applause was a magazine; not a book. There is no ISBN number, no VAT or registration number I can yet locate, nor anything else that would hold up in a court of law other than the publications themselves and eyewitness accounts. As you know, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia and am sometimes a little slow to identify the hoops I'm supposed to jump through (even when some of them are, indeed, right under my nose). Once again, I am sorry I didn't get my ducks in a row first before opening an account and contributing. But I'm getting there. I have 13 Applause covers scanned into PDF form. I'm trying to merge them into one document right now. I will try to provide a link to these images today in this talk box. I will also try to scan an entire issue of Applause and provide a link to that as well. Hopefully that evidence would not only meet but exceed Wikipedia's standards for citations. Thanks again for your help and patience. Deepseediver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepseediver (talk • contribs) 19:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Periodicals have ISSNs not ISBNs. Applause is probably listed in the ISSN database but they want money before you can view it! I have restored the article to user:Deepseediver/sandbox. Put your citations there. Yes, one image of a cover would probably be allowed here (but only when the article has got safely into (article) space). As to your other scans, I don't much like PDFs. Keep the cover images as separate images - JPEGs are probably best if they include photos. But converting one complete copy of the mag to a PDF seems a good idea. Sorry, all those scans are very useful but they do absolutely nothing to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements - which demand independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Citations don't have to be to books. Citations don't have to be to things that are on the internet. But scans of a magazine (or its cover) are obviously not citations that prove significant coverage of that magazine in independent secondary sources. If, as you say, there is no information about Applause anywhere other than the magazine itself and eyewitness accounts, then it does not meet the general notability guideline and is not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. Sorry. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for everyone's help. I'm not yet sure that Applause vanished into thin air, as I've only been looking for it off and on for several days. If I lived in England, I'd wander down to 132 Liverpool Road in Islington for some leads. The premises was shared with the editor/publisher's brother, Steve Hedges, who at time time managed Peter Gabriel with his company Probono. I noticed that a theatre magazine in England by the name Applause started up in 1996, just after Applause, the live music industry monthly, would have closed shop. I will read up more about your general notibility guideline. The music industry tends to be extremely insular. Try looking up key players in the Yellow Pages for general public "citations" of their existence. They purposely put up barriers to keep every wanna be from mobbing their offices or serenading them from the streets. So despite the music industry being the huge employer and revenue generator that it is, some of the most significant people that make it all happen are trade kept secrets. Difficult as it may be for some to believe in today's era of shameless self promotions, not all movers and shakers blow their own horns. In fact, the more significant people are today, they harder they can be to find online. It stands to reason. For instance, you won't find many lawyers on Facebook, in part, because privacy and confidentiality is their bread and butter. The ones we see promoting themselves on television are for the most part loathed by traditional lawyers who were instructed in law school to avoid advertising. Artists today spend a lot of money to subcribe to publications like John Waterman's Bandit (15 GBP an email), just to get a few music industry contacts every month. Applause was the go between magazine for a lot of these insiders, and hence, why it's more obscure than a fan based magazine like Rolling Stone or NME. I just hope that a popularity contest primarily driven by search engines is not the only criteria for having a Wikipedia page. I think we would all agree that, traditionally, people tend to buy encyclopedias not just to confirm the "popular" (ie, what they already know), but also to learn about the more obscure. That's the whole point of "education," isn't it? One of the reasons I love Wikipedia so much is precisely for all those obscure details that might not have found their way outside small groups of atom splitters. I will add some links to the sandbox that RHaworth was nice enough to start for me. Thanks! Deepseediver
- You don't need to wander down - use Google street view! You can read 132 clearly on this view and it looks like a private house. Not many leads there! Obscurity can be considered the opposite of notability so even by your own admission, this subject looks unlikely to succeed in Wikipedia. But put those scans on the web - they will be a permanent record even if the mag does not make it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're right that lawyers who court publicity (some of whom also edit Wikipedia, by the way) are sometimes despised by traditional lawyers. Going back to the points you raise, I think a publication of this significance, even if publicity-shy, would presumably be discussed in any books written as, say, histories of the late 20th century music scene in the relevant region. (There must be dozens of such books, surely!) Discussion in such a book would normally constitute a reliable source of very high quality. One would also expect the magazine to receive a few mentions in biographies, autobiographies, band histories and similar material related to musical movers and shakers of the time. Such mentions are less ideal as sources but still useable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Demiurge1000, I appreciate your comments and I will pursue references in such places as you mentioned. So far, I have only gone through several pages of Google with various key words, so information could well be out there. Because it had an international following, there could be more references in other languages than in English. If I had more time on my hands, I would likely have generated more leads already. Hopefully, I will be allowed to add to my sandbox as I can? I assume Applause can be a "work in progress" until it meets your standards for publishing? I will now add a little reply to RHaworth. I'm finding the conversation with both of you quite stimulating and educational! Best wishes.Deepseediver (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello RHaworth: I want to preface this by saying that I hope you know I am writing you in a playfully spirited manner! I am serious about my points but also enjoying the dialogue with you. Hopefully you have enjoyed at least some of it too... I know we are both busy, so I promise not to make a habit of such lengthy discussions. I do understand the broad picture you have presented me with, though I may take issue with some of Wikipedia's policies. Now in response to your last message:
As you well know, a lot of big business in your country is done in English townhouses. #10 Downing Street doesn't look much different to my eyes than 132 Liverpool Road! It should go without saying that the miniature reality of an island country has absolutely nothing to do with the significance of something for publishing on Wikipedia. Should Brits also be penalized for the few years they were not hooked up to the web while folks in the U.S. were already online? I remember people I know in England scratching their heads when I asked them if they had email. It's ironic that I, an American, am having this conversation with you, a Brit! :) My point is that we shouldn't judge a magazine by its cover ;) As that house is where two brothers ran two businesses, that would be the most obvious area to track down people who might know their whereabouts. Presumably, the editior/publisher would know how to locate more citations about his baby than I would, which is why I mentioned the logic of tracking down these pre-web-savy folks the good old fashioned way... Personally, I make a distinction between the words "obscurity" and "significance." I know I am not the first person to suggest that Wikipedia might be better served by a staff of people with an expertise in news journalism and publishing. There are clear rules for something to be newsworthy and mass appeal is only one factor in that equation. Otherwise, reporting would be all about movie stars, athletes and the occasional politician caught with his pants down. The idea in journalism is that the public also needs to know about so-called "obscurities" when they have some kind of news value. News value is both headline/front page as well as those clips pushed to the back pages. Over time, back page news can become front page news and vice versa. It's not a static, fixed reality. Surely, an educational site like Wikipedia would adhere to these same standards, wouldn't it? I thought initially when I started the Applause page that as soon as it was in the public domain, others would start contributing details, references, etc about it that I didn't know. I will keep contributing to the sandbox page as I can, but it might take me a while to put all the pieces together myself. This is what i find most discouraging about the process. From this point of view, it seems to me that Wikipedia is actually encouraging publicity machines to generate hits, references, links, etc in order to get in through your back door. Political groups are paying people now to leave comments online and people are "friending" gazillions of strangers online just to get their numbers and popularity up for all kinds of self interests. Bob Dylan got signed with one man's confidence when people were walking out of his shows in NYC. Nowadays, it's all a numbers game, nevermind "true talent." Clearly, this is the course of "popular culture" at present. In time, I predict Wikipedia will be forced to alter it's guidelines for filtering out the news from the junk. Popularity contests mean little in today's world where self promotion and networking is about all most people seem to be famous for. Anyway, I have links in the sandbox now. I will try to get a whole issue merged into one document, but I don't yet have a PDF merge for more than 10 pages. The last two links show the latest copy I have. Thanks again! Deepseediver (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Naked people I am perfectly happy with - even fat, ugly ones. But naked URIs are obscene. Dive straight into your sandbox and fix the rest of the links in the style I have used for the first two. Two companies at 132 Liverpool Road both looking entertainment-ish: Clashhaven and Worldchief. Don't use try the phone number - is not for these companies - but snail mail might produce a result. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Mentor
Hi again, Roger! Please be the mentor for the students working on Bandwidth throttling. I'm currently trying to assign mentors to all the remaining groups in Professor Obar's class. Would you be the mentor for the group of students working on Bandwidth throttling? If you can do it, thanks! If not, please let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- That particular article looks to be in good shape. Does it need three students to "improve" it? But I have signed up. Where do I put my suggestions? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of Wilkes Plaza
I created the atricle Wilkes Plaza. You deleted it as an A7. It is a shopping mall located in North Carolina. How could it have no importance, if there are numerous amounts of other shopping malls on Wikipedia? I wasn't finished editing the page, before i could list referances, you had deleted it. 71.49.180.105 (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't talk to IP addresses. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Online Ambassador Program
Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have updated the Project Page you are mentoring on with usernames for all the students in your Area of Study. Please send them a message introducing yourself and let them know you are there to help.
As always, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, RHaworth!
"I hope you have worked out by now how to do non-public communication. In your case, if you wish to receive e-mail you must follow this [<--link] advice." — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Pandelver to RHaworth:
Thank you also (in addition to WoodyWerm), RHaworth! :) The link you gave me did give one of the ways this could be done. Very much appreciate your dropping by with an answer before others. I see there's some discussion on mentorship here, which I haven't properly absorbed, it seems you're now a volunteer? That's a wonderful service contribution to be making to students, something I have sometimes done, and encourages me to make more future time to do. Bravo! Warmest regards, Pandelver (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Then after discovering your mentorship work, curiously clicked on your profile here, and found your photo uploads. Was especially amused by "Poppy Day," and liked your Österreich File:001018 kaprun.jpg and the shape in your lens of File:Blackpool Tide Organ 358.jpg, great shot, complete with white pigeon. Great releases you've made.
You're an "admin"? What does that mean in the Wikipedia world? I have some vague sense yet of all kinds of seniorities and then memberships in focus groups or special projects or awards among those, including some which may be tongue in cheek as well as official commendations? Pandelver (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is an important aspect of Wikipedia philosophy that editorial decisions are made by a consensus of all editors. Admins (read WP:ADMIN for more) are merely editors who can (usually) be trusted not to misbehave if you give them the power to delete articles, block users, etc. I like the nauseatingly twee Wikipe-tan at the top right of this page, a) because it looks totally unlike me and b) because it sums up our rôle - we are just the janitors. Yes, I am delighted that my image in Keith Sutton (bishop) has survived for two months. You are invited to guess which two Wikipedia articles this image relates to. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Matrix Group
On the 7th Jan 2011 you deleted a page for Matrix Group. Not quite sure why. If I re-create how can I avoid it being deleted again ? Thanks in advance, Iain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrixiain (talk • contribs) 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not quite sure why? Since you know I deleted it, you have seen the deletion reason. Preferably you do not re-create it. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI comes along and writes about your company. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Not responding to IPs
Hello, I've noticed you don't respond to IP addresses when it comes to admin actions you've taken. Could you please then grant other admins the right to undo your actions? People are allowed to edit as IPs and admin actions should be fixable without the need for an account. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Admin actions should be fixable without the need for an account" - what a strange phrase. Admin actions are, by definition only fixable by other admins. I do not need to grant other admins any rights - they have them already. If I find that an admin action of mine has been reversed without discussion with me, I accept it without taking any offence. It is just following the standard bold, revert, discuss cycle and I discuss if I feel it appropriate. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This image File:WSU campus 2.jpg has been tagged as a copyvio and appears to be. However, it appears to have been uploaded as a "New version" of a different image, which may well be a valid image. I'm not familiar enough with the school to know whether it is a different image of the same building, although it doesn't look to be. I'm wondering if the uploader didn't realize there was an image with that name already. By deleting the file, the old image is no longer available. That doesn't seem like the right process. Do you know how this should be handled?--SPhilbrickT 21:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- The old version was a bit short on source info. but it feels as though it was the uploader's own work so I have restored it. I would reprimand Cs2984 (talk · contribs) who replaced it with a different, improperly licensed image but it happened more than a year ago. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree the prior image isn't the best, but that's what I wanted to do, just wasn't sure how to do it, and was looking into it when you deleted it. I also agree Cs2984 (talk · contribs) deserve a trout slap, but not worth the effort, given the timing.--SPhilbrickT 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- When multiple images exist as here for example, there is a "revert" link which you can use. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment On Your TC 210 Post
- Thread transferred to the project talk page.
Kwon Ryu Fu Chi Do
I'm not really sure why you deleted the Kwon Ryu Fu Chi Do page. I would like more info and do mods not contact people before deletion? I may have been able to comply with your standards. Please advise. Hooverkarate (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- What does the deletion log say? Which word of "copyright infringement" do you not understand? Also, please note that I did not delete the article. What on earth are "mods"? If you possibly mean moderators, be advised that we do not have them; we have admins and they are very different animals. Discuss? But there were explicit notifications on your user talk page - what more do you want? OK, you could probably grant copyright permission but can you satisfy our notability requirements? In any case we would very much prefer it if you would have the decency to wait until someone with no COI comes along and writes about your organisation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to undelete Brooke Mueller. The article contains an assertion of notability, namely her participation as a major actress in Witchouse, a notable movie, therefore exempting her from CSD:A7. Happy to do so myself, or you can - just let me know. The article is crap and the photo is probably a copyright infringement, but I think she should at the very least get the benefit of an AfD debate. -- Y not? 22:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- And the author, now blocked is probably her agent. But go ahead and restore if you must. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll fix it up to de-spam it. -- Y not? 23:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Kristin Luck page - deleted
I would like to re-instate the deleted page Kristin Luck. I agree with your opinion that this article did not have enough supporting documents from reliable sources - I have gathered those documents, including an executive profile from the Portland Business Journal, and would like to put the article back up. However, I noticed that I need to contact the administrator who deleted it first.
Kristin Luck is a prominent business woman in the realm of marketing research, and I am confident an article about her with better supporting documents will make an excellent addition to Wikipedia.
I would like to note that an article about the consumer strategist Kelley Styring is part of Wikipedia, and Luck is definitely on the same level as Styring, if not more well better recognized.
I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so am not sure of the protocol of these talk pages. If it's possible to respond to this message by early next week, I would appreciate it, otherwise I will assume everything is settled satisfactorily and add a new article about Kristin Luck. Best regards, Jennyfurniss (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am automatically suspicious when someone from a PR company in Oregon submits a bio about someone from Oregon. But go ahead and re-create and see what the new page patrollers think or you may care to try the gentler AfC route. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Why did you delete Potholes In My Blog?
I used verifiable references in creating a Wikipedia page for Potholes In My Blog. It is very similar to other Wikipedia pages for MP3 blogs that have not been deleted, and it was the first Wikipedia page for a hip-hop MP3 blog. Are you targeting hip-hop MP3 blogs specifically? What was no relevant or verifiable about this post? – 74.242.219.206 (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't talk to IP addresses. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
DOC
Nomination of Italian products with protected designation of origin for deletion .
- Nomination and message withdrawn by original poster
Posting a stray comment by Dboje
Hi there RHaworth. The following comment was mistakenly posted by User:Dboje in a random mainspace page; it's a comment intended for you. The material following my signature is entirely his comments; I have done nothing but post the material in the intended place. Thanks for reading. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ridiculously long, badly formatted and unsigned message now at User talk:Dboje/SNiiP3z.
- Gavia, I see that Dboje does know how to leave user talk messages. So until he manages to leave one properly for me, I shall ignore the message. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
New message
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.