User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2011 Mar 18
 | 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.
Image analysis software
I am a postdoctoral researcher focusing on quantitative image analysis, and noticed that the Wikipedia pages on the subject are currently somewhat lacking. I was hoping to edit them to improve their quality, and also to add a List of Image Analysis software, which is notably missing. Because you were the last editor to delete the page, I was hoping to ask for your advice.
What would be the best way to construct such a list so that it would satisfy Wikipedia good practices? Any such list would necessarily contain both open source and commercial software, so it might be interpreted as "promotional spam," but hopefully with your help I can write the new page in a way that will be useful to people hoping to learn more about available software and informative to the general reader. Thank you. JAEngelberg (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- There never has been an article called List of Image Analysis software. Assuming you mean list of image analysis software: the version I deleted was actually unadulterated spam for one product. I have sent you a copy of the previous version which was deleted for: very few bluelinks; mostly a nest of spam and inappropriate external links. Reducing to a bluelink-only article would produce one that is too small to be of any use.
- I suggest: recreate the list in User:Jaengelberg/sandbox restricting yourself rigorously to products that already have a Wikipedia article. I think you will find the list is very short, so simply add it to the image analysis article. You could raise the question of adding "red-linked" products in talk:image analysis but you will find very little support.
- Of course the list may get longer if you add articles about other products! It does not matter whether they are open source or commercial, the criterion is notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I notice the image analysis article is rather under-developed but does at least have a respectable-looking bibliography. So I agree with RHaworth, improving that article would be a very good use of your time. In addition, if you know of any software that is discussed in detail (not just listed) in several of the works listed in that bibliography (or works of similar standing), then that would constitute significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and therefore the software in question might well merit its own Wikipedia article. Again, the best place to start work on that would be in a sub-page of your user page, so that you can make sure the inline citations to the references are all set up before it goes "live".
- In theory I see nothing wrong with the idea of a list of image analysis software if every single entry has an inline citation to an independent reliable source where it is discussed in detail, but at the end of the day Wikipedia is not a directory (and such lists invite spam in later years even if they are properly set up to begin with) and other sites like www.dmoz.org are likely to cover such things better.
- You could also ask for advice and help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software. ----Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yangutu
My article was deleted under F3 section. Could you please explain what license rules I violated? I didn't upload any files or licensed content in my article. That is why I can't understand the reasons behind your decision. Thank you ITsupergirl (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? The Yangutu article was deleted under G11 – blatant advertising – which it undoubtedly was. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, what do you think that means then??? 23:41, 9 March 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted User:ITsupergirl/Yangutu (R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.25.45.46 (talk)
semibeings
You deleted because significance was not mentioned, but I did mention The Semibeings significance. So why did you remove and say that is the reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutelit (talk • contribs) 14:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- One utterly boring-looking continuous slab of text with not the slightest evidence of notability. Are you surprised that it is being deleted? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Temple Seeker
I am quoting what i posted in the undeletion discussion: Temple Seeker was deleted under A7, but i don't understand why? Because A7 is supposedly for web contents articles, but Temple Seeker is an actual mobile game software that exists in real world not only in websites. I have read the A7 carefully and it said that "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." So please give me a reason why it is considered as a web content when it is not? And please un-delete Temple Seeker -Netm (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Have you tried bringing it up with the administrator that deleted the article, RHaworth? You have a valid point however as a rule we don't restore A7's here because we only do "uncontroversial" undeletions. I know it seems like an unnecessary bureaucratic step, however you should try talking to RHaworth about it. If he refuses to restore the page, you can always open a deletion review. l'aquatique[talk] 19:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
So i want to know why it is considered as web content when it is not? Can you please undelete Temple Seeker? I know i made a mistake by using netm as my user name, i thought since i am going to write an article about their game, so i use this username since it will come out as by netm (that was what i thought) but then it turn out that it looked as if i am the developer itself which i am not.
So Mr Haworth will you please consider undeleting the article? I am not sure how i can change my username, but i can assure you i am not the developer (although i wish i was): P user:netm
- So if you are not the developer, what is your connection with the game? I always assume that an SPA must have some connection. I can summon up not the faintest shred of interest in the game but feel free to raise the matter at deletion review. Please read changing username. And please make some attempt to format your messages properly. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Chattering and Picko
Re: 00:10, 22 February 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted Pickering & Chatto Publishers (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). We've just realised that you have deleted the Wikipedia entry for our publishing house, Pickering & Chatto. I notice that you have listed the reason for deletion as 'G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion' – but a large number of publishing houses and other companies currently feature on Wikipedia with very similar content to our page.
If a rewrite is required (if there was a particularly objectionable sentence or use of promotional language) I'd be very grateful if you could outline where we can improve our page. A large number of our academic titles feature on Wikipedia, and I hope that with some changes we can have an accurate historical summary of our company back up in the near future. Many thanks, Pickchat (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- The article had carried an {{unreferenced}} tag since 2009 August. Even you had not attempted to improve the references and nobody else seemed interested. I suggest that you wait until someone with no COI decides the company is notable and writes about it. If you really insist on having an article, try finding a sponsor. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Fandom again
Accusation made against you on my talk page (but not by me) . See User:RadioFan and User:RHaworth. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
You might want to take it to his talk page; like I said, I didn't make the accusation, but felt in courtesy you should be notified that the accusation had been made! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Why? The thread was started on your user talk page so we might as well keep it there. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
AniMom
You deleted AniMom. Yes I will admit that my article was more for Wiktionary then Wikipedia. That yes it was probably considered a neologism and not appropriate for Wikipedia. I guess what upsets me is that it is being called a "blatant hoax", which it was not a hoax. It was not my intent to "vandalize" Wikipedia, I use it (Wikipedia) all the time.
A friend suggested I make the article. I waited until I was sure it had been accepted in at least one dictionary before I created the article, to give me a reference, as the wiki-editing info explains. Which I did take several days reading and working on it, to try to make sure my article was correct. Early this morning (my time) was the first time I saw the "tag for deletion". From everything I had read I thought I had about 3 more days before it would be deleted.
What was upsetting when I saw it, was that the first person who edited my article deleted my reference, then all of my "See also" and "Categories".
Before you, everyone (I think) that edited my article were avid anime fans and probably didn't like my article personally. So they removed my references and tagged it for a quick deletion.
I'm not trying to be rude I just needed to vent my hurt feelings. It won't matter if you ban me, because I'll probably never wish to write another article. Thank you for your time. Anime Mommy (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hoax was, I admit slightly inappropriate. It fell more into the things made up one day (NFT) category. But NFT is not grounds for speedy deletion and the article certainly qualified for speedy. You have made up a new idea, you put it yourself in Urban Dictionary and then you come here and write about it. Wikipedia is for, well established subjects. When the word becomes widely used, an experienced editor will write it up here or in Wiktionary as appropriate. Until then, keep it on your own website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback and for not being rude to me. Have a great day! Anime Mommy (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
As you are the most senior Wikipedian, i want your help in the discussion User talk:WWGB#Giridharilal Kedia. And i think, your judgement will be right.. Odisha1 (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I fully agree with the deletion. You should wait another year before attempting to resubmit. Hints: the first paragraph of a bio should state why the subject is notable! - I told you that on Feb 23 – what have you done about it? (See draft.) We do not delete talk page threads as you did here and here. And most importantly, do the words significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources suggest anything? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
FM 1 The Army
On March 7 you did a speedy deletion of FM 1 The Army. Without looking at the article, it is impossible to evaluate, discuss, or correct. I am concerned because the document "FM 1 The Army" is an officially produced basic doctrinal description of the US Army. With this in mind, I ask that you send me a copy of the deleted article so that I can consider and perhaps submit a WP:UNDELETE. Thank you so much for your assistance in this regard. --S. Rich (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Text e-mailed. The article was a straight copy of http://www.army.mil/fm1/ Since it probably counts as a US gov publication it is probably not a copyright violation. But it is source material and as such does not belong here. If you want to write an article about the manual, feel free to do so – no need to request deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Shazbizzle
yo, why did you delete my page on shazbizzle? In my opinion it is a valid and ultimately important entry to the wikipedia site, the term 'shazbizzle' has been used widely in the Plymouth area, mainly within student groups and has become something that people actually talk about, I had decided to create an in depth page/discussion about this on wikipedia, and had only uploaded a small draft so that I could show it to, and discuss with my colleagues, I would ask that in future if you come across a page like this, please take the time to discuss/inform the editor of your intent add reasoning. Mike out.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbritton1 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Grow up, man. You know perfectly well that it was patent nonsense. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, the page was better suited to Wiktionary. ConconJondor (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Ziplocal
The Ziplocal page was last deleted by you and Wikipedia:Deletion review states that a person attempting to recreate the page should first contact the deleting admin before starting a deletion review. A short while ago, User:Misterkellas attempted to edit ZipLocal, inc and those edits were reverted. Misterkellas inquired about this on IRC and I created a userpage to work on the article revision at User:Misterkellas/ZipLocal. I believe the article is ready to be moved to Ziplocal and that ZipLocal and ZipLocal, inc (where the page about the former company is) should point to just the plain company name, as that's how the current company appears to spell the name in their press releases (Ziplocal, not ZipLocal). The page about the former company seems to spend a bulk of its time condemning the actions of Tamec before it became 411.com then Zip411.com then was bought by another company almost a decade later, which acquisition then formed the first Ziplocal before that company's assets were sold to another company, and a completely unrelated company then entered into an agreement to rename itself Ziplocal and then buy the former Ziplocal's assets. While I don't want to erase what happened (a decade ago now), I think a simple line referencing that history and giving a link to more information on it should suffice. Anyway, I think the article in Misterkellas' userspace at User:Misterkellas/ZipLocal is ready to be moved to Ziplocal. If you'd like to chat further, please contact me on my user talk page. :) Banaticus (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would dearly love to block Misterkellas for blatant, paid spamming – "my client" indeed! But he appears to have created a well-referenced article. But much of the stuff in ZipLocal, inc has been left out. I suggest: Ziplocal to become a disambiguation page; ZipLocal, inc to move to ZipLocal (2007) and User:Misterkellas/ZipLocal to move to Ziplocal (2010) with hat notes linking between the two articles. But I really have no strong feelings. The blatant spamming has been dealt with. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
You'll have to do it. Ziplocal is protected -- I can't start an article or move anything there. I think most of the "ZipLocal, inc" article is incorporated in the "User:Misterkellas/ZipLocal" article. The only part that's missing is the two paragraphs about how the judgement against the company played out. But that was seven years before Tamec was renamed Zip411 then bought by redCity, then that company was renamed Ziplocal, then that company was bought out, then that company was bought out and in the meantime a completely new company renamed itself Ziplocal then traded stock in exchange for the US parts of the yellow page search information. I think the financial ramifications of the Corporate Bureau's proceedings were minor enough that trying to dump in two paragraphs about stuff that basically happened to some other company a decade ago would sort of be a major digression from the rest of the article. That's my opinion -- I have absolutely no connection to this Ziplocal company, though, so whatever you want to do with it. You'll have to be the one to do something, though, since I can't edit the article. Thanks for your time and quick response. :) Edit: Oh, I almost forgot why I came here in the first place. Whatever you do, please update the logo file to point (in its fair use summary) to the correct article. Alright, having said that I don't stalk talk pages, so if you'd like to respond or chat please either post on my user talk page or drop a {{talkback}} template there or something. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- In the 1750 bytes of your first message, you did not manage to make the request "please unprotect …". Now done. Stalking talk pages is one thing. Following for a day or two a discussion that you have started is quite different. "Whatever you do …" – you are joking aren't you? My interest in these articles is minimal. Why on earth should I be expected to change image descriptions? Are they protected? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
About making a new page
I'm trying to make a page named ICISTS-KAIST. But in the editing page, I saw sentences meaning that I should contact with you first because the page "ICISTS-KAIST" has been deleted by RHaworth.
As I know, the page was deleted because I used the text from ICISTS-KAIST's official website. After seeing the notice, I was going to fix it but the page was "Speedly" deleted so that I cannot do anything.
It was definitely wrong to use almost absolute same sentences from external website. And I'm trying to make a page about "ICISTS-KAIST" in the "right way". Now I'm asking you to allow me to do that.
If you could let me know what should I consider more, I will be definitely appreciate for your time and kindness. Thank you Sincerely, Thtiskjs 110.76.69.33 (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think RHaworth talks to IP addresses. But if he did, he might say this:
- If you are a member of ICISTS-KAIST then you have a conflict of interest and you should kindly wait until someone who does not have a conflict of interest decides to write about your organisation. Or look for a
spammersponsor.
- If the organisation has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources then it is probably not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Maybe you should consider adding a section about it to the page about the related university, instead?
- If you create a Wikipedia account then you could create a draft article in a sub-page of your user page, add the references to coverage in reliable secondary sources there, and then seek review of it. Alternatively, even without an account, you could try Wikipedia:Articles for creation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Demiurge. User:ICISTSwiki is blocked but that is no excuse for using an IP address. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I missed that. Thtiskjs, you should read some of what is at User talk:ICISTSwiki, especially the part in the blue rectangle at the end. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I see that you deleted Juliet The Huntress as a blatant hoax. I declined to make the deletion after looking at http://www.pwpix.net/superstars/i/ivelissevelez/. Obviously, the article has a long way to go to be acceptable, and may not even pass the notability hurdle in the best of circumstances, but I wanted to give you a heads-up in case the original editor complains that it isn't a hoax. (For all I know, the site I linked may be bogus, I didn't look that closely, but I didn't see the evidence of an obvious hoax.)--SPhilbrickT 13:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Gosh, one gets picked up on the slightest lapse! Probably not an hoax – I should have changed the deletion reason to A7 – nn-bio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
No big deal – I was just trying to show that I'm not mindlessly clicking delete—it undoubtedly fails on other grounds.--SPhilbrickT 14:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Kyle Montgomery
What rules did I violate that caused kyle montgomery to be deleted when he is nba tv's wiki page and nba gametime's wiki page. He is someone of importance plus I provided references from credible sources such as the atlanta journal constitution(ajc) and turner broadcasting. When I click on nba tv's page and go to studio hosts I want to be able to click kyle montgomery's name and go to his personal page which he currently doesn't have. What can be done to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Montgomery (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- The main rule you violated was self-promotion. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone who does not have a conflict of interest decides to write about you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not kyle montgomery. I am his publicist and I created this account for him so do I need to create another account using my name instead of his? I can do that now. Turner stated we needed to create his own page because they do not do so. What's the fastest way to solve this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Montgomery (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Being his publicist is even worse! "Turner stated …" – who on earth is Turner? and what does this sentence mean? There is no fast way to solve this issue. I repeat: have the decency to wait. If you really must press the matter, try following this advice. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to be rude, its really not called for and if you don't know who Turner Broadcasting is then I'm concerned about who they have as an administrator. Its his employer the largest cable company around I'm sure you've heard of them. So basically you are saying a fan has to create his page or who is someone else and how can we ensure the accuracy of his information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Montgomery (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you really want to contribute to Wikipedia, you will learn how to use it. Did you see my advice above? An obvious thing to do would be to contact the person who added Kyle's name to the NBA TV article. So who is that person? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
That person is the pr dept at Turner who told us that they do not create individual pages and that it is each talent's responsibility to have their pages created. Your "advice" article isn't really helping me at all, so here's a thought, you are someone else, how about you create it b/c you see the page was done correctly and that he is a public figure for a national station and the only thing keeping his fans from knowing more about him and where he is from and how he got started in his career is the fact people who actually know created the page. On his FB page his fans wanna know how he got started and why he doesn't have a page so clearly none of them can create it b/c they don't know enough about him to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Montgomery (talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- You have not even tried to look. So what is the user name of "that person"? "How about you create it" – don't be ridiculous I don't know enough about him and, more importantly, I am not convinced of his notability. Or to take another approach, you are getting paid to promote Kyle. How much will you pay me to do it for you? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not getting paid because I'm his wife who just so happened to get a degree in PR, so that kills that and in your little advice tidbit you said to ask a contributing editor and aren't you a contributing editor??? Oh wait maybe not, just some guy who treats people like crap who try to create a Wikipedia page so their fans can know who they are...The user is within the PR dept and Turner has strict rules against creating personal pages so they teach you how to do it yourself...Now you tell me how the rest of the talent under NBA TV and NBA Gametime have a wiki page and you don't see why he is notable??? Hmmm but somehow you have a page and all you do is reject people because you can...Now why on God's green earth would I pay you when the website is free??? I almost died from laughter when I read that...Don't worry about, I'll get his page created with someone who doesn't take their free job so serious when clearly the page I am trying to create is about someone noteworthy, for heaven's sake he voices the highlights for the NBA, so if you even follow professional sports then you would know him, but I'm sure you don't... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Montgomery (talk • contribs) 02:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- My words were "established editor who has contributed significantly" [in the area of interest]. It is patently obvious that I have not contributed at all in your area of interest. I improved on my general advice by telling you specifically to see who added Kyle's name to the NBA TV article. It was, though you may not believe it, sound constructive advice. But since you prefer to jump to the conclusion that it was someone from Turner instead of checking the facts, I shall not offer you any more advice of any sort. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Getting smart and belittling others is not advice at all and we were told that the user was within the PR dept, but whatever you aren't God of wikipedia and I don't need your non-help anyway...I actually should file a complaint and a lawsuit against you for your treatment of people. Its not necessary when people are just trying to get help on the proper way to create a page. You really should work on your people skills because downgrading others who might not understand the wording or know where to look is so unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle Montgomery (talk • contribs) 03:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Mrs Montgomery, may I start by congratulating you on the successful completion of your degree program, and offering my gratitude for your contributions to the very high standard of entertainment that sees this talk page consistently topping my list of The Best User Talk Pages on Wikipedia. In return I would like to present you with some advice and information that I'm sure an erudite and sophisticated lady such as yourself would be pleased to add to her store of knowledge.
- RHaworth comes from the United Kingdom, an island nation which is part of the European Union and lies a short distance to the south-east of Iceland. Popular professional sports, as you term them, in the United Kingdom, include Association Football, cricket, rugby, and Formula One motor racing. The sport of basketball receives little national media coverage in the United Kingdom; games are sometimes viewable on subscription TV channels but are not especially popular, with greatest viewer numbers reported as 150,000 compared with Formula One coverage gaining 29 million UK viewers per race. There is therefore no reason to imagine that, even if RHaworth does "follow professional sports", he would know what "nba gametime" is. I would guess that NBA stands for National Basketball Association, however I believe that the nation being referred to there is the USA.
- I have heard of Turner, but only because of their Turner Classic Movies channel which was once shown on British cable television. Again there is no reason we would automatically associate the name "Turner" with a sport television program that is probably not even available in this country.
- I suggest that if you or someone without a conflict of interest creates an article about your husband, you should focus on providing references to show that he has received significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Turner Broadcasting are not an independent secondary source in this instance because of their connection with the subject of the article.
- It is your view that a fan cannot create a page about your husband because a fan would not have sufficient information available to them. If sufficient information has not already been published about your husband then I'm afraid he is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. If sufficient information has been published then the putative fan can go ahead and create the article, should they wish to do so.
- Finally, RHaworth does not yet have his own Wikipedia article (as far as I know), he merely has a Wikipedia User Page, just like you could too! ----Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Chris Brooks (radio presenter)
Hello I'm writing to ask you to reinstate the page for Chris Brooks (radio presenter). It has nothing to do whether or not he is famous, he worked on the UK's largest commercial radio network Capital fm in London for over 8 years.. and in the industry is very notable for the work he does. He is currently working with kids that have gone off the rails helping re engaging them in alternative education. Just think its harsh that you would just delete his profile.. many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeditor007 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- It has everything to do about fame, or rather to notability which is a slightly lower standard. How is it that in the five years of the article's existence, nobody had managed to find any links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources? I assume that you are Chris Brooks but despite that, I will point you to deletion review. But first you need to prepare a good draft article in User:Theeditor007/sandbox. Read these instructions if you want to see the deleted text. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually work at the agency that represents him, and i don't see why you always seem to be defensive about your deletions, I hadn't meant to upset or annoy you. I can provide many external links from British press about him and tv shows he has been on and stations that he is still on. It was my point that there are many UK radio presenters on wiki that are on here and you deleted one with a high profile in the industry. I will read through your advice and go from there. Many thanks for your time and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.69.14 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Lantvrn
Hello, you recently deleted the Lantvrn page. Could you please be specific as to your reasons, and if they are that the page itself did not maintain a strong adherence to the guidelines, what in particular was at fault? the page had two references to mentions in major press, and at the time of creation had four coherent established connections with well-received artists, that themselves had Wiki pages. I appreciate anytime you may have for answering my question, it may subsequently help me create a page in the near future with the correct criteria. – Gullaldr (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Mentions in major press" – just that: very short, one sentence mentions. "Connections" count for very little. Better to wait until they get more extensive coverage. And please do not SHOUT their name. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
That's the information I required. I or someone else will return no doubt when they have more extensive coverage. Whilst connections should count for very little, musicians that have moved on to a new band, having been in successful bands prior, bring noteworthy and respectable attention to both listeners and press alike. Hence my having assumed it may fit into the guidelines of this encyclopedia. Finally, is it a rule to not 'SHOUT'? This band specifically addresses itself as LANTVRN, as seen on press releases and their initial material. Thanks once more. – Gullaldr (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot see a formal policy re capitals but here are 157 instances of people agreeing with me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Whilst as an academic, I appreciate your use of good reference to support what is now clearly an opinion of yours, I am quite dismayed to see what is commonly regarded as an assumption exclusive to internet -- that of CAPS being shouting -- being referenced by a Wiki admin. I appreciate your response, and that you supported the guidelines appropriately, as in this instance noting there wasn't substantial press references on the band. However, this has unexpectedly left me considering the appropriation of those administering Artist pages, when they cannot recognize a thorough history of artists themselves appropriating whatever form they wish for the titles of their projects, aliases or works. This is most commonplace and has absolutely nothing to do with the internet SHOUT phenomenon.
Gullaldr (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- If the band verifiably refers to themselves in caps, this is different than communicating in caps. Moot as the point me be since the band does not appear to be notable, it is probably more fitting to just point out how the band refers to itself, rather than question the "appropriation" of admins. VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Gullaldr, RHaworth is correct in regards to the SHOUTING within articles. Wikipedia guidelines specifically instruct editors to reduce all-caps found in trademarks. It's kinda like reading a book several times. You may know the story in its entirety, but being able to recall the page upon which a specific conversation between characters took place is another story. RHaworth has a complete grasp of the plot that makes up Wikipedia. Not being able to recall the specific page out of over three million on Wikipedia makes him human. That said, you can review our guidelines on addressing caps and trademarks here. Best regards, Cind.amuse 22:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Dream Morning Musume
A recent new page was deleted for Dream Morning Musume. They are a popular music girl group in Japan. Morning Musume are the biggest selling girl group in Japanese history. The girls in the group are Japanese celebrities. Anyone with a television in Japan knows who they are by their individual names. There is little enough about Japan on Wikipedia without something that has been part of Japanese culture for the past fifteen years being deleted by someone who obviously knows nothing about the subject he is deleting. I do not claim to be expert enough on the subject to write an article (especially if it is likely to be deleted by some moron). I request that the original article be reinstated ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meotaku2 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Morning Musume is notable – even I have heard of them! But this is "a new group" and you made absolutely no attempt to provide links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Wait until they have actually released some music! Then, given that every member is blue-linked, a properly referenced article will probably stick. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Robot-assist
You just moved the page First Robot Assisted Double Valve Replacement Heart Surgery to First robot-assisted double heart valve replacement. Unfortunately it should really be "First robotic-assisted double heart valve replacement". Shall I leave you to perform the move or is there really a need for open questions and opinions etc? The problem being that there is no autonomy involved, the machine is only a robotic arm [1] [2] [3] [4] and the manufacturers site [5]
It is also strange that the only mention of it is from the India press, apart from one or two in the Middle East...ah well will keep an eye on it for better sources. Chaosdruid (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Definitely not robotic-assisted even though the robotic surgery article does use it twice. That article seems perfectly happy with robot-assisted. I would accept robotically assisted but why change it? I suggest discuss on talk page before moving again. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Because there are robot assisted surgeries, such as some brain surgery and Robotic surgery#Radiosurgery, using semi-autonomous devices – true robots. This is non-autonomous, it is merely a robotic arm. I appreciate your correction to robotically-assisted, I was merely using the majority of sources. As you moved it I thought I would ask you to correct the move.
If you wish to make me go down that path I would be a little perturbed that you are ok to do it without discussion but are telling me I have to discuss first? Chaosdruid (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- In case you did not notice, the move was to get rid of horrible spurious capitals. Having done that neccessary move, I felt the title was good enough and no further move was needed. Which term do you claim is used by "the majority of sources"? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The majority of sources – the newspaper and press releases that were documenting the surgery, some of which are used in the renamed article. There were only about 30 or so from a Google search [6].
I appreciate that the hyphenating was necessary, as was the decapping, but it is still true that there are two different terms: robot-assisted and robotically-assisted, the first aided by autonomous or semi-autonomous equipment and the second using non-autonomous equipment. Da Vinci is a non-autonomous system and is, for want of a better term, merely several robotic arms which are controlled by directly mimicking the surgeons hand movements. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- You are claiming that "robot-assisted" and "robotically-assisted" are different terms for different types of surgery. Firstly I would like to see sound evidence that the terms are used in this way in the majority of sources. But even if it were true, I feel that Wikipedia should use better terms to distinguish more clearly between the two types. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello RHaworth, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Write This Down (band), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 08:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Might be an idea to check before using a templated message. The proportion of my speedy deletions that have been successfully contested might suggest that I am familiar with the speedy deletion criteria. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Silverline
I would just like to talk to you about Silverline, a page that you recently deleted. I believe that that page meets Criterion 11 of the Musicians and Ensembles section of Wikipedia:Notability (music) and, therefore, was wrongfully deleted. This band is in regular rotation on RadioU, a nationally broadcasting radio network in the United States. References for this fact were in the article. If you could please look into this, and possibly undelete the article, it would be appreciated. --Djc wi (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
This also applies to their work, Start to Believe and Voices in the Night (Silverline album). Thanks. --Djc wi (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- The article contained two links to the RadioU website but I could not see any reference to the band in either of them. As it says above, I am defensive about my deletions so you will probably fare better at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Parklife festival
My name is rochelle and I am marketing manager at fuzzy, the organiser of Parklife Festival. Please could you advise as to why this page was deleted and if there is anything we can do to have it re-instated. although i am not the original author i would be interested in reviewing it and contributing to this original page if possible so it is as accurate as possible. thanks and kind regards rochelle Rochellerocks (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- "I am marketing manager at fuzzy". Say no more. You have a blatant COI. The article was pathetic. Just a couple of sentences then pointless lists of performers. And in the two years of its existence no-one had seen fit to improve it. I suggest that you wait until someone with no COI decides the festival is notable and writes a decent article about it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Press proofing
My name is Peter Skarpetis, and I was wondering why you reverted my changes to the prepress proofing article. All I did was fix a typo, include include, and add a proofing system called Serendipity Blackmagic at the end of the list of the other systems by GMG, Kodak and Oris. Blackmagic has been around since 1996 and was the first such system. We even invented halftone proofing on inkjets using a technology of ours called "Real Dot Technology". The other systems the article mentions, has all copied or followed us over the years. Can you please clarify your reasons for the revert? Thanks. Peterska (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- The typo correction I have put back. The spam link to your company obviously stays out. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What about all the other spam links from all the other companies in the same sentence? It is only fair that you remove them as well as this is the only reason I added the link in the first place. Peterska (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC) I agree, the other links should probably also be deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
To All My Dear Friends Deletion Question
Hello Roger. I was wondering why you deleted To All My Dear Friends? They are a reputable musical band based out of Gainesville, Florida that is currently touring around the country. Is there certains edits that needed to be done to the page to have it safely posted? I heard about the page and wanted to check it out but saw it was deleted. Luckily Google had a cache of it here. Please let me know what needs to be done to fix the article and I will gladly do it :-) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.30.11 (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't talk to IP addresses. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Tricentis Technology & Consulting
I was shocked and disappointed to see that my article on TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting was deleted instantly on the grounds that it was purely promotional(G-11). I am having trouble understanding how my article qualified for “speedy deletion”. When I saw that Gartner included Tricentis in its Magic Quadrant for 2011, I felt that it was notable enough now to write an article about the company. In preparing to write my article, I came across a list of “notable test automation tools” (Test automation). Hewlett-Packard, IBM, and Micro Focus appear in Gartner’s Magic Quadrant as leaders, Parasoft and Microsoft appear in the same sector as Tricentis (i.e. visionaries), and Smart Bear Software appears as a niche player. Since Smart Bear Software’s article has not been deleted from Wikipedia, I can only assume that my article was not excluded upon the basis of notability. In terms of the language of the article, I did my best to stay objective and to avoid any statements that I could not support with a citation. In the case of Tricentis, it is difficult to find information in English, so I had to rely heavily upon information provided by the company itself. I tried to filter out the big claims and marketing language of these documents and to only present the major fields of activity of the company. If marketing language inadvertently found its way into my article, then I would appreciate it if you could point it out to me and I will revise these sections right away. I am willing to revise the article and make any changes necessary to make it meet Wikipedia standards, because I feel that it would be unfair to exclude Tricentis from a list of the most notable software automation tools without excluding the other companies that appear in Gartner’s Magic Quadrant. Best regards, Jkoprax (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- You probably have a COI and therefore should not be submitting. It appears to be a company with very specialised products of little interest to the general public. But you could try deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
I feel that I must once again reply to your comments on my article. If I take a look at the companies on the list of software automation tools, I would expect the general public to recognize IBM and HP, but I would be shocked to hear that the general public knows SmartBear Software or Parasoft. There are two points to consider here: First, as far as I understand it, Wikipedia wants to introduce the general public to new information on a topic. The fact that the public does not know the name of say Parasoft does not necessarily mean that Parasoft is not notable. For people interested in software automation tools, the name is probably familiar. The name Tricentis may not mean anything to the general public, but within the field of software quality assurance and software automation it is a well-known name. Thus to exclude the article on Tricentis on the grounds that it is not suited for the general public is grossly unfair unless Wikipedia plans to exclude the articles on other software automation companies such as SmartBear Software, Parasoft or Software Quality Systems (to mention a European company in contrast to simply American ones). The same argumentation applies to the comment about specialization. Of course a certain terminology has to be employed to talk about a technical topic. However, I tried to restrict my use of technical jargon in writing the article and I feel that I accomplished this when I compare my article to those of SmartBear Software or Parasoft, which exhibit far more specialized vocabulary than my article. I would like to reply to your first comment concerning the suspected COI by saying that I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia would wish to have an incomplete and possibly false representation of reality on its site. In the field of software automation tools, Tricentis is definitely one of the top 16 developers worldwide as one can see from the Gartner report. Now, if there is a Wikipedia article that claims to have a list of the most important software automation tools, who is to say that this list should only include 8 tools rather than say the top 20 in the world. While we could discuss the criteria of this list, I think it goes to show that Tricentis is notable within its field and that it would also be of interest to anyone interested in software automation tools. Further, I think it only fair to make the case for the inclusion of Tricentis on this list (and to have its own entry in Wikipedia) or to ask that this list be excluded since it does not accurately reflect reality. Of course, in the interest of the dissemination of knowledge, I would prefer the former. If you still get the impression that my article sounds too much like promotional material in comparison with the SmartBear Software or Parasoft entries, then please tell me what editorial changes I can make to the article to make it more objective. If you cannot make any specific recommendations, this leads me to believe that you simply reject the article on the basis of a suspected COI, which is not a reason for speedy deletion according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. In closing, I would just like to reiterate that the impetus for my article stems from reasons of fairness and not those of promoting or marketing the company Tricentis. Jkoprax (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
|
- I pointed you to deletion review. Why bother talking to me? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deletion review for Tricentris
An editor has asked for a deletion review of TRICENTIS Technology & Consulting. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jkoprax (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Virtual Tags Deletion and resubmission
Hullo, as suggested by you I am resubmitting the Virtual Tags page once it has collected a reasonable number of reviews. I have put an extract of some of the english ones in the page. Please have a look at it and tell me if I nedd to change something to have it approved. Could you also check the reason why the Notability and Infobox tags do not work in that page. Thanks Fbartolom (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Blatant spammer. Have an AfD discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Frankly if you do not explain what you mean by that I keep that sentence just as a "blatant" menace; I understand you have the power to do whatever your whims tell you to do, but, as the the uncle of Spiderman said: "to great powers correspond great responsibilities". If, on the other hand, there is a precise predictment against creators of objects to open a page about their creations, please state that clearly so that all of us will save a lot of time: of course not wanting to cheat by creating the page with another user-name as it would be too easy to do. Fbartolom (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, perhaps you were entitled to have "spam" defined. You have already been adequately answered in the AfD discussion. Tom Morris agrees with me that it is blatant advertising. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to once again bother you with this Record label's article. I meanwhile know that it has been "salted" by you because, as the deletion log shows, there were several attempts in a few days by people I have nothing whatsoever to do with to restore this article containing only one sentence --- I strongly understand that this cannot be tolerated !!! Notwithstanding I found it a pity that this label shouldn't have an article at Wikipedia and therefore made a request and in consequence of an advice I got there meanwhile have built an Earwig Music Company article of my own User:StefanWirz/Earwig, which hopefully meets the demands of "notability" proof --- Please advice about futher procedure – Thanks in advance ! StefanWirz (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Go to this AfC page and select the "submit for review" option. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Did as you told me – Thanks a lot ! StefanWirz (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Meanwhile my review request has been declined for one simple reason: "The page requested has been protected from creation" (that's not what I'd call a "review" of a totally new created article) (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Earwig Music Company. Since you have been the one who "salted" the article, could you please explain to me why you gave me an advice whos outcome should have been predictable for a Wikipedia expert (which I am not) – Or do I see things totally wrong ? Seems to me like some Wiki insiders are more interested in fulfilling formalisms than in quality of the outcome – if I may say so (... and sorry for my English – this isn't my mother tongue ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Someone has restored it for proper consideration, I am glad to say. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
MSU TC 210 – bandwidth throttling
Hi RHaworth! We are happy to have you as our online mentor for our Wikipedia policy project for Spring 2011. My name is Nick Fisher and I am one of the students in the TC 210 class at Michigan State University. My team is currently working on the topic of Bandwidth Throttling and are hoping to have updates very shortly. My username is Fishern6 and I look forward to working with you.
Hey RHaworth! As Nick has noted, we are looking forward to working with you. My name is Shane Cann and I too am one of the students in the TC210 class at Michigan State University. My username is Cannshan —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC).
Hello RHaworth. My name is Annabella Roiger. I am in the TC 210 course at MSU and I am working with Nick and Shane on the topic of Bandwidth Throttling. I am looking forward to learning about this topic, contributing to Wikipedia, and working with you as our mentor! My username is ayroiger. —Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC).
- The first bit of mentoring you need is to create wikilinks and stop using spurious capitals – the article title is bandwidth throttling. But the Wikipedia motto is be bold. I see no edits to the article nor even proposed edits on the talk page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Suggestions 1, 2 & 3 below are all things that you can be doing, if nothing else, to build up your edit counts. Go do them! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Marking articles students are working on
Howdy, Online Ambassador!
This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:
- Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
- If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
- Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.
And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.
Thanks! --Sage Ross – Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of CheckMyARMonline page
I would like to know why this page was deleted for not being noteworthy. I was not given the opportunity to edit the page to comply with the A7 guidelines, even though I believe the page was already noteworthy. The site in question is the only site of its type in the world. I believe that alone makes it noteworthy. DorkKnight (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
For reference, I have included these links to other pages on Wikipedia for software companies which do not meet A7 guidelines, but nonetheless have not been deleted (some for several years). Because of these numerous pages violating A7 guidelines (of which there are many, many more), I believe my page has been unfairly deleted based on A7 guidelines because it is a new page. Unless these other A7 violation pages are removed (along with the thousands of others), I believe my page should be undeleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DorkKnight (talk • contribs) 00:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- On of the hallmarks of a wikispammer is their unwillingness to learn wiki markup. Other stuff exists is rarely a valid argument. You can raise the matter at deletion review but don't be too hopeful. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone contested this PROD via OTRS. You'll have to AFD it. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Sustainable Wildlife Enterprises
I am going to re-write Sustainable Wildlife Enterprises – Kangaroo which you recently deleted for being too promotional?
It is an important concept for Australian agriculture and many people often ask – what is a sustainable wildlife enterprise? We would like to provide more info on how they work. A sustainable wildlife enterprise is an Australian cooperative system formed for the cooperative sustainable use of wildlife – and in particular to promote conservation through sustainable use – much like the game management systems in South Africa and Scotland (for example). It is a concept not a business and we are not trying to promote it – just give the facts. Sustainable Wildlife Enterprises was a system developed by the Australian Government Rural Industries Research and Development Corp and the National Landcare Association. References include: A Strategic Plan for Trialling Sustainable Wildlife Enterprises and Implementation of Sustainable Wildlife Enterprise Trials – Integrating biodiversity and wildlife into agricultural production found at www.rirdc.gov.au. I have tried to make it less positive and promotional and more encylopedia like? ALthough it is hard to make the differentiation between listing benefits that the system has for biodiversity and agriculture FROM promotion because it is a positive system.
There is a draft here: Sustainable Wildlife Enterprises – Kangaroo — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWS10 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)