User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2011 May 02

Archives

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

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

[Title width guide]

++++ delete above here if no further edits - already in archive. If further edits, move below here.

Midland Valley Move deletion

Altough I am well aware of the rules about advertisement I would like to remind you that the second sentence of the rule is "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." The presence of a similar structural geology modelling software in Wikipedia Petrel (reservoir software) should warrant the existance of articles for similar products (which have the same importance in academics and industry). The article about the Petrel software is actually a complete stub with nothing more than a short version history. I therefore suggest the following editorial actions:

• the Midland Valley Move article should be undeleted
• the Petrel (reservoir software) should also be deleted for being advertisement
• both articles should be allowed in a joint article labelled Structural Geology Modelling Software
• the article geologic modelling should be expanded to include structural geology modelling with descriptions of the above mentioned software packages

Please let me know what you think sincerely --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Another reason for deleting Midland Valley Move was its total lack of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I agree with you that Petrel is no more notable than Midland Valley Move and I have marked it for deletion. I see no need for an article on structural geology modelling software. But feel fee to expand the geologic modelling article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Tobias1984 (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I humbly accept the NeoVSP deletion :-)

NewB mistakes I guess :-) Anyhow - I was wondering if you put the error in this quote "change his spots nor the leopard his skin" on purpose. — Oded — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdedIlan (talk • contribs) 06:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. That is why I created the quote as a link so that people could see the correct version. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess having a Master's in English Lit. while working as a Hightech VP does have a few benefits :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdedIlan (talk • contribs) 07:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Space Camp Spain

Hi RHaworth, May I ask how I can improve my article to avoid the deletion? Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xala22 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Links to reliable sources in English possibly? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, reliable sources in Spanish might be enough, if they are good sources and there are a few of them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ta!

was about to report it (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)).

Sven Kullander (physicist)

In the talk page, as per instructions, I explained that I was awaiting details from Mats Lewan to put in this page. I got the information for inclusion a few hours later and found the page had already been deleted. Was there some problem with just waiting a bit to see if the page got fixed in the meantime?

Anyway, quite frankly it is not worth my time working on this, so having repaired the damage caused by consequent broken links I'll just drop the idea. Brian Josephson (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia simply does not need placeholders. When you have an article ready, post it. Until then it is better to have red links that indicate the lack of an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There already is an article for a Sven Kullander so the situation is not that simple. It is unfortunate that the person who referred to SK in the first place got the wrong person and linked to him but as Lewan had told me of the existence of the Swedish page it seemed a good idea to link to it (and will help to avoid errors in the future; if people don't like it they can always use the amazing back button). Incidentally, the W'pedia community has got me to thank for spotting there was an inconsistency in the first place (that the link did not go to a physicist), and helping to set the record straight. Brian Josephson (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: it has been agreed that, given that the English editors appear to be significantly less tolerant than Swedish ones, producing an English version is not worth the effort even though we have some text now -- there's always Google Translate, for those who want to know what the Swedish version says. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed by you and who else? What an amazing fuss considering that I did not delete anything of any substance. Also please note that we do not have moderators on Wikipedia - the difference is very significant. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedian seeking a mentor

Hello, I live in California, teach and tutor on a part time basis. I previously practiced as a CPA, and worked in Public Accounting for a number of years, had my own very tiny practice, and decided to change professions, for a number of reasons.

I opened my Wikipedia account in 2006 or 2007, and began contributing.

I was formerly adopted by A-Nobody, who was pleasant, but sadly, not very helpful. In early 2010, I became less and less enthusiastic about my participation in Wikipedia projects, articles, and the group as a whole; my lack of enthusiasm really stemmed from not understanding the Wikipedia community, the politics, people, details and nuances of contributing. Just feeling very out of touch. Well, when I came back to my user page, looked around, and tried to catch up, I found that A-Nobody has been indefinitely banned. When I made an inquiry or two, about the circumstances, and the fact that I was interested in being adopted, again, I was not given a reply.

Today, on live help, I was advised to seek a mentor through the Ambassador Program, at Wikipedia. Please let me know if you think we could make a good match.

Thank you, Kat. Irshgrl500 20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshgrl500 (talk • contribs)

• My first reaction is: you have a reasonably sound contributions history. On your user talk page, I did not see a single human complaining about your edits. So why do you feel a need for a mentor? I steer well clear of Wikipedia politics. For example, I looked at this discussion about A Nobody with total apathy. I am not in the habit of "stalking" other editors' work. But if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. Incidentally re the fact that SineBot came in after you: I believe the problem is that you have created a custom signature in your preferences but it does not create any link to your user or user_talk page. Feel free to use my signature format: — {{subst:user1|Irshgrl500}} or simply cancel your custom signature. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Roger, Thank you for your replies. Perhaps my motivation in seeking a mentor is my lack of confidence in understanding some of the applications in Wikipedia, and the "nuance" of the communities, within Wikipedia. (i.e. - the accepted protocol of certain projects and not being or feeling connected.) I suppose this could be attributed to my lack of participation, in various projects but that stems from the lack of confidence, thus it is a wash. An example of my lack of understanding is with the "term" Sockpuppeting (which was a contributing reason for A-Nobody's ban, was it not?). I am not entirely clear on the meaning of Sockpuppeting. I think it basically is a form of fraud by a User, by means of identify. I.e. - signing on under different User names or accounts, in order to contribute. Again, I am not clear with reasons or potential User behavior involving the term Sockpuppeting. My thoughts at this point are, to proceed with my participation in Wikipedia, while becoming more committed and involved in writing articles, edits and with the projects I am a member of. Could you be available for intermittent questions, or advice? I can be a bit "high maintenance" but would keep the questions to a few per week. Let me know what you think. Lastly, thank you for the compliment with your comment regarding my talk page. My objective in communicating on any talk page is to not offend while making a point. However, at times, my time and efforts in my achieving my objective are in excess. For example, two years ago on my talk page, efforts with my written replies, in 2 long paragraphs made to A COMPUTER BLOT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshgrl500 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

---Signature Issue BAFFLES ME--- Even after applying your signature format, I am redirected and interrupeted in edits by the Sinebot. WHY?????? This should be so simple!!!Irshgrl500 (talk · contribs) 16:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Irshgrl500 (talk · contribs) 16:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am very happy to reply to intermittent questions. The first paragraph of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry describes that problem very clearly. User:Vaznecek is one example of a sock puppet - created to avoid a ban. The term is not "blot" but "bot" - as in robot. Signature now seems fixed. With this edit you simply forgot to sign. It is fine in this edit but you should add " — " or " -- " at the front of it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Roger, thank you for your reply. Sock pupperty, is as I thought, a form of fraud on the User's part, for what ever reason. (to evade what ever consequences, vandalize, etc.) And I should have recognized that the term is "bot", not "blot". When I have questions, I leave will a message, here on your talk page. Again, thank you for your help. Kat Irshgrl500 (talk · contribs) 13:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Irshgrl500 (talk · contribs)  13:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of memorials -- Understand

RHaworth, Thank you very much for helping me with the understanding of posting memorials. I am a new editor here, and I thought I have read everyting, I must have missed that. I do have a quick question. I am a little confused on the copyright tags. I just go permission to use the club house photo from the person that took it, but now I do not know what tag I should use. Thank you in advance for helping out a rookie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortpockets (talk • contribs) 05:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Follow these instructions and select "Attribution ShareAlike 3.0" for the licence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Fastsigns

RHaworth, I just wanted to get an understanding for why the new Fastsigns page was deleted. I have looked at the description for section G11 (speedy deletion), and I feel like I have abided by the rules. If you would let me know how I could improve or fix the page so it is not removed, that would be great. Thanks! Kilgoretrout89 (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• This guideline says that we do not SHOUT the company's name even if they do so themselves and we do not need ® anywhere in an article such as this. When I saw both these guidelines flagrantly violated, I assumed the article must have been posted by someone from the company. Also there was just one independent reference - the others being press releases. If you attend to these matters you may find a sympathetic reception at deletion review. I would send you your text if you had e-mail set up. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much RHaworth. I was unaware that the capitalization and ® were the problem. I will also add in some additional references. One question, the guidelines you directed me to seem to be for simple undeletion requests. Since I need to make corrections before requesting an undeletion, what steps should I take? Thank you again, I look forward to working this out! — Kilgoretrout89 (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• So create a draft in User:Kilgoretrout89/sandbox and link to it from your undeletion request. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Rhaworth, Thank you so much for your guidance, I am learning as I go! I have just updated the page, placed it in my sandbox, and put the request through on the deletion review page (which links to my sandbox.) I hope that works! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilgoretrout89 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Did you consider correcting the shouting and removing the ®s before going to DRV? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

They should have all been removed in my sandbox version, with the exception of the one in the first line. I was just following suit with how TIME Magazine clarified their capitalized branding. This example was mentioned in the Manual of Style you sent me, so I thought it would be acceptable. If it is not, then I can remove. Thanks! — Kilgoretrout89 (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's me again. I have just looked over the deletion review page discussion about Fastsigns. There were some concerns regarding notability, however another editor mentions that Fastsigns certainly meets the requirements. I would really like to get this page up. I am starting to get confused! Let me know what I should do. Regarding the image, I do have permission to distribute the image. If I have improperly tagged it, please advise. Thanks! — Kilgoretrout89 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Don't be impatient. The deletion review will close in the next day or two - simply wait for the decision by the admin who closes it. As to the logo - I agree with the comment - the tag is almost certainly wrong but since you seem to be getting away with it, don't do anything! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Hello Roger, How does one semi-protect an article? Is this procedure only available to Administrators? I am asking about this procedure because there is an article I made a few edits to, and left messages regarding the edits, which has been edited, needlessly, over the last 2 years. (Not all edits were needless.) The article is a biography about a 13 year old, who committed suicide over Cyber bullying. Some of the edits have taken form of opinions, and been the product of "hyped" interests, possibly due to the fact that the story was fictionalized on the TV show, Law and Order. Someone suggested semi-protecting the article, back in Sept. 2010, and was ignored. I actually think semi-protecting the article is a fantastic idea. And the article was actually the product of vandalism, and the User who vandalized the article was banned. Thank you, Kat Irshgrl500 (talk · contribs) 13:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Correct: only admins can protect or semi-protect. So why leave me to guess which article you are talking about - give me a link for goodness sake! The suggestion in 2010 Sept was not ignored. C.Fred's replied to say the level of vandalism was not high enough to justify protection. I think nothing has changed but if C.Fred now thinks different, I will let him protect. You just have to resign yourself to watching the page - you do have a watchlist don't you? When you revert an edit make sure to leave a message such as this or this. Also check the vandal's contribution history: if they have done several recent acts of vandalism, report it at WP:AIV. Look at a few articles in Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages, see what was happening to them before semi-protection and compare that with the level of vandalism on the page about Megan. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Irshgrl500 (talk · contribs) 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

IntoUniversity

Hi Roger, What further information would you like to see so that I can show that IntoUniversity is notable? Thanks Roger! — James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebkac (talk • contribs) 11:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Do the words links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources suggest anything to you? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Ok fair cop, thanks Rogger, I'll have a look for further mentions of the organsation around the press & Internet so will make the article better over the next hour. Speak to you in a bit Pebkac (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Uzuc

Hello! Can you tell me what is wrong with Uzuc Ploiești article? Where is my mistake? Please help me (if you can / want) how to create a corect article based on the original Uzuc Ploiești. Thank you! Media-vani (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• When you did this edit how could you possibly not see that you had added a massive speedy delete request box? But I will admit it was a bit cruel of me to treat that as a request to delete the article. Your contributions history suggests that you have a COI so I am very reluctant to restore to (article) space. I suggest you try and find better references then either raise the matter at deletion review or find someone familiar with the subject area to move the article for you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion nomination

Hi RHaworth. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Sir john voce moore, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, under criterion A7 because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Although containing very little information, and badly formatted, this article (now moved to John Voce Moore) contains a clear assertion of notability - namely that the subject was Lord Mayor of London from 1898-1899. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

• Please check to whom you are talking before you use a standard message. But here's one in return: please sign talk page messages with ~~~~ ! Funny, but a few minutes ago I was looking at this AfD which says that "being mayor of an Irish city is a largely ceremonial post". Same goes for Lord Mayors of London even back in 1890. Was it actually worth keeping? It is not even an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Apologies for not signing, that was an oversight. While the Lord Mayor of London is a ceremonial post, the post is clearly a notable one and so being a holder of that post is a clear assertion of notability and so is ineligible for speedy deletion. Whether this post holder is notable enough for an article I don't know, all I know is that they might be and so speedy deletion is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Monroe High School

Just wanted to let you know that sometime in August of this year 2011, we'll have to take off the coordinates for Monroe High School, because they'll be at a new address that don't have coordinates for. I've got the new address, that I'll be adding in there. Here's kind of the story. The school district is moving Monroe from the site they're at now, to the site the Junior High/Middle school use to be at. I was able to get the address for that site, that I'll have in there, once I know it's offical. After this school year, I'll be checking the schools website, to see when they'll update it. Just wanted to let you know. I'll have to get a new picture up soon. After this school year, I'll be taking off the current picture that's up there. Just wanted to let you know though, so that you're not wondering what I'm doing with the page, or article. I'll have to try and get a picture of the building that they'll be in for next school year. (JoeCool950 (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

• Noted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I am sorry. I was intending to create a template in sq.wikipedia, but unfortunately it seems I opened the wrong page. Are you an admin, in order to delete the created template?--Pedanti (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, only admins can delete. Users get rid of their mistakes by applying a {{db-author}} tag. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Admissions Council

Hello RHaworth, I am not sure why my page was deleted, I am trying to add a new page to wiki and it seems to be saying it is spam. I added references and I am not sure what I did wrong. Could you please help me understand what the problem is? I'm not trying to promote anything just creating an info page.(Richard33321 (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2011

• Not sure! The deletion log clearly states A7, G11 and G12. Did you follow those links? Clearly a total absence of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources influenced our decisions to delete. Please read template:uw-coi and wait until someone with no COI decides your company is notable and writes about it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio images uploaded by Newcrash

G'day from Oz; you have just deleted some images uploaded by User:Newcrash that I tagged; there is one more image s/he (probably he) uploaded that I am sure is a copyvio. I found this, which is the same picture but I think is a different-size file to the one actually uploaded (here). Despite looking for about an hour, I cannot find the exact-same file. However, given the track-record of Newcrash and the similarity of the two images, is that enough to act upon? YSSYguy (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• In fact F4: lack of licensing information could be used without showing any copyvio. And the uploader's track record helps to confirm. Amused that you are in Oz whilst for me it would be an interesting afternoon out to try and find the locations of File:KLM Croydon DC-2 accident.jpg and File:Flight 701 crashsite.jpg. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed you were a local. I actually visited Croydon in October last year to get a pic of the Heron - and no, I didn't fly all that way just for that ;-). Thanks for the tip on the CSD category. YSSYguy (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Returnof4eva

We've got the same edit time on that - me redirecting it to Big K.R.I.T. and you deleting it. You won. I found out when I saved the message I'd put on the author's talk page. Do you want it to stay deleted or for restoration as the redirect? Peridon (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• No strong feelings. Probably better to restore as a redirect. i will let you do it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Peridon (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

BCR Computer Resources deletion

I am wondering why the BCR Computer Resources page was marked for deletion. As per my understanding the page did not violate section G11 which you sighted as the reason for deletion. G11 states, "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Is there any way that you could let me know what exactly you saw a promotion of a product and what I can change or remove to make the page acceptable? Also, if you have access to the deleted page, can you send me a copy so that I can revise it? Thank you. --B ryan 1994 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• I cited G11 - "please visit BCR's contact page" is not exactly encyclopedic. But that is nit-picking. Howevere you cannot deny the validity of the other deletion reason: A7 - no assertion of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see the validity of the G11 claim. I did not see the A7 reason listed. However, the company is one of the highest ranked computer repair companies in its area. The reason this was not stated is that it was claimed by a local publication, and the article is not available online. Any suggestions? Thanks again. --B ryan 1994 (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestions? Do nothing. When the company becomes notable, someone with no COI will write about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

MyEstateManager.com

Has my page been deleted or just moved as i asked. I will be adding more information today and tomorrow. What do i need to do to keep the page and not have it deleted? ThanksMurph146 (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Look at your contributions. Is it there? You created User:Murph146/sandbox - use it! Do not even think of putting anything into the (article) namespace until you have at least a stub of a proper article including evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That seemed a little harsh. What exactly do you mean is it there? I just clicked on the myestatemanger.com link i created and started adding credible information. Also what are you referring when you say no to put anything in the article namespace? Thanks again.Murph146 (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• You asked "has my page been deleted". I am telling you that such a question is redundant. Click on the "My contributions" link and answer your own question. "Also what are you referring …?" Develop your article in User:Murph146/sandbox. When you think it is ready, ask L Kensington (talk · contribs) (who tagged your article for deletion), your mentor or myself to move it into the (article) namespace for you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Incidentally, I must warn you that you will probably have an uphill task establishing the notability of MyEstateManager.com. If your main aim is to get an article into Wikipedia, I recommend you to find a subject where notability is less in doubt. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nicomsoft

Thank you for your speed in addressing this CSD nomination! I think that four minutes from nomination to deletion is truely a "speedy deletion"! - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I hate to bother you again here, but the editor who created this spam article has just created it again! I'll tag it for CSD again and perhaps you could block recreation this time around? Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:Lectonar CSDed it this time around! - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Protected. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, sir! - Ahunt (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: CSD Tagging Jarlaxle's talk page archives

I tagged them because he chose his fate: To be rendered nonexistent, and have a shrine made of stone to immortalize his heinous crimes at User:Grawp. Therefore, I felt it was only right to vaporise his talk page, unless you wish to keep it for decorative purposes to User:Grawp. --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 22:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Train inspection systems

Hi, you renamed Train Inspection Systems to Train inspection system, rather than Train inspection systems. Was there any particular reason for dropping the plural? (please reply here). Tim PF (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Check the article itself. I see the following words linked: train cars, locomotives, cars, cameras, scanners. Are the titles to which they link singular or plural? See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to tell you that I have seen your reply, thanks. I'll check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) tomorrow (Thursday). Meanwhile, 'tis time for bed. Tim PF (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I know the general principle of using a singular, but it didn't seem so obvious in this case. I've now re-read the link and I think that it could come under the Articles on groups or classes of specific things exceptions, but maybe not.

I have now changed the lead to use the singular (as per the title), and also created the additional train inspection systems redirect with {{R from plural}} category, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)#Redirect. Tim PF (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Another solution might be to drop "system/s" altogether. What is wrong with a title of train inspection? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. I'm not an expert on the subject; I just stumbled upon the article created by a new editor, and decided to get it a bit more into shape. Tim PF (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Pro (rapper)

You erred when you deleted the article. The subject met WP:BAND item 4. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Gary bugden

I can't really disagree with your PROD, but didn't want to (BLP-)PROD it myself after working on it a little bit. A Google search reveals a couple of hits for the subject (I think) but I didn't have the time to pursue it. I may still do so. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

xTrader screenshot

Hello, I am trying to upload the screenshot of xTrader platform, to the wikipedia page xTrader. I have a permission to do it, just tell me what proof would you need. Also, please give some feedback or support on what I am doing wrong. You deleted the file before even the upload. — Arunas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerozot (talk • contribs) 06:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• "You deleted the "file before even the upload" - that would be impossible! What are you trying to say? Please find at least four existing, well-established articles similar to xTrader and actually look at their wiki markup. Learn how to do: bulleted lists, proper links both external and internal, etc. Internal links are best handled within the main body, but a short "see also" section of wikilinks may be acceptable. The logo will probably be OK with a {{PD-textlogo}} tag but certainly fair use will be fine. the screen shot needs to be big to be legible so fair use may be inappropriate. Go through these steps to establish permission. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Islands Business

Hi. I see you've just deleted the article Islands Business. I would very much have appreciated you doing me the simple courtesy of bringing any problems with the article to my attention, so that I could see whether they might be remedied, rather than simply zapping it. I realise it was treated as a speedy, but nonetheless, if it might have been salvageable, I'd like to have given it a shot. Never mind... I can't remember now what I actually put into it. I thought I had indicated its relevence (it being the "premier publishing group in the Pacific Islands region" would seem sufficient per se, even if that statement is admittedly self-claimed), though clearly it appears I hadn't. Anyway, could you remind me what exactly was in the article, and tell me in what way specifically it fell short of the guidelines - i.e., what was lacking? If I have time, I may dig around and see whether there's sufficient material for me to rewrite it, within the guidelines. I would like to avoid having to do so from scratch. (And for the avoidance of any doubt, I have absolutely no personal link with this news company.) Aridd (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Criterion A7 (under which the article was deleted) says:

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

Did I forget to mention in the article that it presents itself as the "premier publishing group" in the Pacific? If I did forget it, I would like the article to be recreated with that statement included. If I didn't forget it, then surely it shouldn't have been a speedy. Or am I missing or misunderstanding something? Thank you in advance for any clarification. Aridd (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• You certainly should register a complaint with Alexf (talk · contribs) for failing to notify you of the speedy tag. You admit that "describes itself as" is a rather weak assertion of notability but, more importantly, as an experienced editor you ought to know the importance of providing links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I have restored the article to User:Aridd/sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I see the problem in relation to secondary sources... I'll look around and see what I can find. Also, sorry for the initial testy comment; it was indeed up to the nominator to inform me. Aridd (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Newsletter: 22 April 2011

Extended content

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 4, 22 April 2011 This is the fourth issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed. Voting begins for steering committee - The voting phase for the Wikipedia Ambassador Steering Committee election started this week, and will continue through 27 April. Seeking more Regional Ambassadors in the US - We are still looking for Regional Ambassadors for the United States! The deadline has been extended to Friday, April 29th. India pilot being organized now - Plans are currently underway for a pilot expansion of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – in India! Hisham Mundol and other Wikimedia staff have begun recruiting Campus Ambassador candidates for Pune. Document DYK, peer review and other milestone at the trophy case - If students you are working with (or any others you notice) are doing work that makes to DYK, is nominated for Good Article status, or is just solid content worth marking, then please help us document the students' success at the trophy case. Ambassador program at Wikimania - We're planning a set of Wikipedia Ambassador Program presentations for Wikimania 2011, in Haifa this August. Changes to mailing list - A new low-volume mailing list, [Ambassador-announce-l], is being created. It will be reserved for key announcements and news, which we'd like all ambassadors to be subscribed to. Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Down Terrace

Hi, thanks for your help. I hope my entry for Down Terrace passes the notability test. Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kifster (talk • contribs) 18:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin C. Schneider

Martin C. (Marty) Schneider is the host of a well known, successful Christian financial talk radio show, The Word on Wealth. The show is broadcast in San Diego, CA since 2005 and Phoenix, AZ since 2010 on Salem Communications radio stations (which, incidentally each have their own wiki pages). I have researched other similar radio personalities who have articles on wikipedia, and included similar information about him on this page.

The 'speedy deletion' notification said there was no indication of importance, however I clearly included verifiable third party sources, he is well known locally in the markets where his show is broadcast, and the article had a neutral point of view. Please explain why this does not meet the 'important or significant' criteria, or simply restore the page. See [1] [2] — Angelafeaster (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• There was a lack of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Requests for undeletion is for non-controversial cases - you may do better at deletion review. But better still would be for you to wait until someone with no COI decides to write about him. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:11, 22 April 2011

There is no conflict of interest, I am not a relative or an employee of Marty or his company - and the article had a neutral point of view. He is the host of a radio program that has been on the air since 2005 and is now broadcast in 2 major cities, which was noted in the article. I'm curious as to how you come to your decisions, but you can be certain I will be appealing. I have seen your tone in response to many other contributors, and it is obvious that you think highly of your own assessments, even as other administrators disagree. Many of your responses are rather condescending, to the point of being quite rude and unprofessional. I would prefer to continue this with someone more impartial, so please just send the page to me via the 'userfy' function. Angelafeaster (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Both articles have been e-mailed to you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

BIG4books

Hi. You previously deleted BIG4books, then Tikiwont restored it to User:Mrichards43/BIG4books, where I have edited it per Tikiwont's suggestion: "You may work on improving the article's assertion of notability at its new location, but please contact RHaworth (talk · contribs), the administrator who deleted the page, before moving it back to the article space." So I am now contacting you as he suggested. There are currently thousands of people/companies interested in the subject of the article, plus it represents the first of it's kind in it's genre plus has received some amount of media interest/notoriety. If you have a chance please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Mrichards43 (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• I happened to see this edit with its totally misleading edit summary! Certainly you ought to shorten the feature list. Which of your external links is a genuine, independent review of the product? But you have tried, so if you action my two suggestions and move it back into the (article) namespace, I won't touch it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A misplaced message

This is addressed to you, but the user appears to have been confused about where to place it. DS (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Definitely confused - see their two comments on their user talk page! After leaving the misplaced message to me, they made two attempts to post to (article) space and one AfC submission so I shall treat the matter as closed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Would you like me to close the AfD for the speedied article or would you prefer to complete it? I'm not sure if I can just go ahead and close something at AfD after it's speedied or whether the deleting admin. should do so. CycloneGU (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is my job to close it - so I have done so. Note that strictly speaking "unsourced blp" is not a criterion for speedy deletion, the phrase you should use is "no assertion of notability". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Check, though unsourced BLP is what it was hence my using it, I guess it technically means the same thing isn't always the same thing. CycloneGU (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Phil Booth

Hi Roger, I tried writing to you about this before, but hopefully I'll get through this time. It appears you deleted a page that someone wrote about me, back in March: 02:42, 9 March 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted Phil Booth ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

I'm not particularly interested in having a page on Wikipedia about me, especially if all it refers to is my work at NO2ID. But I would be quite interested just to read what someone did write about me. Please could you send me a copy of the text that you deleted? My wikipedia profile does contain a valid e-mail address, and I have enabled people to send me e-mail. Cheers, Phil Booth Lankyphil (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Text e-mailed. At least you know where to find the author (DABpsyB15 (talk · contribs)) if you don't like it! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Roger - e-mail received. I strongly suspect I know who DABpsyB15 is, and will have words with him... ;)

Lankyphil (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Kick Horns

Why was this page deleted? And if there was a discussion page about it, can you show me where? Belsen (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why? So what does the deletion log say? In 2006 you could get away with an article devoid of evidence of notability. In 2011 you cannot. Feel free to raise the matter at deletion review. I can let you see the deleted text if you follow these instructions. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your "help" and "patience". Belsen (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

RHaworth and snow and faux anger

Hi R, as you may know I am a crazed enthusiast of your work on Wikipedia more details available on request, even if I don't agree with all of it.

While enlightening enthusiastic newcomers and trying to scare them away from misdeeds, I sometimes found reason to mention an image that you used on your userpage a few months ago, specifically one that showed you looking slightly angry (perhaps in pretence) and with bits of snow in your hair. The snow is the significant aspect. I've done some quick searches for this image on Commons, but can't find it. I would be incredibly grateful if you could let me know where I can find this image.

Thank you very much. -- Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• The quick way to find it was via the edit history of my user page - thus! What "faux anger"? I always look like that! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Perfect! Thank you very much. Yes, I should've thought of that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Charles Web Proxy

Charles Web Debugging Proxy is a well known piece of software and the URL is blacklisted because of a regular expression error in the meta blacklist. I have asked for an exception for the domain charlesproxy.com on Meta-Wiki. There's no valid reason to not have a webpage about Charles Proxy. It's notable software. A speedy delete is inappropriate. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC))

I could have made a better intitial stub, but I was busy with the blocked domain issue. As for notability search google for 'Charles' and it's the first result. Given there are very many notable 'Charles' known in the universe, that in itself should be reason to avoid a speedy delete. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)).

• There is a very valid reason not to have: the total absence of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources in your article. If you can show that the software is notable, I suggest you resubmit via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok. Thanks, will look into it. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC))

Move of Bakula Rinpoche Airport

[see Talk:Leh Kushok Bakula Rinpoche Airport]

Jonathan Keltz

Greetings! You deleted an article on the above-referenced topic with a G4 basis. I didn't actually create this iteration of the article, but I added several sources to support the article after somebody nominated it for an A7 speedy, so I am very concerned that the G4 basis was and is very off-the-mark. Yes, it was deleted over a year ago because of a lack of reliable sourcing. A very casual Google search reveals that the sourcing situation has changed (and, again, I had added a few sources to the article prior to the G4 deletion). I'm not going to take this to Deletion Review, because that seems silly and, frankly, because I barely have any idea who Jonathan Keltz is, but it seems very clear to me that the reasons this topic was deleted via AfD 14 months ago no longer apply. The AfD concluded with a "Delete" because there was no coverage suggesting he's notable. This is very much not the case any longer, and the sources I had added to the article prior to its G4 deletion supported this. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Several sources"? You added just two (badly formatted) links and one of those was to IMDb which is not evidence of notability. OK, I should have changed the deletion reason from G4 as tagged by SummerPhD (talk · contribs) to A7. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually it didn't meet the criteria for A7 either, as the article claimed he had prominent roles in notable TV programs/films. A7 requires only the assertion of a credible claim to importance and/or significance, which is explicitly a lower standard than notability, and does not require evidence to back it up (although in this case such verification was actually provided). When an article makes a credible claim, whether referenced or not, it is not speedy deletable (unless it meets other criteria), and if you do not think the subject notable you should prod it or send it to AfD (although in this case, it was not eligible for prod having previously been discussed at AfD). As this is the second time recently I've noticed you make this mistake you may wish to refresh your memory on the exact wording of the criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing

Came here to ask and found this ongoing discussion. I would like you to take a look at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Jonathan Keltz. There was an article about this fellow that was sent to AFD in January 2010.[3] As I myself commented back then, I felt that while the fellow might be seen to meet WP:ENT, there was simply not enough reliable coverage at that time upon which to build a decent BLP. That has changed. In the intervening 14 months, the fellow has received growing coverage and recognition he lacked originally. And with the new coverage, available only since the deletion,[4] I feel it benefits the project to have this new version of the article return to mainspace to further grow and be expanded. I see no point in a DRV, as there was no flaw in the reasoning for deletion of the original article... but this is not exactly the same as the article that was deleted, due to actor's career and coverage not sitting still over the last 14 months. As time and circumstance and coverage have changed (he met WP:ENT and now meets WP:GNG), I seek your approval in its return AND in it not being speedied as a G4 recreation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Go ahead and publish. I will not touch it. You have gone to the trouble of writing an article unlike the slovenly stub (e-mailed to you) that I deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  Apreciations. Having just checked my email, I can well understand your reaction to that quite slovenly stub. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  And, just to be clear, I, too, can certainly understand an extremely negative reaction to the "article" (punctuation intended to imply derisory attitude towards the two-sentence masterpiece at issue) as it existed when it was deleted. It scarcely qualified as a stub. My concern was that the "article" in question seemed to pass both A7 and G4. I certainly cede that my citation formatting was horrid, and I know full well that iMBD is not a reliable source, but I was dealing with what I perceived to be several editors jumping all over the article to try and get it deleted despite what appeared to me to be a fairly strong amount of sourcing available via little more than a simple Google search, so I was trying to act very fast (and, to be frank, I was literally sitting in a class not paying attention to a lecture while doing this, so my attention was a bit divided...serves me right!). If my comments above were taken to be offensive in any way, please accept my apologies -- they certainly were not intended to be obnoxious, and I have complete respect for the fact that you were doing your job as an Admin. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Please don't apologise! I get comments far worse than yours all the time and give back as good as I get. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Billy Butlin

I've contested your Speedy Deletion on Commons - The civil thing would have been to ask me your questions, wait for a reply and then consider making changes which I may have accepted, rather than asking and nominating for speedy delete at the same time. However I would ask that you restore the image on the above article whilst the deletion debate takes place, The article is currently a GA nominee and any attempt on my part to restore it for discussion under BRD could be seen as an unstable article and risk that nomination. I don't care either way which version of the image remains on Butlins Skegness until after the discussion is complete but the Billy Butlin nomination should be allowed to continue undisturbed. I do appreciate the catch of the {{main template after the recent rename of the latter article, thank you for that. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Do you seriously think that switching back to the other image will make any difference to the GA discussion? By all means change it if you wish. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that Timothy Everest failed to get AfD on the first attempt, after a bad faith PROD by an IP user led to the reviewer declaring the article unstable. Whilst I don't think that the choice of image will affect the GA - I do think that a revert for the purposes of BRD may affect a GA. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Schools

Hi RHaworth/Archive to 2011 May 02. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This is for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities.
If you regularly provide advice, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Form and document creation

Can you please tell me why this is flagged for deletion? I am new to this and want everything to be correct. It is my research for my masters class and the prof required wikipedia submission, so I'd really prefer it not be deleted. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwallac (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• In my view it falls firmly into the original research area. It could also be rejected as an how-to guide. If you would like second opinions, you may raise the matter at AfD. I saw your comment "I spent probably 40 hours researching this for my masters course and the prof required wikipedia submission, so I'd prefer it not be deleted". Please tell your prof very firmly from me that Wikipedia is not a free host and that they should spend time studying Wikipedia to see what sort of stuff is acceptable before they suggest any student posts their essay here. I realise you have spent a long time on the article. I am sure you will find an home for it on Wikia or some other website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of PlayStation Network timeline

Hello, can I ask you to look again at the matters surrounding the speedy deletion of Template:PSN outage timeline.

The PlayStation Network outage article has a timeline at the very top of the article, which results in a user seeing a wall of table code before they actually get to the article head. Yesterday to make it easier for editors I moved the timeline text and turned it into a template (Template:PSN outage timeline). It made the edit window clear and easier to understand, and even received a thank you from one editor on the talk page.

Last night the template was Speedy Deleted with the proposer stating on my discussion page that because it is only used on one page the template must be deleted on sight. I know of no such guideline. That user then attempted to move the Template so that it became an article sub-page - PlayStation Network outage/Timeline - this is, of course, not allowed. I suspect at this point the user has tagged the incorrect move as a G8, which is where you come in, all that you see is a correctly labelled G8; a sub-page which you have to remove, and a redirect at the template namespace which was created by the page move.

I believe the other user's incorrect page move has caused the confusion. The template does not break any guidelines, something I sought re-assurance on at WP:PUMP. It is the page move that is at fault. Could I please ask you to re-assess this deletion and, if you agree with me, restore the template to Template:PSN outage timeline. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)