User talk:RHaworth/2013 Jan 22

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

Ashesh and Nekhvam
Mr RHaworth I have made the wiki page for "Ashesh and Nekhvam" and I've been working on it for quite some time now. I've been able to remove it from being a stub but I am still unable to meet the required criteria for more citations required. So can you tell me how I can meet the citations requirement in order to make this a proper page. Thank you for your kind co-operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.159.56.184 (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Log in; change the article title to a proper link; sign with ~ and I will reply. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to step out of line here, Roger, and you know I've always respected you as an admin, but I'm a bit curious about the above post, and especially the edit summary that accompanied it. Were you making a generalization about certain types of comments from unregistered editors, or do you actually maintain a policy of not engaging with IP contributors on your talk page? — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 12:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This search shows that I do have such a policy. Generally, they do not bother to come back but this guy is made of sterner stuff and had already come back with two out of three of his errors corrected when you left the above message. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And is there consensus saying that such a policy is permissible from an admin? —  Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 00:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Point me to the consensus that says such a policy is not permissible. Indeed point me to the policy that says I must reply to every message on this page. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, any categorical policy against communicating with certain users would run afoul of WP:ADMINACCT, in that "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Following the search you linked to, it seems that there have been several times where your policy conflicted with that rule.     Clearly all of the actions in question were policy-compliant, but that doesn't mean they weren't worth explaining. —  Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 02:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to press the issue, especially since I feel you've gained the impression that I'm going after you, which I really am not, but I'd appreciate some sort of reply before the bot archives this. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 18:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What bot? In my view my reply at 11:41, 27 December 2012 above was prompt and civil. The same applies to the four examples you quote (why were you committing the newbie error of using external link format? And why on earth https?), especially this one where I have taken the time to extol the virtues of being logged in. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. You manually archive. My mistake. The newbie error (for which I apologize) is because I was looking through old discussions, and therefore some switch turned on in my mind saying "these are  pages"; the https is because I have HTTPS Everywhere - I highly recommend it!.
 * As for the edits in question, as I said, it's not that your responses were uncivil; it's that you were asked to explain an administrative action - a question that all users, registered and unregistered alike, have the right to ask - and you failed to do so. I'm not pretending that this is a huge deal, but the fact of the matter is that you have a personal policy that directly conflicts with one of the policies to which you, as an administrator, are subject. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Directly conflicts" - utter rubbish. Don't you see that I am so keen to give a proper explanation that, before I reply, I want to know whether I am talking to the author of the article or to someone else so that I may word my reply appropriately? However, I recognise that some people may not know what an IP address is so I have prepared this message to which I shall point any future sinners. Feel free to improve its wording. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Poepole
Nevermore.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank You.
I just wanted to pop by and thank you for your diligence and actions regarding User:Iamthemuffinman. I am not sure how he came to your attention, but his removal of content from my talk page was tedious to keep reverting all the time and I was just about to report them before your timely intervention. MisterShiney   ✉    17:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Insurance certificate tracking
I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Insurance certificate tracking. First of all, you submitted it under G6, when G4 is the appropriate criterion for articles re-created after being deleted following a deletion discussion (in this case, the AfD was in 2011). The new article is sufficiently different from the deleted article so that G4 does not apply either. The article may still be eligible for deletion based on the reasons mentioned in the AfD, but that would have to be done in a WP:PROD or a new WP:AfD.--Slon02 (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Cypris Chat was deleted
I don't feel Cypris Chat should have been deleted. I'd be more than happy to create the article in a sandbox and have it critiqued. I wasn't aware Wikipedia was so critical. I thought my article represents my field better than many of the articles I have seen. Our organization is the first of it's kind and clearly deserves to be represented. I'd like another chance to edit the article if possible. MDMcKay (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you actually looked at any Wikipedia articles? How many articles are written in the first person? It was spam as bad as it gets. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your organisation is notable and writes about it here. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Brubeck
Re: Excerpt from Dave Brubeck interview by Martin Totusek in Cadence Magazine, December 1994, Vol. 20 No. 12 (PDF).pdf, regarding deletion of file and related matters: The file was in use - linked to Dave Brubeck as a verifiable encyclopedic content reference.

Permission for Wikipedia use was granted and is also posted online at http://www.scn.org/~bb553/ Scroll down at that URL to: Martin Totusek's musician-to-musician interview with pianist/composer and W.W. II veteran Dave Brubeck was published in the December 1994 issue (Vol. 20 No. 12, pages 5 - 17) of: "CADENCE - The Review of Jazz & Blues" (Cadence Building, Redwood, New York 13679-9612 {315} 287-2852)

Note: Formal permission to use this PDF from a scan - the second and third pages of the interview, is formally granted by Martin Totusek for use in Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopia, as of 17 December 2012.

Whatever "orphaned" status is happening at wikipedia to the Dave Brubeck link to the document is happening for reasons that are unclear - including given that the formal permission is granted for Wikipedia use (A previous listing of that permission was also listed at Wikipedia and was also deleted, for no apparent reason). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtq (talk • contribs)
 * If you wish to been taken seriously as an editor, you will learn a few basics: sign your talk page comments, use wikilinks, do not us excessive bold and, above all, read your contribs history. Why the [expletive deleted] are you writing to me when the only thing I deleted, indeed the only edits of yours that anybody has deleted, was a pointless redirect? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for undeletion - Dirty needles
As discussed here, the intended subject of this article is different than the target of the existing redirect (Needle exchange programme). Can you please undelete the article? I have not seen the deleted version; if it is not ready for mainspace please copy it to my user space instead. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the entire text of deleted revision of dirty needles (as of 2012-12-28, at 16:53:55) by :
 * Dirty needles refers to unhygienic use of injections. According to USA today the use of dirty needles may have affected 150,000 people in the usa since 2001. &lt;ref>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/26/infections-needles-mrsa-hospitals/1780335/ // == References== // &#123;{reflist}}
 * Enjoy. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Thanks, though! VQuakr (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for undeletion - Turnpike Glow
I am really confused about the Turnpike Glow article. Was the page deleted because of section A7? "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions." OR G8 (it had a redirect to a non existent page)? Or it lacks reliability of sources? Could you please be more clear and straight? Sometimes human interaction is better than automated responses.

I think it would be better talk to me first instead of deleting the article right away. I see that Wikipedia has categories for Indie music, Alternative rock genres, and Indie Pop. So the intention was just to add an Indie Pop band that was not present in Wikipedia. I was trying to see their information and I could not find in Wikipedia, so I decided to study and create an article about it.

I hope I can contribute positively but I need some guidance. I also would like you to send me the original, I could not find the original article I wrote in "Deletionpedia" and "Full Wiki".

Happy new year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniormayhe (talk • contribs) 13:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your band is notable and writes about it. Text e-mailed - but please do no repost it here. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk from user, who you violated
Hey man, what's up? Are you out to crush my dreams or something? I spent two days on a page about a ski resort I live by, not an advertising or promoting stunt, but because its a landmark and an encyclopedia page would be adequate for what its worth. Its not copyright, or anything illegal, its legal, and you deleted it. Why? Next time, before you delete my page, consider deleting Arapahoe basins page, or Keystones page, because theirs is as legit as mine is. thanks :) - Jon Wolfe Resort Engineer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimpnmonk (talk • contribs)
 * "User who you violated" - this remark a) is totally ridiculous and b) indicates a very unhealthy attachment to your text. "Resort engineer" tells us all we need to know. [Apologies, TPSs for sounding like a parrot.] Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your resort is notable and writes about it. Other stuff exists is never an argument especially when the alleged other stuff does not exist! See two red links above. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Need help on closing a request move.
Hi, i have made some RMs at Talk:Islamic view of Abraham would you help me close it as we need an un-involved editor to do this. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Hmm no problem actually the thing is to determine the consensus but its ok some one might shows up in a few days and if one does not shows up i will provide you the list.Thanks -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very sorry, not the sort of thing I do. But if you give me an agreed list of moves, I will be happy to do them. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

On similar note the following pages need to be moved as per consensus here: Talk:Abraham in Islam
 * Islamic view of Hagar → Hagar in Islam  -- did not need me
 * Islamic views of Mary → Mary in Islam -- already done
 * Shuayb → Shuaib -- done
 * Islamic views on Daniel → Daniel in Islam -- does not need me

-- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actioned or not as noted above. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot you have always been a helping hand. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories being deleted
Hey bud, Any chance you could leave these categories alone for a bit. They are being used by our Wikiproject's assessment taskforce. They are just now starting to be populated. Unless they exist and are categorized properly the bot wont recognize them. They are all with something like:
 * ...Climate and environment of Ethiopia
 * ...Economy and infrastructure of Ethiopia
 * ...Geography of Ethiopia
 * ...History and politics of Ethiopia
 * ...Languages of Ethiopia
 * ... People and culture of Ethiopia

Some examples of already deleted: Category:Mid-importance Climate and environment of Ethiopia, Category:Unknown-importance Climate and environment of Ethiopia. I know you are just trying to clear out some of the trash and your work is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janweh64 (talk • contribs)
 * Any chance, a) that you could learn to sign talk page messages with ~ and b) that you could stop tagging these categories for deletion. With the two above and Category:High-importance Climate and environment of Ethiopia your last edit to each was to apply a db tag with an edit summary of mistakenly created so don't complain to me for deleting them! &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Touche. You do certainly growl at newbies don't you. Point taken. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Argentina-Burma relations
Hi, you recently deleted Category:Argentina–Burma relations, therefore, Category:Argentina-Burma relations should be deleted as well? Sorry, extra work caused by the consensus to support the en dash here. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So go tag it for deletion. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I tagged it. Though I'm not sure I used the right tag as the tag says "...is not a category redirect." BTW, I ran into this as the only item at CAT:CATREDFIX–it appears that it's been sitting there a while, so I don't know if this category gets regular attention. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not showing up at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories. I'm not sure why b/c supposedly that category is populated by categories tagged with db-c1.  I deleted the redirect–trust I did not overstep my authority by doing that. Maybe it won't get in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as empty categories for four more days after deletion of the category redirect? Wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's it. Needs to wait 4 days:

all =

Some pretty slick template coding there. Sorry to bother you ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Trafalgar School at Downton
I was wondering on what basis did you delete the article which was The Trafalgar School at Downton I have seen that it said it was deleted because it was an organization but it is a school and therefore an educational institute so you don't have the rights to delete it, correct me if i am wrong but that was my understanding as there are articles about other secondary schools South Wilts Grammar School for Girls. -- Deanna 14:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeannaRiker (talk • contribs)
 * The article was a pathetic sub-stub consisting simply of "The Trafalgar School at Downton is co-ed secondary school situated in Downton.&lt;ref>http://www.trafalgarschool.com/ ". I was tempted to delete it for no context since the author could not even manage to say which Downton. Feel free to re-create it but if you do so, please submit something approaching an article. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No c&p
Sorry - I'm sick as a dog and was wooly-brained this morning when I did it. Comes of stuffing too many external stimuli in my brain and acting out of frustration. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Improbable re-directs
Our friend has been busy again. Another batch of useless re-directs was created overnight, this time including: T.U.K.O.G.B.A.N.I., T.U.K.O.G.B.A.I. and TUKOGBAI (10 points if you can guess where they point before clicking). Chrisieboy (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We now have United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norn Iron, Government of Norn Iron, Government of the Norn Iron and Norn Iron government amongst others. I must stop looking. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

DELSA
Re: Data-Enabled Life Sciences Alliance (DELSA Global). Apparently, your deleted it accordingly to the letter of WP:CSD, but Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Wikipedia:Moving a page/780843 raises a suspicion that the user mistakenly blanked their article after it was moved, while their intention was [ to blank a sandbox page]. A user not familiar with redirects can easily make such a mistake. Can you restore the content and notify the author about the mistake? – Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * clearly has a short memory. On 2012-12-05T22:01:37 without any apparent difficulty they moved User:Eastewart2010/sandbox to Data-Enabled Life Sciences Alliance (DELSA Global) with the summary "new article moving from sandbox to article page". A month later they seem to have forgotten. No, I don't think there was a mistake - the article in question was blanked three times by Eastewart. The article is about a non-notable organisation written by someone with an admitted COI. If Eastewart requests, I shall be happy to e-mail the text but I see absolutely no reason to restore the article. If in doubt, ask East Ewart yourself. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I satisfied by this explanation. But I suggest to avoid distortions and puns on users' nicks like "East Ewart" when you post something to Wikipedia. In certain circumstances (although not now) it may be perceived as a defamation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

British-occupied Ireland
Regarding your deletion of the redirect British-occupied Ireland "politically inflammatory redirect" I don't think is a vealed reason to delete a redirect, it's centenary isn't a speedy deletion criteria. It seems like a valued R from other name to me, and per WP:RNEUTRAL NPOV don't apply very strongly to redirects. Unless I'm missing something here, you should have sent it to WP:RFD rather then unilaterally deleting it. Even Gaza Holocaust went through three RFD's, yet we still have it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the examples above, has been creating some very implausible redirects, worse, he seems to have done so in direct defiance of some advice I gave him. If you really think we need British-occupied Ireland, create it. I will not take any action. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of CAVATAK™ entry.
It appears that the oncolytic virus page refers incorrectly to Cavatak (which is actually a drug tradename which should be correctly referenced as all caps CAVATAK™). I would like to include information about this new biological agent for cancer, and this item is no different to the entries created by other contributors eg., Reolysin® which is again a product trade Reolysin. It was a work in progress so could probably have sandboxed it first... Goughau (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't use ™ or ® symbols in our articles. What is your connection with this product, Goughau? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'm a post doctoral scientist and conduct research using the virus Coxsackievirus A21 (aka Cavatak). Was inspired to update and contribute to the knowledge about this virus... but perhaps it's best to leave it to someone else due to any COI? Should I continue with a User page entry for editors to review or leave it for another contributor? Cheers. Goughau (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Placement error--speedy deletion request
Sorry, I meant to request the article, Roderick Wright, not the talk page. My bad. &mdash; Sturunner (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if you had put it in the right place, I would not have deleted it. The guy is clearly notable. What makes you think otherwise? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion - Pete "Boxsta" Martin
I am trying to complete a biographical article on a Record Producer who I have worked with for many years - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pete 'Boxsta' Martin. I appreciate the page was incomplete and needed more accurate citations etc. I am new to posting on wikipedia and I shouldn't have submitted it as early as I did. I wish to continue working on the article until its accurate and correct according to wiki policies. &mdash; Joetong1 (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First, learn about wikilinks. Incomplete? That is putting it mildly, it was by Wikipedia standards, an empty article. Ridiculous to submit it to AfC at that stage. But why are you telling me this? Providing your COI is not too serious, continue working on the article. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I shouldn't have submitted the article in its current state, but now I can't access it at all because its been deleted. It says if you wish to continue working on the article, contact the deleting administrator. I just want the article back in the Sandbox. Joetong1 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes me very sad to see how you are wasting your time talking to me. Check your contributions history. You also need to learn how categories work. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You goufed
Taht was not a vandalism. Sometimes it is better not to talk about issues that we don't have an idea... Have a nice day. -- Rapsar (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Acceptance and commitment therapy
Hello RHaworth. Recently you moved this article to the lower-case form. Somebody had listed this at WP:RM/TR. As it happens, there is a past move discussion (February, 2012) at Talk:Acceptance and commitment therapy. According to that, the title-case version is preferred. If that RM is still the current consensus, then today's new move goes against that. I don't know the best way forward, but I wonder if you would consider undoing your move until the requester has a chance to get the move sanctioned by a new move discussion. The argument from last February was that there would be less confusion if the article is about the proper name. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The move was uncontested at the time but I am very surprised that agreed to it. The situation is that  and myself have both, retrospectively objected to the move. If you feel a move to the capitalised version is justified, please start a new discussion for a move in that direction. In it you will need to explain why, of all the therapies, etc. listed in category:cognitive behavioral therapy this one needs capitals. (In any case, why ask me? What is stopping you doing the move?) &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and remove this request from the list of technical moves, since it appears to be already done. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Krav Maga
Hello Sir I have just noticed that you have chosen to delete an article I wrote about my father who is one of the last living martial art masters of Krav Maga an Israeli form of fight that was developed back in the 60's by Imi Lichtenfeld and his students of which my father was one of the main one. He is internationally known as one of the last standing pillars of the original trade. These days at the age of 72 he is still teaching the original art that was developed by them worldwide.

Now the question is asked. Why is that not relevant? I would appreciate your reconsideration. Thank you Henry Elgrissy Henry@sharpeyehd.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.182.217 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read above and then read this note. Since you are the first IP address to write to me since I drafted the note, Francophonie, Androphilie and myself would all be very interested to know whether you consider this response prompt and civil and whether the note covers the matter adequately.
 * As well as attending to the above matter, you will also need to provide me with a proper link to the article in question - do you think I am psychic? How am I expected to tell what article you are talking about? You might also care to read uw-coi and ask yourself whether it is worth proceeding. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about deletion
User:Erik/Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection: how is this "one author"? - jc37 09:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The non-Erik edits were deleted under the decision of Articles for deletion/Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection. Sorry, if I did not put that in the deletion reason. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Neo Naturists
Re Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Neo Naturists. Hi. You recently speedy deleted this article as a copyright violation, but didn't specify what it was a violation of. Could you please comment at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk as the article's creator has asked about its suitability. Sometimes, newbies inadvertently make a copyvio in good faith, so its best to try and get them to understand the problem. Cheers. -- Ritchie333  (talk)   (cont)   11:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi RHaworth, Stella Maris (Daman and Diu) now userfied. More than happy to work with the editor. -- Shirt58 (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

protected page needs an edit
You've protected the Multi-Crew Pilot License couple years back. It needs an edit to properly re-direct – would you mind unprotecting it? cherkash (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

DSSU
hello im trying to find my way around wiki. ive just had a page deleted almost as soon as i posted it. titled dynamic steady state universe theory basically ive stumbled into wiki because i was looking for info on this subject. i found no references anywhere so wanted a reference created.i thought maybe somebody could put a reference in one of the universe theory pages. i did my best to explain the subject,but had difficulty editing and my page wasnt really complete. it looks like ive wasted my time as my work was speedy deleted in short order. seems a bit unfair especially as the reason given was duplication. i think the title may be misleading as DSSU has little to do with steady state theory. from what i understand it has some merit but i am not qualified to know how the science stacks up. i thought it deserves a mention somewhere though. its otherwise known as cellular universe and looks promising if not accepted please help as i dont really know what im doing here regards shaun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryflatters (talk • contribs) 22:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My first reaction is to say if you don't really know what you are doing here, then perhaps you should not bother. Next reaction: for goodness sake, lay your work out properly: I is capitalised; dont has an apostrophe; your article had some horrible page widening, etc. I fear that even if you submit a beautifully laid out, written and referenced article, at the end of the day the conclusion will be "non-notable fringe theory". If you insist that the subject is quite different from steady state theory, the best I can suggest is that you create a cleaned up version and submit it via AfC. There the article will, at least get seen by another Wikipedian. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The speedy nominator has taken pity so I have userfied. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Shark In Your Mouth! Deletion
So, you deleted this page and think it "does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject."? In three years, my band mates, my friends and i have written this stories. They wasted so much times, energy, money just to remember it in a reachable media such this site. And u considered that we are not significance.

Sincerely, the not important subject. Tommisiswono (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

afc vs article
I agree that the problem of people creating articles out of afc submissions that have been declined is usually a very poor idea, but I do not think the resulting article qualifies in any sense as a speedy A10 for duplication.--looked at technically, it does not duplicate any other article or part of one--afc is WP talk space. I do not think your speedy of Chic Is The New Punk as A210 can be justified by deletion policy. Nor do I think we should--too many declined afc submissions are declined without valid cause, by applying the standards for GA, or because of inattention by the unskilled reviewer; tho we could say, just submit it again, and that's what I normally would advise, requiring it is BURO.

I think the best way to handle these is just to treat it as an ordinary new article and consider it by the usual standards. Looking at it that way, I don't think it meets A7, for it indicates the possibility of some importance. Possibly G11, but altho the intent is surely promotional, the content isn't. I haven;t checked for copyvio, which is of course a possibility with any article of this nature. (My own feeling is that we might want to have a new deletion rationale for a combination of borderline notability and borderline promotionalism, but it's too subjective to be accepted as a speedy--however, I think it makes a perfectly good argument at afd, and I've been using it there.)  DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The best I can offer is to restore it as an AfC. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

AssaultCube Reloaded
AssaultCube Reloaded is not a copyright violation because "a lot of the original content from the original AssaultCube game" allows re-use. -- Assaultcubespecialedition (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind copyvio, I could also have deleted it as advertising. And, since A7 does not apply to games, we would have had to use AfD but it would probably have been deleted for lack of independent evidence of notability. The best I can offer is that you may raise the matter at deletion review. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of AssaultCube Reloaded. 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. --23.17.148.90 (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
I noticed the message you recently left to Harryflatters. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. —  Ross coolguy  CVU  &#124;   My Talk   13:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no need to tell me twice. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassadors update
Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

Glavovic Studio
Hello RHaworth. Can you tell me what parts of the article was copy-written. This is my first article and I would like to Know what I did wrong. The articles directory that I am referring to is: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Glavovic Studio. Thank you for any advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandeed (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want me to look at a page, provide a link to it. Being a jaded old cynic and having seen it so many times before, I automatically assume that a person with a contributions history as long as yours must have a COI. I am getting tired of trotting it out so search this page for "kindly" to see my standard response. I do have to admit that deletion as copyvio may have been inappropriate but I am still unwilling to restore. I have e-mailed you the text. If better independent references exist, add them to the article; expand it from stub size and re-submit. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Kindly consider United-21 Grassland Resort
Hi RHaworth, Kindly consider United-21 Grassland Resort article as it is solely written for United-21 Grassland Resort. I am working with the Resort and found this resort is nice place to stay. I wrote this article for visitor purpose to get more information about the Resorts just like Hotel Taj. Please approve it and make it live. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arananusorn (talk • contribs) 12:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want me to look at a page, provide a link to it. Thank you for declaring your COI. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the resort is notable and writes about it here. They will write it in encyclopedic language rather than advertising copy and will provide independent references. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you kiiding?
Key Investor Information Document (KIID). Can you please email me this article which you deleted so i can amend it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminJosephKnight (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Message left on this page are expected to be: placed at the end, contain a link to the page discussed and be properly signed. Count yourself lucky that I bothered to action your request. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Block of User:Bzfsolpex
Hello, can you explain your indefinite blocking of the above user? I can´t see what his error was? --Prüm (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Surely the spamusername tag on their user talk page plus their contributions history are sufficient evidence? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand. The user apparently is an employee of a German state-funded research institute and submitted an article on an Open Source software project for review (which still exists btw.). I find this can hardly be a reason for permanent block. --Prüm (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The user name clearly represents the German state-funded research institute and as such it violates our user name policy which insists that users must be individual people. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If this isn't arbitrary interpretation of the rules then I don't know. You could have claimed that the user's edits were promotional, though that always depends on the nature of the contributions. --Prüm (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have applied quite a few similar blocks in the past. Can you suggest a reason why no-one else has suggested that I am applying the rules arbitrarily? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Kim Poster
Hi, I uploaded an article on the theatre producer Kim Poster - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/kim_poster - but it was rejected. Can you let me know why and what I can do to fix it? More than happy to do what is required, just a little unsure on what I need to do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanconnal (talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want me to look at a page, provide a link to it thus: Kim Poster. If the article has been rejected at AfC for the reasons stated there, why should we accept the same text posted in the (article) namespace? What you need to do? The good news is: you need do nothing. When the woman becomes notable someone with no COI will write about her here. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for confirming and honestly do appreciate you looking into this. There are quite a few theatre producers on Wikipedia and as the subject I am writing about is a theatre producer I thought it would be OK to upload the content. Is there no way to get film or theatre producers onto Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanconnal (talk • contribs) 14:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are self-contradictory. You say "is there no way" but you have already said that there are many articles already here. You have not denied my suggestion of COI so one suggestion is that you should find a "sponsor". You beefed up your AfC submission considerably after it been rejected. I am still not impressed by the references but if you can find better ones, it might be worth re-submitting it. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of page: Security Innovation
Hi Roger, I am just curious as to why this page was deleted. Interestingly, though it was apparently deleted three years ago, I have definitely seen it (or another one? which I can no longer find?) within the past year. Is this normal?

From what I remember (and this was not a page I created or edited, as I know it's supposed to remain neutral), it contained information about our company - unbiased, neutral, factual information - acquisitions, product offerings, etc. This was obviously a page about a "company, corporation, organization, or group" but I am curious about how the "importance or significance of the subject" _should_ be indicated?

Is it possible for you to send me the content of the deleted page? We are interested in having a new page created, and I want to compare old/new versions, to correct our shortcomings from the "old" page. Also, if we create the new page, some information may overlap (acquisition history, for example) because it's still relevant and factual. Is this okay? Any help and/or wisdom you can provide would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! Best, Alli Campofranco Marketing Manager Security Innovation — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecInnovation (talk • contribs) 15:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is not normal but until you actually find the other page again, I cannot comment. It is your naïvety that astounds me. Other people with COIs at least have the sense to hide behind unrelated names. You come along brazenly with an inappropriate user name boldly declaring your COI. I have e-mailed you the text. But kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Nese
Hi, apparently in April 2012 you deleted the page Anthony Nese and in the process also prevented it from being created again. However, the page has since been recreated at Tony Nese, so you might want to either do something about that or unsalt the original page and redirect that to the new one.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

South Austin Museum of Popular Culture
Hello, and thanks for raising notability concerns about this page back in Jan 2008. The tag's still there and I couldn't find enough to say if it's notable either way. You may want to consider taking it to the Notability noticeboard or AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It has had several editors since I applied the tag. It would probably survive AfD. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Upgrade
Hey why did you deleted Upgrade? I'm part of that boyband, and my info's are legitimate. can you undelete that? I'm still not finished on finalizing that article. :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.29.100 (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read above and then read this note. Since I have not yet received any feedback since I drafted the note, Francophonie, Androphilie and myself would all be very interested to know whether you consider this response prompt and civil and whether the note covers the matter adequately.
 * While you are looking at my moans page, please also read this about shouting . &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

help me
hi dear. pls help me to write Anthropology and Culture thanks. i have many refrence. قاسم منصور (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the following notes: insult and links. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dab link notification for January 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dryfe Water, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brythonic and Norse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Taichung bus
Hi, my articles were all deleted. I am sorry that I am still a beginner and not familiar with the regulation to new articles. As we both knew, you moved two articles to Taichung City Bus. Thanks a lot that you redirected Taichung City Bus from Taichung bus that I hadn't known how to conduct. While, I would like you to devide Taichung Bus from Taichung City Bus because they are totally D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T!!

You seem to know little about Taichung City, Taiwan, so I would love to tell you that even though the article I created wasn't proper. Taichung City Bus refers to the entire SYSTEM of public transportation in Taichung, but Taichung Bus refers to a 55-year-old COMPANY that operates part of Taichung City Bus. If you are available to learn more about these two subjects, please try to take a look at the two Chinese articles.


 * 臺中市市區公車 - Taichung City Bus in Chinese version
 * 台中客運 - Taichung Bus which I ask for in Chinese version

辛庚己戊 (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please learn how to do interwiki links. I did not need to be told that you feel two separate articles are needed. Just go ahead and create the second article but if you again create an article devoid of references, then it is going to get deleted again - isn't it? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have converted Taichung Bus to a dab. Please do not change it except that if you would prefer Taichung Bus company or Taichung Bus (company) as a title for the company article, I have no objections. Now stop messing about and create the company article. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I made an ignorant moving and created an unnecessary article Taichung Bus Company then. My original purpose is to make Taichung Bus get out from Taichung City Bus, a nice alternative page for the former Taichung bus. The difference has been mentioned above. While, as you giving the NOT PROPER message not only once, I guess I got your point. You must think that although each refers to different matters, they are easy to be confused because of the diffrence of their English names anyway. It's different from their original names, which I have never thought of before. Even though I think there is no need to specialize a company with one more word added among other companies, yeah, I confess that they are surely confusing. Umm, I prefer Taichung Bus (company) as its new title, and I can't thank you more for your brilliant proposal to the new title.辛庚己戊 (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

American School Band Directors Association
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so I have restored it, and let you know in case you want to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Empty categories
You may not be aware of this discussion. Note that the automatically assessed categories are probably going to be contested using the same logic. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why stop at A-class? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to direct this at you RH but I'll tell you the problem I have with those sorts of submissions. A lot of editors like to run around and delete empty categories because its an easy way to drive up their edit counts and admin actions counts. The problem is, a lot of these are populated one day and then within a few days their empty again. It takes a lot longer to create/recreate a category than to just leave it open. One example is Category:National Institutes of Health articles needing infoboxes. I tagged the articles with needs Infobbox in May 2011 and didn't create the category as a test to see how many people were watching that project and to see if anyone was creating populated categories. Of course no one monitors the categories that need to be made just the ones that are empty. So now, these 320 categories that Fram marked for speedy deletion (not counting the A-Class submission) have all been deleted and will likely remain that way and if they do get created it will likely be from a non admin who has to spend additional time to recreate a category that shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. Kumioko (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have all these cats on my watchlist, I'll keep an eye open to see how many are recreated, and how soon. And I have created many categories that were populated but didn't exist yet, but there are many, many of those (mainly mainspace cats though). Note that for the A-list cats, the opposite is probably more correct: someone (admin or non-admin, no idea why that difference should be important here) has created all these categories, the vast majority of them have never ever been populated though. But still we require of all projects to have those unused cats, because we have redlinks otherwise. As for edit counts; you are one of the very few editors who always brings this up as if it is somehow important. Most of us don't give a flying shit about their editcount and don't make edits just for the sake of edit count. There are more interesting ways to fill a life than to edit to increase your editcount, in my opinion... Fram (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I share Kumioko's concern (and I am prepared to admit that keeping up my delete counts has a bit to do with it). Certainly when I find that I am doing the fifth deletion of some monthly cleanup category, I wonder whether the system is working properly. If one of you feels like proposing a policy that "a category should only be deleted when there seems to be no likelihood of its ever bieng populated again", then I will support it. Valid deletion reasons would be where a category has been renamed or deprecated by a deletion discussion. Kumioko, you can of course try applying an empty category to any you are concerned about. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks but its not worth fighting over. I stopped supporting those projects anyway because I got tired of arguing over stuff just like this, often from users who didn't want the project(s) to succeed in the first place. I also don't think it should be necessary to add empty category to every WikiProject category. No offense intended but the folks who have the tools to delete these categories should be knowledgable enough that they should IMO know that these are WikiProject categories and will periodically or even always, be empty. Thereby there should be no need for an extra template since these folks are supposed to know. Sadly its editors like me who get stuck recreating them because we aren't "trusted" to have the tools that often times are given to users who don't know enough about how to use them. Kumioko (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hawkeye
I recently submitted a page for review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hawkeye Technology Inc.. It says it was deleted for copyright infringement. I am not clear on what in the article was considered copyright. If you could please give me some direction on why you deleted this article I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsctech (talk • contribs) 23:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a sign of a spammer that they cannot be bothered to learn how to create wikilinks. I totally agree with you - it was not a copyvio. You will be fully justified to complain bitterly to who tagged the article for deletion. He should have used the db-spam tag. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)