User talk:RHaworth/2013 Jun 07

 wikify! Slovenly is a word I find myself using quite a bit at the moment. Slovenly is what I think of anybody who leaves a message here about an article and fails to provide a wikilink to the article. How do you expect me to read the article if you don't link to it? I reserve the right to ignore any message which does not provide links where appropriate or has not been signed with ~. Even if the article has been deleted, you should still link to it. And if that sounds like a grumpy old man, it's because I am ...

The Knowledge Centre for Agriculture Deletion
[Title width guide. Delete above here if no further edits - already in archive. If further edits, move below here.]

iON Manufacturing page
Hi Roger, Thank you for taking the time to carefully review the content of the iON Manufacturing Solution page. I understand your concern on the advertorial language and would like to meet all the wiki guidelines. We put our best foot forward to give a neutral picture of the Cloud service offering provided by iON for the SMB verticals. As best practice, have also reviewed the SAP ERP page. Kindly put the page back online (un-delete) and mark the sections you feel should be re-written and our content writer will follow the prescribed guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.249.151 (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This comment is posted by Chirantan Ghosh, creator of the above mentioned wiki page. &mdash; Chirantan Ghosh (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Not sure why my name is not showing the above post despite logged in Wiki. Kindly make the iON Manufacturing Solution page live and mark the areas that needs re-work in your opinion. Chirantan Ghosh (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read this. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are so wrapped up in your specialised trade that you have forgotten how to talk to people in the real world. For example, in the above what the is a "vertical" and what is special about the verticals on Santa Monica Boulevard? Your article says that it is about an "integrated manufacturing ERP on Cloud" but since the concept of electronic road pricing on clouds seems like a joke, one is left bemused as to what the article might be about.
 * But seriously, applied the db-spam tag with an edit summary of "this could not be more of an advertisement" and I agree with them. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your product is notable and writes about it here. You can raise the matter at deletion review but do not raise your hopes too high. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that you have already been told about marketing buzzwords. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wizard Man of Sutton and Croydon
I am asking you this as someone else who is likely to have heard of him. Before I write the article on him, how likely is he to be notable?-- Laun chba ller 17:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of him. Let us see the external links you would use in the article. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When seeing the title, I assumed it was a nickname someone had come up with for you! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

He's this guy who walks up and down Sutton High Street in a wizard costume; he's a real celebrity around this area. I thought you might have heard of him since he appeared in the Croydon Guardian. I've dumped the urls at User:Launchballer/sandbox, but I'll need to format them ✅.-- Laun chba ller 07:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I must admit when I first saw the title, I thought it might be sarcastic article about me. Again, I have never seen the guy but then I don't go into Croydon or Sutton very much at the times when he is likely to be around. (But the way these things work, that probably means that I will see him the very next time I am there!) Sorry, nice set of refs but I think the conclusion will be that he is world famous in Poland Sutton and Croydon. Don't waste too much time on it - add some text and submit via AfC. That means it will be visible here for at least a year and someone from a distant country (eg. Summerston or Govan) may pick it up and confirm the guy's notability. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Harold C. Edwards
Hi, If it's not a copyright violation, can you undelete the backhistory of Harold C. Edwards please? The subject is pretty clearly notable, and possibly should never have been subjected to admin roulette in the first place. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I must say the latest version is not much better for asserting notability. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the problem with this is. He was made a CBE (CBE is normally considered a significant award), he's also in the National Portrait Gallery (the NPG only hold portraits of notable people). He's in who's Who (Who's Who only include notable individuals), he was also editor of Gut and meets WP:PROF. I fail to see how 4 times over was deleted for "lack of notability". Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Slight inversion: usually we delete because an article asserts notability but does not provide refs. I this case the refs were OK but the text was distinctly short on assertion of notability, eg. if he is a CBE we need to be told what he did to get it. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

IP address
If I create accounts, do administrators know my IP address? How to know my IP address if I create accounts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fceefyahoo.ca (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Creating multiple accounts is very strongly deprecated. You already have one account therefore you should not be creating any more. If you always edit in a logged in state your IP address will only be invisible to a very select group of people - those with CheckUser rights. And even they are told only to use the right to protect Wikipedia against disruption, abuse, or vandalism. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Martin Port
Please could you undelete/userfy the deleted page Martin Port. We would like to review the talk page and article to identify what the inconsistencies/lack of references were so that this article can be re-added. Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asleeds (talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as in last December, I am puzzled as to why you are talking to me. Please explain what connection you have with . Please see my comment against the RefUnd request . I cannot see the reason for the falsification allegations but certainly the article stood no chance of survival with the refs that it had. Text e-mailed to you. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Macau
Hello, I saw that you delete the article Macau New Technologies Incubator Centre under G12. The image and website are owned by us would like to donate the materials. Could you please let me to re-create the page. Thank you. Frankietou (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your information and reply. Can I ask how long should I wait for the result? I can modify the previous content to avoid COI if necessary. Thank you. Frankietou (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read this. Do you seriously think that an article containing "we are determined" and "we seek to establish" is going to stand any chance of survival? 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) 15:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You should wait indefinitely. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dolphin Embassy
Dear RHaworth, today I've made an article about the Dolphin Embassy (sorry, I don't know how to put the link to the delited article), few hours ago I've got the message about the "speedy deliting" baner, after I've rote my cases in the Contested deletion and at the end (since less then 2 hours, I guess) I found that the article is already deleted (surely by you : ) - how it's possible? Why you didn't give me any aportunity?? and who with I have to "contest" now about the flash-like delited article? ). Regards Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Dear RHaworth, I'm talking about ability to take part into contested deletion but not about AfC - by the way, I create this article accidentally (I was sure that I'm on the main Wiki "Creating" field - so, it's really my mistake (incidentally - how to delete it? ; )). You also suppose, that my article is "probably have a serious COI" - but (between us) you didn't even have a look on it before deleting. &mdash; Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But you have been given an opportunity - at AfC - which is more than you deserve because you probably have a serious COI. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The point I am making is that there is no deletion to contest (yet). Here is your article at AfC. The text is identical to that which you posted in mainspace. Don't be impatient - wait until an AfC reviewer looks at it. If it is accepted, then it will get moved to mainspace. "Probably have a serious COI" is not a reference to the article - it is a reference to you . What is your connection with the Dolphin Embassy? And how do you know I did not look at the article? I did look and fully agreed with that it is spam. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You might want to look at 30th parallel (phenomenon) as well, which is a WP:COATRACK for the above, and is extremely bizarre. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw your comment to Barek: "the only solution to create the Dolphin Embassy article for me now is to wait for the decision in the Articles for creation field?" I will offer you a choice of C or D - AfC or AfD. That is: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dolphin Embassy can be left where it is which virtually guarantees that it will remain there for at least a year or it can be moved to Dolphin Embassy and discussed at AfD which probably means that it will be deleted within a fortnight. The choice is yours, please let me know. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

C is surely better )) Thank you! Also, please, have a look to the 30th parallel (phenomenon) - I deleted "The expedition" section and so on. &mdash; Soderjanie Pustoti (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked. So what? Do you seriously think your deletion makes the article any more acceptable? &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Almond cookie v. Chinese Almond biscuit
Did you actually look at the articles in question before speedily deleted? This is the second time this has happened to me so I'm a little annoyed.

First of all, if an article covers the same subject why not merge it or at least redirect it? No need to speedily delete and lose the history. And in this case, the article on a Almond cookie is ab out a Chinese biscuit/ cookie and is not the same as the article I created on almond cookies. Please restore the article history I was working on.

And while you're at it if you could restore the history beneath the parillada redirect i would appreciate that also. I'm not sure it's not a distinct topic and at the very least the history should exist so it can be split back out if need be without having to start over from scratch. Thank you. Enjoy your Friday and weekend. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Both histories restored. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I apologize for being a bit curt. It's been a long day. Take care. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Unprotect request
Please unprotect Tonight We Raid Calais‎ (you protected it) in order to address this strangely implemented page move request and perform the requested page move, which looks reasonable to me. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Kim Bok Man deletion
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bok Man Kim is listed as deleted because it violated copyrights. When the article was first created, I was using Wiki as a place to draft the article, and that first save did indeed contain text copied from another page. However, the page submitted did not contain any copied and pasted text; I wholly wrote it, and it contained references, etc for documentation. So I'm confused about the problem. Please re-instate the article so that I may edit it as necessary, and please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.e.swope (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Restored. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Data Control & Systems
Please may you send me the entire page of Data Control & Systems as it was prior to deletion. I spent the whole night writing that and when I woke up 4 hours later it was gone. It was an article "under construction" and totally incomplete. Is this normally the policy of Wikimediaists to erase without a chance of talk on articles being written but not completed? I did not even have time to put in the formatting, cites or sources before the whole thing was removed. In my opinion it was unfair, but at least send me a copy and I won't bother posting it again. -- Ashattock (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All edits restored. An article that has survived for more than seven years deserves better than speedy deletion. Even in the state I have left it the article is a bit too long, containing unencyclopedic detail. Do your additions actually add anything useful? The most desperate need is for multiple independent references. If these are not provided asap, I am likely to nominate the article for deletion. If you must add text, some other hints are: section headings are a good idea. I am dubious whether the staff (especially Adam Shattock!) are notable enough to justify their own articles so we do not link to them. As a general rule when we mention a linkable subject, we link the first time - we do not link every time we use the term.


 * I strongly recommend that put your text on your own web site or blog. Eg. the "electronic cup-holder" story is good but does not belong here. A link from Wikipedia to your website would probably stick - but would not constitute evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Pointless
sir the page what was created yesterday has been deleted. Please manage it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.181.45.208 (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Soul Signs
Hallo, why did you delete Soul Signs? It's a very very notable book, written by a bestselling author and internationally known spiritual healer, featured on Oprah, Larry King Live, Vanity Fair, People, The New York Times, published by Rodale, translated in numerous languages, and reviewed by The New York Times. Kenneth C. Davis, author of Don't Know Much About History, commented that “Rosemary Altea once again provides miraculous proof of the unseen world of spirit that surrounds us all? .

This book is also previewed by book.google: look here ! And there is voice also in italian language, and on esopedia.it, and on Facebook.

Please, stop deleting Soul Signs any more from Wikipedia, thanks. -- Ballanti (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Exsite Webware
If you recall, you had previously deleted pages titled Exsite Webware and Exsite Webware (software). Due to academic pressures I had to defer updating the deleted page to include some notability to meet your standards. At that time, you emailed me the deleted page, but I can't find your email to me containing the deleted page. Are you able to find the page in your records and email it to me again? Unfortunately, I don't have the tools or administrative wherewithall to locate the deleted article on my own, so I will need to rely on you for assistance from time to time until this matter is sorted out. Santamoly (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Text e-mailed again . I hope you now accept that your claim: "free open source software does not require notability to be established" is total rubbish. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Craig Keeland profile photo.jpg
Why was this deleted? If it has the wrong orientation, the usual way to rotate it is to move it to Commons and then add or  for automatic rotation by bot on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * had applied an holdon tag to the article which had put it into CAT:CSD. Looking at it, I decided that it might as well be zapped. But why are you even bothering to write to me? Go and rotate it yourself on your machine and then upload it to Commons - ensuring that you repeat the OTRS info. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Lisa Lavie
Hello Mr. Haworth. I see that you have speedy-deleted the June 2 Lisa Lavie article that I posted, based on G4, "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." However, G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" and my June 2 submission was more concise, about a fourth as long, and more consistently well-referenced than the 2009-2013 article that was deleted on April 1. Because of the differences between the two versions, deletion review also doesn't seem appropriate. So I need your advice on how to get the new article fair consideration: my notability arguments are here: "Establishing notability...". Can you reconsider your speedy deletion or give some practical advice? Thanks. RCraig09 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Deletion review seems completely appropriate. I have restored your last version. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I found the previous version in the revision history. I'll look into the deletion review process. RCraig09 (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Supplemental: preliminary to considering DRV, I consulted with the 1 April closing admin Spinningspark, who indicated (here) that if the new article that you speedy-deleted on 2 June is substantially different from the deleted original, I should take up the matter with you. In fact they are very different (new 16KB vs original 65KB plus other differences listed at "Changes" here). Question: There is an ambiguity in your above comment, which of the 1 April deletion or the 2 June speedy deletion you implied I should take to to DRV. If you meant the 2 June (improved) version, then can you simply reverse your own speedy delete decision?  Please clarify and advise.  Thanks. RCraig09 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Saga Communications
I am not particularly sure why an article about an American radio and television corporation fell under "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", but I do believe that to be a very incorrect statement. From the last I saw, the article looked fine. Granted this was about 2 weeks ago, so things could have changed. I would ask the article be undeleted and taken to AfD for proper consensus or moved to my userspace (User:Neutralhomer/SagaCommunications is fine) so that I may work on it. But I highly certain the article didn't fall under A7. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 00:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The amazing thing is why the article has stayed so stubby for so long. I looked for comparisons and found Global Group. Have Saga never been involved in any controversies or other newsworthy activities. Userfied. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Saga is one of the very few radio station companies in the US that buy stations, make them sound awesome and keep ahold of them for years. They don't make many "waves" either, don't do anything controversial.  The only thing remotely newsworthy is when one of their DJs said Mount Trashmore Park, a park made out of a converted landfill in Virginia Beach, Virginia, was going to explode from the methane in the trash.  This was said, on the air, on April Fool's Day in 1992.  The DJs were suspended for two days.  That's really it.


 * I will, however, work on the article and try and get it back within the GNG. Thanks for moving it to my userspace.  Take Care... Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 19:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Accounts
why you delete my accounts ? i'm not SPAM accounts... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.254.5.36 (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not talk nonsense - Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted. I had a good laugh at your web page - Afghanistan is apparently a country full of bright, whimsical and octagonal people! But seriously, which of the words in the spamusername box on your user talk page do you not understand? You cannot be serious - your blog consists of just one page and offers nothing over and above a normal blogspot blog. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Judan Ali Interview Sky Sports News.JPG
This is regarding deletion/removal of:  as copyvio of http://fridrikkjartansson.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Still-of-Judan-Ali-Interviewed-on-Sky-Sports-News.jpg. The owner of the image has completely given over his rights of the image to me. The image was provided to the website you refer to by him: http://fridrikkjartansson.com/judan-ali-as-a-coach-to-iceland He (Gavin Williamson) has since wholly parted with all rights to myself. How can I prove this so you will re-instate the image? I believe I should have placed the image under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license? Any guidance much appreciated. &mdash; Sxu02msg (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yunnanxane
hi RHaworth. could you check up on this potential Yunnanxane article? i'm hoping there now is enough relevant info in place to qualify for a page. thanks Jatlas (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Silver Pen Writers' Association article for creation
Hello Roger. I appreciate you reviewing my article and have a question. I noted you deleted the article that was at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Silver Pen Writers' Association for G12-Unambiguous copyright infringement. I do want to try recreating this page and am striving to meet Wikipedia's requirements. I am contacting you, as per the message "If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below."

Can you tell me what part of the page violated copyright laws (I'm guessing it is the part about the business of writing and/or standard of profession conduct, but am not sure)? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Abqsue (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion request
Could you please restore the description page for File:PENGUIN LIFECYCLE H.JPG? It has been undeleted on Commons. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Unspeedy deletion request for Accurate Technologies Inc.
I am requesting the speedy delete be removed, so I can make your requested changes. "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." This article does stand a chance, because:
 * G11 states "Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." This article was neutral.
 * Stated in A7 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.If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, which I was not given a chance to do so. There are sources in this article, thus a claim of importance has been made. The proper 7 day debate should have taken effect, not a speedy deletion.

I understand notability needs work, but there is evidence that an attempt has been made, therefor enough to qualify for debate. If the speedy delete is removed, requested improvements will be made as the 7 day debate takes place. One other argument that was brought up was potential copy write infringement to this page:  http://www.accuratetechnologies.com/content/view/199/197/lang,en/ This was proven false by doing a side to side comparison of content on website and in article. The format and the 5 terms were the only thing that had similarities, thus not a violation. Please consider this article for reinsertion into Wiki, with promise of improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowebot86 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)