User talk:RHaworth/2014 Mar 08

 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? Even if the article has been deleted, you should still link to it. I reserve the right to ignore any message which does not provide links where appropriate, has no heading, is in the wrong place on this page, has not been signed with ~, is anonymous, etc. 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.]

Pedigree collapse
Dear Mr. RHaworth! Thank you your contribution! First: I know it is poorly written. Second: I thought in this case of paradoxes Wiki can make an exception of own politics because of the self-reference, but I understand if not. Third: Thank you your help with the pedigree collapse link. However I think that article overlooked the core of the paradox. What do you suggest? Can I try to make an "appendix" to that article? I rather not, because I think I must write a book first about the problem to make the contradiction known. Thank you again!! — Dooorst (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What on earth is this "self-reference" rubbish? You do not create an appendix to the pedigree collapse article – if you have anything useful to add, you integrate it properly into the article. But before you do so, I suggest you try and explain clearly, either on this page or at talk:pedigree collapse, what you think is the core of the paradox that has been missed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sutton Amateur Dramatic Club
Dear Mr Haworth, You have deleted our first attempt to create a Wikipedia entry for Sutton Amateur Dramatic Club because it plagiarises our own website. As I wrote that website, it is not plagiarism. How do I stop you deleting my Wikipedia entry? I look forward to your reassurance that you won't do it to our next attempt. Many thanks, Dick Bower President Sutton Amateur Dramatic Club — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.164.68 (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Gawd, you know you live in a sad world when even your local businesses can't read talk headers! -- Laun  chba  ller  16:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see the wikify! box above. Three infractions – so I ignore. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Listing for elephant activist Jim Nyanu
Dear Mr. Haworth, I received a notification that my e-mail to you was inappropriate because I was not a registered user. In fact, I am a registered user with user name kcroes. I have been waiting quite a long time for a decision regarding a Wiki entry for elephant activist Jim Nyamu: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jim Nyamu, and have made two waves of revisions based on editorial feedback. Is the article now appropriate for listing? Is there anything else I should do that I haven't done? Thank you for your attention. — Kcroes (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Sorry, can't find the correspondence, but it strongly implied that e-mailing you directly is not appropriate. Kcroes (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please give details of the alleged "notification". Your email of Jan 4 reached me perfectly well. But why on earth are you trying to email me. Two other things you should have learned in two years of contributions: wikilinks and that &lt;ref>s need a tag but in any case they are inappropriate on user talk pages. OK, your article has been waiting some time for its third review but you must be patient. I do not usually get involved with AfC review so I have no comment on the suitability of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It was the "because I was not a registered user" bit that I was querying. You are probably thinking about the email you received from me circa 2014 Jan 04, Sat 17:33:23 UTC. This was an "out of office" message sent automatically to anyone who uses the "email this user" link on my user pages.The wording directs all users to use a Wikipedia talk page irrespective of whether they are registered or not . — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Bernie Adam
Hello Roger, I tried to make an article about Bernie Adam who released many records but not topped in the charts, except in Italy in the eighties but impossible to find a trace on the net. You deleted the article but I suppose I've done it in a wrong way. So, if you could help me, it will be great !!! Thank you very much in advance. Best regards, BAFan4ever (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued by the remark 'he topped the charts in Italy'. Do you have a reference for that?-- Laun  chba  ller  11:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * May I introduce you to the concept of links ? You do not clutter this page with article material – you provide a link to your draft. What does it say at the top of Thierry Noritop and fr:Thierry Noritop? "Needs additional citations for verification" and "ne cite pas suffisamment ses sources". This is the hurdle you must overcome if you want to create the Bernie Adam (get the capitalisation right) article. I suspect you are fluent in French so I suggest you create fr:Bernie Adam first. If it sticks it will provide a slight boost for the corresponding article here – which you should launch via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hedgewars
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hedgewars. 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. Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Normally I would have come talk to you first before opening a DRV, but because of the mess I created after realizing it had actually gone to AFD, I decided to open the DRV and just have the talk there. Sorry for the sudden notice. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind people opening DRVs without telling me – it is my job to watch the article – if I am interested. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Orhan Sadik-Kahn
Hi, RHaworth, I am curious to understand why you deleted the Orhan Sadik-Kahn page. Interested in learning how to best position on Wikipedia articles. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgardner1 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly mainly because it did not look like a Wikipedia article. How many articles start with == Summary == ? How many bios put the dates of birth and death at the end instead of in the first sentence? Have you noticed that other Wikipedia articles contain wikilinks? Did you think that putting some in yours might make it look more like a proper article. Have you considered the possibility of creating the refs as external links ? Please learn the  format to de-duplicate references. He is mentioned at least once in other articles – why did you not create incoming links to your article? I have restored your text to User:Kgardner1/sandbox – attend to the matters above then re-submit via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Salle Mauro Fencing Academy
I noticed you moved Articles for creation/Salle Mauro Fencing Academy to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Salle Mauro Fencing Academy a while ago. The original author has since cut-and-paste moved it back to the old title, and worked on it there. Can you take care of this? Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Lord Laitinen
I decided to return to Wikipedia because I like editing and improving its pages, and I hope to have fun in my time here. I will try better to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia, but I would appreciate more polite messages from now on, as well as my talk page format being left alone. I felt like I was being targeted by GogoDodo, because he deleted many of my edits and pages, and I hope we can have a better relationship, all of my faults and yours aside. I plan on returning my user page soon, and I would appreciate it if you did not delete it for another dumb, untrue reason. — Lord Laitinen (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Because of your kindness towards me, I, Lord Laitinen, hereby award you the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. Please put this on your user page whenever you have the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Laitinen (talk • contribs) 03:23, 22 February 2014&lrm; (UTC) What do you mean that I deleted a message? If I did, it was an accident, and I apologize. I know the text from saying it at my church, Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Kenosha. They have the version that I added in their prayer book. I may also have the same version in a prayer book I have at home. I will check, and give you the title of the book if I find it.Lord Laitinen (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Laitinen (talk • contribs) 20:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hint: make sure that anything you add is well referenced. Before you think about creating a user page (and not the facebook page you have been creating), I suggest you clock up a decent edit history of edits in (article) space which stick – 80 would seem a reasonable target to match the 80 edits you did at user:Lord Laitinen. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have taken pity on you over the Nicene Creed, formatted it properly, re-instated it and added two refs. But I would prefer to see a link to the official imprimatur, nihil obstat or whatever is the official directive for changes to the liturgy – surely these things are put on the web. As someone who has played the Holy Ghost (see picture), I was disappointed to see that he/she no longer gets credit for the immaculate conception. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Holy Spirit is still mentioned. I'm not sure where his text came from; I've replaced it with sourced text. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack, I suspect that Caleb simply did it from memory. I wonder if he will admit it. I can only find second hand discussions of the creed – do you know where the official promulgation of the text is to be found? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You may be in the habit of deleting other people's messages from your user talk page – the practice is allowed but strongly deprecated – but you most certainly do not [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth&diff=prev&oldid=596584340 do so] on this page. You will receive no further kindness from me until you explain whence you obtained the text of the Nicene Creed that you added with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed&diff=prev&oldid=594454356 this edit] . — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "what do you mean"? The words " [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth&diff=prev&oldid=596584340 do so] " above are a link. Did you follow that link? Do you agree that the diff listing clearly shows you deleting four messages.
 * Please get a scan of the relevant page of your missal and email it to me. In the highly unlikely event that the text agrees with what you posted, I shall report your priest to the bishop. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I will try and get a picture of the page for you, and I am still looking for the prayer book I have here at home. I am confident that I memorized exactly, or close to exactly, correct. Also, I do not know your e-mail address; I am new to Wikipedia, and if there is some way for users to e-mail other users, please explain to me once I get the picture. Finally, my priest is a nice man, and if there is a mistake, reporting him to Archbishop Listecki would be correct to do, but a tad unnecessary, don't you think?Lord Laitinen (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I will stop messing about. I wonder how many man (and, sadly, it is almost exclusively male) hours have been expended in committees over the centuries discussing the text of the creed and its translation into countless vernaculars. But we owe it to these committees to reproduce the text not just word perfect but perfect down to the capitalisation and punctuation. You keyed in a version from memory which was close but not close enough to the version issued by the USCCB. Here is another [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed&diff=596554082&oldid=596547263 diff listing] showing the reversion to the proper version. My reference to your church was a joke – I am sure they are using the USCCB text. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the Roman Missal may be a WP:LINKVIO. Per under "The Sacred Liturgy in the Digital Age", it sounds like it's copyrighted and not allowed to be posted online. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were joking, but when you are typing and not talking, it is more difficult to convey and understand humor. I found the prayer book here at home, but I am afraid it does not have a title or publisher; the USCCB text matches the one in my book exactly. As you said, my version was very close, and I am happy that I have memorized such a long prayer almost perfectly. I will be working on those 80 edits in the next week.Lord Laitinen (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC) I have checked my contributions, and I have made almost 100 edits that have stayed on the Wikipedia, and our deal clearly states 80 edits. I would like to recreate my user page as soon as possible, now that I have proven myself to be a contributor.Lord Laitinen (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We had better keep quiet about this page or this one. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I realize they approved some parts of it for online posting, but the link you added is a link to the whole 1000+ page document, from an unofficial source (blogspot) that I can't find at an official source (because I don't think they want it online). Would you object to me changing the reference to one of those two links? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly, link to liturgyoffice.org.uk not the other, but no objection. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I will limit the amount of personal information, and replace it with userboxes or other such things, but I do plan to keep some personal information, like my pictures, infobox, and a shorter autobiography.Lord Laitinen (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected your user page. Please note that you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Undated
Hi, why did you re-revert me? WP:BRD says we go to discussion instead. According to MOS:EMDASH, "Do not use spaced em dashes." -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, and I replied there concerning the template; but I'm asking you here why you went against both WP:BRD and WP:WHEEL? -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have gone to the talk page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly because I am not so tightly wedded to the rule book as you are. In any case I did discuss – in the edit summary. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

self-promo sock
Hi Roger. You blocked User:Rajatbroy earlier. He's back as User:Rajat Roy Author Actor. INeverCry  19:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Anibar on Harisa1996
Hi, I am a brand new editor working on the article of an animated film festival in Kosovo Anibar. I don't know much about Wikipedia, please bear with me. I am working on my personal space before I post the article on mainspace. Thank you for your understanding. --Harisa1996 (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The parrot has not squawked for several days and not yet on this generation of this page so — kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your festival is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Charming!
Hello, May I ask why my article on Charming Charlie was deleted? Thank you, Stefanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olive30 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you actually see the word "duplicate" in the deletion log entry? What colour is this link? Have you looked at Special:Contributions/Olive30? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Haworth, Thank you for your feedback. I worked to edit my Charming Charlie article to provide more of a direct, neutral voice without advertising puffery. I resubmitted on the Project page for review/posting to Wikipedia. Is it able to go "live" with the reformatting I have contributed? Thank you! Olive30 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no point in thanking me for my feedback if you ignore it. Why did you re-create Articles for creation/Charming Charlie? I would prefer it that you should kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. But since your submission has not (yet) been deleted, you may as well submit it in the hope of catching an AfC reviewer off guard. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Can you please let me know why my submission was deleted yesterday? (Charming Charlie) Thank you, Stefanie Olive30 (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * . Your submission is still at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charming Charlie where it always was. That is the version you should work to improve, and submit for review by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button when it is ready. You have been creating duplicate copies at the wrong address, Articles for creation/Charming Charlie (without "talk" after "Wikipedia"), which have been deleted because it confuses the system to have multiple copies around. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Stefanie, count yourself lucky that someone with more patience than I has answered for me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for cleaning up a page move mess I was involved with! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirect deletion request
Hello, could you please delete this redirect that is no longer needed: Draft:Otto Wächter? Thanks, Hoops gza (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance!Hoops gza (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

St. Mary Parish School
I see you moved my article to a talk page. Why? What did I do incorrectly? I am new to wikipedia and am overwhelmed by all the options and choices. Please advise. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilemary (talk • contribs) 17:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Before I even look at your enquiry, I need an apology for [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARHaworth&diff=597129891&oldid=597114272 this vandalism] . — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please accept my sincere apology if I have offended you but I am thoroughly confused. What vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilemary (talk • contribs) 21:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you see that the words [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARHaworth&diff=597129891&oldid=597114272 this vandalism] are a link ? If you follow that link, it will take you to what we call a "diff report". That report shows the effect of an edit that you did. Please explain why you did it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Because someone placed their comments into my thread. They should start their own. Not confuse their needs on my thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilemary (talk • contribs) 23:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Given the recent flowery outburst against me, I have to take a bit more care than usual in my wording.


 * I am very sorry to say this but my reaction to your message was "what amazing, unashamed selfishness". You were saying: "Embirks' message is of no value whatsoever. It does not matter if RHaworth never sees it." It would have been perfectly easy for you to add a section header at the top of the offending message to make it into a separate thread. Do you think I am justified in describing your edit as vandalism? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

In the future I will be more careful to repost someone else's message into a new thread. I am sorry for all the frustration I have caused you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilemary (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping you could answer my original question as to why my article was moved to a talk page. I have looked at many other school's in my area and they all have article pages and not talk pages so I thought I was headed in the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilemary (talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The preferred namespace for AfC submissions is Wikipedia_talk: and we certainly do not duplicate submissions in more than one namespace as you had done. If you actually submit your draft and it gets approved then it will be moved for you into the (article) namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Frans killed off
Hiya, I set up a page for Franskild but you deleted it last year in November. Could you please make it available to view again as these are an up and coming dance music act. Kind regards, Emilie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Embirks (talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No point in my arranging to email you the text because it was short and a copyvio. Up and coming is not usually good enough for Wikipedia – we only want bands that have arrived. But you can try to write a decent article and submit it via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Explanation?
Can I have an explanation to [ this] rollback edit? All I did was to place a speedy deletion tag for an old IP talk page with stale warnings, including mine where I have edited under my previous username (which was changed due to privacy concerns). NHRHS2010  RIP M.H. (1994–2014)  01:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a knee-jerk reaction. Feel free to re-instate the speedy tag. I shall take no action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. I've accidentally rollbacked legitimate edits on some occasions, and then I immediately proceed to rollback on myself to restore that legitimate edit. Thanks for the explanation. NHRHS2010   RIP M.H. (1994–2014)  01:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Rutherfurd Hall
Hi there. I'm not sure why you deleted the Rutherfurd Hall article. The article was about a publicly-owned institution recently listed on the NRHP. The creator of the article didn't hide the fact they were personally connected to the article. As well, the speedy deletion tag stated that the tag could be removed if the article was able to be improved. I offered to do that, and I have no personal connection to the article and some experience editing. Thanks for your feedback. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your offered assistance Mganolia677, and there will be more citations to follow. I was not also able to upload images or files as this account was recently created. Please suggest any additions or actions, and many thanks to you & everyone who make Wikipedia such a fantastic resource. — RutherfurdofthatIlk (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Prelims: RutherfurdofthatIlk, create a new account for yourself so that your edits don't scream COI – which was one of the main reasons it got a speedy tag. Let's have some photos – no more than a couple in the article but an whole gallery on The Commons would be good.


 * I fully expected the text to prove to be copyvio from the hall's website but it don't seem to be. Other reasons for the speedy were things like shouting the name in the first line, failing to link to the hall's website, having refs that were invisible, using "our" – once is enough, omitting the NRHP tag, etc. Restored to User:Magnolia677/Rutherfurd Hall. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sending the deleted article my way. I'll have it back up soon. Cheers! The article Rutherfurd Hall is done. Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It was very naughty of you to create it as a new article. There may not be much of RutherfurdofthatIlk's text left but they still deserve to be credited. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were going to thank me for spending half my day fixing this article. Feel free to reverse whatever I did you feel may have offended anyone and credit whoever you wish. I really could care less about getting credit. You also know where the original article is located; add back whatever you feel is missing. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Half a day" indeed – elapsed time from my notifying that it had been restored to your posting the edit was 45 minutes! But I was impressed by your speed. You may not care about getting credit. Neither could I. But RutherfurdofthatIlk does deserve credit. If you had bothered to check the history, you would see that necessary and sufficient credit has now been given. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How can RutherfurdofthatIlk get the credit? You deleted the article--after the deletion was contested--that would have shown them as the creator. Almost all of the interactions I have had with other editors on Wikipedia have been positive, but I must say, your inability to show appreciation to others who volunteer their time to Wikipedia is disappointing. I'd like to end my negative interactions with you, so I've removed you from my watchlist. If you absolutely must have the last word, please leave it on my talk page where I can quickly delete it. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I write in sorrow rather than in anger. Sorrow that apparently you are unaware of the wonderful tools that the MediaWiki software provides. You say "how can RutherfurdofthatIlk get the credit" but did not my use of the word "restored" above give you a clue? Please look at the edit history of Rutherfurd Hall. Need I say more? I see no reason why you should want to delete this thread – it reflects my rudeness more than anything else. But as an highly exceptional privilege, I will allow you to delete this thread from " thank you " onwards after you have read it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Cloud Infrastructure Management Interface
The Cloud Infrastructure Management Interface group in DMTF, which is a standards organization, has completed and published its specifications for the CIMI standard.

I suggest that the page be resuscitated with links to that published work and also to alternatives, such as Amazon Web Services and the Open Cloud Computing Interface, which are both well-referenced alternatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilohoku150 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The original article was stubby and unreferenced. If you start again from scratch, a new article might stick. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnolia677 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 27 February 2014&lrm; (UTC)

Ministerial office
Hi RHaworth, request for discussion closure and template merger – Template:Infobox ministerial office and Template:Infobox official post.

As an administrator with experience in template deletion and merger, I was wondering if you could review this (ministerial) discussion to see if it is ready to be closed. While I am aware t hat template discussions are usually kept open for around a week, the special circumstances for this particular template, I think, warrants the merger decision now rather than inevitably later.

As you can see, the main circumstance for a speedy merger is that the discussion has been essentially rendered mute due to the recent decision made here (vice-regal). Not to mention that further reading will show you the near-universal support for a merger or outright deletion of this template in the first place. I hope you'll look into it. Thanks for your consideration! Nations United (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that the wiki software supports fragment identifiers such as I have added to your two discussion links above. I see no justification for a speedy closure of the discussion. But in any case, I do not get involved in discussions such as this – I just come along when the discussion is closed and tidy up actions are requested at CAT:CSD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks for looking into it anyways. Nations United (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yasir72.multan
Hello RHaworth, hope you are doing good. Can you please do the necessary with this page (User talk:Rhawoth/Archive to q22w). Thanks -- S M S   Talk 09:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Ahmad Ozair
You twice deleted User:Ahmad Ozair with a logged reason of "freeloading". This is not a valid speedy deletion criterion (or indeed a valid reason for any deletion via any process) as I am confident you are well aware. You also wrote, in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ahmad_Ozair&diff=prev&oldid=597154387 this edit] " When you have done 50 edits which actually contribute to building this encyclopedia I will consider allowing you a user page". There is nothing at all in WP:UP that specifies a minimum level of contribution to the project for a user p[age to exist, or for an admin to delete a page based on such a criterion. I call on you to restore the page improperly deleted, to explain this deletion in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT, and to be more careful about violations of WP:BITE in future. DES (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Tirana Ekspres – speedy deletion?
Dear RHaworth, while I appreciate your contribution and patrolling I would like to ask you to revert the deletion of the page Tirana Ekspres. Please, have a look here.

You might consider as my personal issue, but that took some time reading around the help and recommendations to come up with the text. Of course, I accept the criticism and appreciate both of yours work. Would be much easier to continue the polishing of the article if the text would be available. I did not made a copy of the text as I thought the history function provides that functionality.

I already have more references to add to the article, and figured out some changes to the text. I'm sure, if enough time is provided, more people will be involved to the editing. — Géza.Molnár 20:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geza.molnar (talk • contribs)
 * Regarding your comments to Ad Orientem, I point out that other stuff exists is never an argument. Your article made absolutely no attempt to provide independent evidence of notability. I have emailed you your text. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a possibility to ask for your opinion before I/we publish the improved version of the article? — Geza.molnar (talk • contribs) (via email)


 * Of course you may ask my opinion. It is: kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your centre is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Football4.png&lrm;
Thread transferred to commons:file talk:Football4.png

1150 Northgate
Would you mind undeleting File:1150 - Northgate - 19 December 1987.jpg? I got a message from the uploader – the file is in fact his own work, but he believes he labeled the file incorrectly as he had also published the files elsewhere. I'll make sure the labeling gets straightened out and the file moved to Commons. Kelly hi! 11:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Ah, thanks for the additional info. I will pass that along and see what the explanation is. I wasn't aware of the Panoramio issue. Kelly hi! 23:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We need an explanation of why this image appears here on Panoramio marked "© all rights reserved by Burnie van Hilst". On the other hand Burnie's image is only 910×622 whilst the version here by Luke Cossins is 2835×1938. There is no need for me to undelete – simply get Luke to upload it to the Commons. But he must provide a credible explanation of the apparent copyvio, backed up by an email to the OTRS system as explained here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I deleted the image on the strength of this incredibly long Google URL. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Youniverse
Dear Mr. RHaworth, I want to create a new article named Youniverse about an album by free jazz saxophonist Rob Brown, not related with an old article of the same name deleted, but I can't because the article is protected for creation. Please, could you tell me what should I do? Thanks! --Cayelr (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Create via AfC. If it is approved, unprotecting Youniverse will be uncontroversial. I also advise you to improve the references in the Rob Brown article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ronald Aronson
Dear RHaworth, The article I was working on, Ronald Aronson may have been deleted. Although the first reader, Anupmehra, did not mention copyright violations, the second reader, Aggie80 did. I emailed immediately to find out what those violations were and to remove them, but I have received no answer from him and now I cannot find the article on my page. I would like to continue working on the article in my own space and remove the violations. Would you be able to send the article to me? Many thanks.Leninmartov (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you say "may have been"? IIf you are talking to me then you have seen the log entry which says explicitly that I deleted it. The text was partly copied from here. Text emailed. As an alternative to re-wording the copyvio stuff, you could add a declaration on the professional revolutionary page to say "this text is licenced under CC-BY-SA-3.0". I saw your amazing remark "I removed all references to Wikipedia articles". That is another reason your article was rejected – basic failures of wiki style: you don't create a contents section – it is done automatically. You provide plenty of wiki links – your article had two neither of which worked because they were mal-formed. You use the &lt;ref> tags to push all external links to the end of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, although I wish you'd be a little gentler with people like me who are struggling in good faith to understand and comply with the Wikipedia system and its demands.

I said "may have been" because I only saw the log entry about my article being deleted after I wrote to you. The "amazing" remark was in response to Anupmehra's original rejection that stipulated that the references to Wikipedia articles should be removed. And can you clarify: "You use the &lt;ref> tags to push all external links to the end of the article"? Is that a mistake I am making or something I should be doing?

You say "Text emailed." I haven't received it yet: was it sent to my Yahoo account? (leninmartov@yahoo.com). Please resend.

Many thanks for bearing with me. Leninmartov (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If I have been harsh it is because crass errors like wikilinks indicate that you have not spent enough time learning Wikipedia style or even looking at other Wikipedia articles. Wikilinks: you do not write "New American Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Movement)" which is horrible. Nor do you write "New American Movement (New American Movement)," which is worse – underscores instead of spaces – ")," placed within the link thereby breaking it. You simply write "New American Movement".
 * Apologies, I see now that in the main body of the article you had used well-formed cite web refs – your only error was to omit the reflist tag at the end which makes them visible. Perhaps we should treat the whole "selected works" section as as extended external links section. But please do not use naked URLs, instead do for example: "Jean-Paul Sartre: Philosophy in the World (Verso, 1980)". Also note that in wikimarkup bulleted lists are created with * rather than your own idea of a bullet char.
 * I have no idea which email address it went to – I used "the email this user" link on your user page. Use it to send yourself an email and tell me it is working, then I will resend.
 * I am not overlooking the possibility of autobio. You are fully allowed here to hide behind a pseudonym but I would still like to know about your relationship to Ronald Aronson. If it is an autobio, I will become even more harsh! Read COI. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

TfD
Mr. Haworth, may I please ask for your assistance in executing a TfD? I don't have a clue where to begin, and was hoping you could give me an abridged version of the procedure. Thank you! Atsme (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Better you should read the full description which is here. You may save yourself effort if you tell me the name of the template. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Rahul Jekar Aheshash
Hi RHaworth! Would you have time to participate to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rahul Jekar Aheshash discussion, as it is about a fake article that is essentially identical to what you have speedy deleted before? Also, I'd like to hear an opinion from uninvolved administrators, if this user should be classified under Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Surjendranil. Behavior seems similar, including posting fake comments of other users and fake peer reviews of his vanity biography relating to Bengali male singer. This time with a different name, missing are the typical Surjendranil signature strings like "Anirban", "Sen Gupta", and "Indraavidev". jni (delete)...just not interested 07:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Maya the bee vandal
The user you blocked yesterday is back, as User:Asylum Bohnice2. Sorry, I don't understand how all this stuff works, but presumably she? is due for summary deletion. Hope this helps... Imaginatorium (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * / Asylum Bohnice2 / . I've opened a formal SPI regarding this sock cluster. I thought I'd let you know since you had already tagged Asylum as a duckish sock without a formal SPI.  I figure with more vandalism, a formal SPI with checkuser to find hidden accounts was in order. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why on earth do we need an SPI? The sock puppetry is self-evident. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikiDan61&diff=598422104&oldid=598397973 This] is why. Perhaps to find the sleeper accounts before they can be used. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Paul T T Easter
Hi RHaworth, I have been researching the article on the film maker Paul T T Easter aka Paul Eastman and requested some help. I've been able to find a live BBC Radio Suffolk interview which was linked on the Shane Meadows forum also the film maker Paul T T Easter BBC Radio Suffolk Interview with Director Paul Easter Live 10-09-08 was inspired by Shane's work Film maker looking for local talent newspaper article and Actor to star in his own movie newspaper article -- Bat21777 (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC) I'm have sand boxed all the information i have managed to find and will keeping adding to it hopefully it may soon have enough information links and good source's etc to be viable as a Wikipedia article.--Bat21777 (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So what help might you be wanting? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * While wishing to assume good faith like everyone else above has, I have to say it's very noticeable that this editor has just registered for an account, edited one article about bats and then wants to start resubmitting articles about Paul T T Easter with the previous wording restored. As seen at the previous deletion discussion, it looks very much like this is another sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Mr Easter. Bob talk 19:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course he is a sock. Any further attempt to promote himself and his movies and I will block him. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for clearing my page. I'm sorry things did not work out here. Quill and Pen (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Span-America
Hello, I am a student and I have met a problem. I created a page named Span-America Medical Systems, but it was deleted. I am sorry about that. But I have to create that page in that it's my work assigned by my teacher. That page have some problem and I want to modify it to meet the standard of the Wiki. I want to have a try, would you please userfy that page for me? Thank you very much! ReganChai (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Have to create it for my teacher" is not an excuse for anything! restored to User:ReganChai/sandbox. As well as fixing the copyvio, you will need to provide independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Reeva Steenkamp.jpg
Hi RHaworth. I see you've been editing since 2005. Wow!

I would be really grateful if you could respond to some of the issues I raised in the defence of the Reeva Steenkamp image, thus:


 * First of all the image was first published by The Times of South Africa on 16 February 2013 just two days after Reeva's death  in a story about her memorial service. It is clearly marked "File Photo" as a glance at the original page shows and as I made clear in the Fair Use rationale it was provided by her model agency (and subsequently widely reproduced the world over) as a mark of respect as existing photos of Reeva were for the most part glamour shots or otherwise unsuitable. As far as I know it was subsequently bought by Getty Images but that really isn't relevant regarding first publication rights that is the issue here.
 * However the speedy deletion criteria here seem to be out of date. WP:NFCI 10 states that  "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" meets the criteria for fair use. The only issue thus is the question of replaceability which I deal with in the Fair Use criteria.
 * Incidentally WP:F7 is also out of date since WP:NFCI 8b has been around since at least [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content&diff=447029663&oldid=447029403 27 August 2011] when User:Future Perfect at Sunrise conceded that community consensus was that "object of commentary" is not sine qua non and laid down three principles for a more general application: " they must meet all aspects of WP:NFCC, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance".
 * By all means tag this image for discussion, but a speedy delete is quite wrong.
 * Incidentally WP:F7 is also out of date since WP:NFCI 8b has been around since at least [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content&diff=447029663&oldid=447029403 27 August 2011] when User:Future Perfect at Sunrise conceded that community consensus was that "object of commentary" is not sine qua non and laid down three principles for a more general application: " they must meet all aspects of WP:NFCC, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance".
 * By all means tag this image for discussion, but a speedy delete is quite wrong.
 * By all means tag this image for discussion, but a speedy delete is quite wrong.

I have established that the file is indeed now owned by Getty Images gty.im/161658209, but that isn't relevant if WP:NFCI 10 really does hold.

You quote F7, but editors providing content don't normally look to speedy deletion guidance for guidance on copyright issues.

The two would seem to directly contradict each other. Which is right? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I simply have no opinions about this. The image was nominated for deletion, first by  and then by . If you can persuade both of them that fair-use applies then re-upload should be no problem. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This image can't be used as WP:NFC § 7 forbids its use in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks R. I see WP:NFC § 7 tucked away later. It's not clear to me why Press Agencies should be in this special position. I see it was challenged at least as early as 2008 Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 37. I'm currently editing at Trial of Oscar Pistorius and following that I will retire from editing Wikipedia. If I have time in the meantime I'll try to research just how much consensus there really is on WP:NFC § 7. Thank you for your time. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)