User talk:RHaworth/2014 May 30

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.]

Global account problem
A few days ago, I requested to change my username from to Asadwarraich. Username was changed but I have a problem. My account with new username 'Asadwarraich' does not work anywhere else except English Wikipedia; it is active on only English Wikipedia. Why does this happen? Do I have to request to change my username on other Wikimedia projects? --Asadwarraich (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Try WP:VPT.-- Laun  chba  ller  11:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why ask me? Would it not be better to ask who did the rename? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay! --Asadwarraich (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

BlueMountain.com
Hi There- I would like to contest the deletion of the BlueMountain.com page. It was created and deleted on 5/13 for A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Though it is a website, it is one of the earliest and most popular ecard sites that helped shape the early internet. I felt I adequately cited both with internal sources, like the e-cards page and reputable and notable external sources for every fact stated. I'm hoping that you will either reconsider the deletion or give some guidance as to what types of edits/rewrite would make the article meet the necessary requirements. I used to have a different Wikipedia account sometime ago but I am trying to start fresh, so any help would be appreciated! Lgrabowski (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * felt the references were not good enough. Feel free to raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Elsa Cladera de Bravo
Dear Sir, I am very surprised to learn that you have deleted my page about Elsa Cladera de Bravo. I most surely consider her efforts worth mentioning on Wikipedia. Please inform me about all necessary details that have to be taken into consideration in order to allow her a page on Wikipedia. Yours sincerely, Nadezhda Bravo Cladera Nadezhda Bravo Cladera (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Over a nine month (!) period you maintained parallel copies of the text at User:Nadezhda Bravo Cladera and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elsa Cladera de Bravo. Please explain why. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Activate Learning
I don't feel strongly about it but this looked like a valid article subject based on their website. If I created a stub would you delete it? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please learn to provide links. If you were to create an unreferenced stub in mainspace, then it should be deleted! Perhaps I was biased – I am a Cambridge graduate and had just come back from a trip to Cambridge when I deleted it. A syndrome we see from time to time – a perfectly good article gets turned spammy and gets deleted, in this case twice. Restored and reverted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Preference is not the issue; policy is
When you put "unspeedy – Category:Ethnic groups in Papua New Guinea definitely prefers "... people")" in your edit comment on Baruya, are you speaking for WikiProject Papua New Guinea and some local convention with such usages in Papua New Guinea media, or are you speaking for yourself? For "Baruya" that is not the ethnic group, then it should not have disambiguation, which is in fact the by-far more common state of ethno articles, and is what is in line with actual policy and guidelines.  The wording of your edit comment is strange; categories are inanimate abstracts and do not have "preferences".  Editors do, but editors often vary from policy/guidelines based on personal preference rather than most-common-usage and primarytopic issues.Skookum1 (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"Shout?" If you are not familiar with the use of capital letters without constant piping, and want to make a fuss about that triviality and make an accusation in response is totally AGF, as was your removal of a db to bring said articles into conformity with TITLE. As I'd suspected, they were moved by the author of the passage added to NCL in 2011 that made sweeping, non-conforming changes to the nature of ethnic group articles even though it is not an ethnic group guideline and affected, as its author puts it in resisting reversions of them and also reforms to his self-authored passage at NCL, "thousands of articles", not a "handful of articles". Well over 80 have been reversed by RM already, and I was advised that the policy-driven nature of the moves in question, which are often only redirects an in direct contravention of WP:CONCISENESS and WP:PRECISION (there, I piped them, happy now??) and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (piped again) and WP:NCDAB (also piped). I had requested moves for every (well, nearly every) North American and Central American/Caribbean people; 90% were consensus moved on the basis of the policies and guidelines you are so upset I didn't pipe. Among them, 100% that were redirects to themselves were reverted to their original standalone titles. Such redirects should not exist.
 * Please do not shout. If you are talking about Wikipedia policies, then refer to them properly using piped links – like this. There is another issue: consistency. Why have you picked on an handful of articles and proposed moves for them? Please reply. Do the job properly: go to Requested Moves and request moves for every "… people" article in Category:Indigenous peoples of South Asia, Category:Ethnic groups in Papua New Guinea, Category:Indigenous ethnic groups in Western New Guinea and probably several other similar categories. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

In light of that, using technical requests/db-moves was advised to me as being the more straightforward course rather than subject the titles to the discussion boards, where opinions are fielded by people who don't know or care about what the all-capped policies/guidelines are. I have been putting db-moves only on titles that are redirects back to themselves...which if you looked at their history of the redirects, were moved "per lang vs naming convention" or "To match naming convention of other ethnic group specific articles". but in 2011 there was no naming convention for ethnic groups (WP:NCET) was not set up until 2012, after some discussions on WP:NCP. Requested moves are going to be necessary for the WP:TWODAB pages created by one of those movers (the author of the passage of WP:NCL in question, which guideline under review to bring it into line with TITLE etc, despite filibustering by the same editor to prevent it and advance his own preferences against policy). Among these are Iatmul and Telfol, the latter having been moved to Telefol people by "to match naming convention of other ethnic group specific articles", even though in 2011, when that move was made, WP:NCET did not exist yet and NCL, though revised, still did not have "authority" to override WP:TITLE etc.

So the light on your edit comment re "preferred by Category:Ethnic groups in Papua New Guinea" turns out to be as preferred by the author of NCL, and those who followed in him in applying his preference and claim that "languages and peoples are equally primary topics", which has no substance in googlesearches, view stats etc, as was shown time and again in the RMs that you apparently were not aware of. That it looks like it's "preferred" in the category as a result of those one-guideline mis-moves is incidental, and is not a preference of the category. The only things that should have dabs are things that have real dab situations, e.g. Huli people vs Huli. North/Central America, the Caribbean, Australia and some of Oceania at this point, have now been reverted to their original titles; near-invariably they'd have "people" added in 2011 by....the usual suspect, or in the name of the guideline he revised to advance his own preferences over policy.Skookum1 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't gotten to Category:South Asia yet; "thousands of articles" were moved without discussion to unncessary dabs with only redirects to themselves; there's only so much time in a wiki-day.Skookum1 (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I hoped that LeProf 7272 had gone away but … No. the links you give are not piped links. Please read this (that is a piped link). Can you see the difference between WP:MWOT (not piped) and wall of text (piped)? As to "… people", all I need is a link to a page where the matter has been discussed and there is a clear consensus. But I shall stand back and not touch any further requests you make. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * RHaworth refers to me here, because I have challenged him as a deletion trigger-happy, curmudgeonly, new user-unfriendly, and generally broadly unhelpful and disrespectful Admin that does a disservice to the organization by his bias toward a particular type of editor (longstanding, error-free, technocratic) and his indulgence in what he self-aggrandizes as plain speaking (read, general shortness/rudeness). Precisely why I am referenced here, in the midst of your issues, Skookum1, only his neuronal tangle can possibly sort. I have no interest or comment in this current matter, except to say that on the basis of patterns of behaviour, I can imagine that RHaworth acted too quickly on this matter, and now is bound by his substantial self-confidence (or is it pride?) not to back down from an initial errant decision. But, this is just a guess. I am here again at his Talk (alas), because, despite all, he has taught me something technical—accidental/unintentional though the help was—and I am here to peruse and review the lesson. Best wishes in getting your work done, if RH has taken a personal interest.  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"Oh dear", somebody else who has reading problems re so-called "walls of text" and uses that plus technical quibbles about what is and isn't a pipe instead of addressing the guidelines/policies at issue. Ho-hum, please, yes, do not remove any further technical-move based on policy that I make, instead of removing it by talking about a bad, anti-policy usage being "preferred" on a particular category; As for a link to a page where the matter has been discussed, Talk:Northern Tutchone per Cuchullain's close there will do, and 80 others by him, BDD and Xoloz, all saying the same thing, many more explicitly; the people are the PRIMARYTOPIC. Oh, sorry not to pipe that but I don't have time to pander to someone who wants me to do more typing than necessary to meet their particular demands about what is and isn't a pipe and who, even though knowing what I was referring to, made a point of saying "please do not shout" as if I had (which you know well I was not). Which is partly the whole point with unnecessary dabs; why have to type Passamaquoddy people when plain old Passamaquoddy will do just fine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs)

Project Hydra
Hi, I have received notification that you deleted my proposed page "Hydra Project" for copyright violation of projecthydra.org. Foolishly I was unaware that wholesale deletion could occur, rather I had assumed that I would be asked to modify anything that you found unacceptable, thus I had not taken a full copy of the page. Whilst I have most of the article text I do not have the references (etc) sections from the bottom.

I am actually the webmaster of projecthydra.org (as well as a founder member of the project) and wrote a great deal of the site content. Under these circumstances, I wonder if you would be prepared to return me a full copy of the text and possibly also indicate how, given that the website is CC-BY-SA, I might avoid the copyright challenge. Wikipedia's CV page seems to suggest that it should be possible? — Richard Green 12:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardatthenook (talk • contribs)


 * Text emailed but kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your project is notable and writes about it here. What is more, these EU framework projects seem to have built in non-notability – see this list. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response to my request to return the deleted page text for my submission Hydra Project. I was at first confused by your reference to EU Framework projects but on checking your email more closely I find that the text you have returned, seemingly deleted in 2008, refers to an older Hydra Project. The Hydra Project I was describing is a transatlantic cooperation offering an open source digital repository solution. The page was deleted in the last few days. I'd be really grateful to have the correct text returned. Thanks. Richard Green 08:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardatthenook (talk • contribs)
 * If you had said that you could not remember the exact title of the page you had been editing, I would have accepted it without comment. But to actually provide a link to a page that you have never edited is simply mind-boggling. I have now emailed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hydra Project. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft talk:Climate Summit 2014
Can I ask why you removed the speedy tag from Draft talk:Climate Summit 2014? It was created as the result of an unauthorized user accepting an AfC submission, which then had to be unacccepted. When someone re-accepts it, the script will automatically create a new one, with the right information in the WikiProject AfC box (etc.), and I'm worried that it might get confused if there's one already there. — Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am still trying to understand the rules of the draft: namespace. If you think the article is not allowed the tags, then re-instate the speedy tag. I will do nothing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Real Iain Christopher Postlethwaite
I was doing new page patrol and came upon this gem Daniel Real Iain Christopher Postlethwaite. I don't even know what to do with it or if there is even a CSD category I can put it in. So, I thought I'd ask a admin that I react with on a fairly regular basis.  Whispe ring  18:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A7 was a perfectly good category. By a spooky co-incidence, at the very moment your message arrived I was looking in my watchlist at two previous manifestations of this kid (born 1993-03-27). See User talk:Daniel Postlethwaite. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:Creative Mobile
Draft:Creative Mobile (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of several sources, see comments). Hi There, I got notice that my Draft page for 'Creative Mobile' was rejected and deleted. I can't see the comments made or access the deleted page, I'd like to recover the text so I can bring it into my sandbox. Also if you can give some feedback about why it was deleted, thanks. CM_Scruffy (talk) 23 May 2014
 * Feed back as to why it was deleted? Which of the words "unambiguous copyright infringement" do you not understand? I can email you the text – read this – but kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please be more specific with your feedback. What part of the text was copyright infringement? I will add my e-mail to my profile so you can send me back the text. Thanks! CM_Scruffy (talk) 23 May 2014
 * Text now emailed. Comments in that text point to two copyvio sources. You may get constructive suggestions from . I think you are just a spammer. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I received your e-mail. I'm not a spammer, just new to Wikipedia. I'll work on the article more in my sandbox and get some further feedback. take it easy bro! CM_Scruffy (talk) 23 May 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 10:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Not a spammer" – what does the CM in your user name stand for? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be the initals of my real name :) CM_Scruffy (talk) 23 May 2014  — Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * CM, first, congratulations on your recent hiring on by Creative Mobile as a "social content advisor" on February 17 of this year.
 * Our policies may say that we WP:AGF, but that allows us to Trust, but verify, and your denial of what CM stands for now sticks out like a sore thumb as an indication of your intent to try and game our system.
 * CM, I found cut and pastes from multiple sources before I stopped looking, e.g., https://www.linkedin.com/company/creative-mobile-o- and http://www.ign.com/games/digger-hd/ps3-14354307. Please don't do that.  Write in your own words, only.  If, in asking this, you are suggesting you wrote the article by yourself and copied nothing, you are insulting my intelligence.  If you are suggesting that you copied and pasted it but didn't understand the warnings that appear above and below every editing bar, well, I would not stoop to insult your intelligence in such a manner.
 * I have salted the Creative Mobile title so that it may now only be created by an administrator. You can still create drafts, of course, but they won't be made full Wikipedia articles until they've been reviewed.
 * If you continue to attempt to game our system you will be blocked from editing.
 * Best regards, --j⚛e deckertalk 16:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Decker has been very generous in metering out nothing more than a warning, because this makes my blood boil. If you must bring your WP:COI to Wikipedia, have the decency to admit it.-- Laun  chba  ller  16:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is here. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  16:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Melexis
I'm disappointed to find the entry for Melexis has been deleted (1 day before I looked it up!). I don't see why a company should be of no interest (only educational institutions are interesting, apparently). Of course, the article needs to be more than a press release, but if it only starts at that it may become more interesting later. I came looking here because I've seen the company name on a couple of interesting sensors recently and wondered if they were a resurrection of another, better known company. An odd aspect of today's corporate life seems to be that some companies spend millions on brand awareness and others rename themselves and throw it all away (Infineon, Freescale, Agilent ..) Sorry this is anonymous. I can't remember my account details and I don't see that my identity is important (FWIW, I have no connection with Melexis) 89.206.255.82 (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please add your comments to the bottom of this page. Melexis wasn't deleted because it was uninteresting, it was deleted because the article failed to indicate why it was important or significant – as the deletion log explicitly stated.
 * I can tell you exactly why your identity is important: How do you expect the content to be eMailed to you? Read this.-- Laun  chba  ller  16:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The article had been around for 6½ years. How come that in that time no-one had managed to add even one independent reference? If you are prepared to create a new article, I will happily send you the text (subject to Launchballer's comment). You could follow this advice for finding a possible new author. Failing that you will have to be satisfied with listing it in the appropriate requested articles list. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Paul Julian (meteorologist)
Dear Roger: Can you take a look at the history of this draft? And its talk page? Strangely, when you moved it, it doubled in size. Was there something else happening here? The editor who created it is complaining that his draft was declined with 16 references, but the declining reviewer is saying there were only three, and yet I can't find an edit where he added the other thirteen. — Anne Delong (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3APaul_Julian_%28meteorologist%29&diff=609744310&oldid=609731558 This dif.] looks like the addition of thirteen references. There is some confusion because the present state is a merge of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Paul Julian (Meteorologist) (note, wrong namespace) and Draft:Paul Julian (meteorologist) both of which Le Prof had been editing. (I am not even sure that the 23 May decline message is based on the text to which it is now attached – I merely copied it in to ensure that the article remains in the AfC category.) I cannot bear to look at the talk page, it is just a typical load of wall of text waffle in which Le Prof specialises. Simply tell The Prof to add decent independent references and a submit tag. (And please don't mention my name! If he cannot see me in the edit history, then we keep quiet or I will get another wall of text.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have the wrong end of the stick, my curmudgeonly friend. But, I will leave it to you to take the time to suss out why—since you seem averse to any content-adding editorial work yourself, or to reading when others do some, and need to explain it to you. mdr. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Anna Maree Manciet
Hi, I wanted to know what would be required to satisfy A7 "proving importance/significance". I created the page Anna maree manciet for the person herself and within the article is the info that states she is a professional gamer and employee of Dell Inc. Her employer actually asked for the page to be made so that when anybody sees her creating content, such as videos, for their company that they can find a wiki page for her. I realize the page is highly incomplete, but I only published it to allow Anna Manciet herself to see what I helped her create, upon her request, and so that she can edit herself as well. — Icepheonix5 (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Double COI! Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks this woman is notable and writes about her here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That thing they did after voyager
Thanks for deleting it – I guess you looked at the RfD. I am not an admin but seemed to have consensus and we have a backlog there so uncontensted ones I am doing a bit of the usual gnoming. What category should I have put it in though – nothing seemed quite to fit? Si Trew (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should I look at the RfD? It was clearly a speedy candidate. I was happy to accept your WP:G2, test page tag – it is a useful catch-all! I would also have accepted WP:R3, implausible redirect but some pedantic admins might have pointed out that R3 includes a "recent" condition and this redirect was created on 2013-01-29. Also, the page is receiving a tiny amount of traffic coming from this at cyclopaedia and similar. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the hard work. 舎利弗 (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Petrus Henrici Barchæus
Hello,

If you have a chance, would you mind looking at Petrus Henrici Barchæus? It's the last in a string of articles about vicars of the Gunnilbo parish that you worked on last night. It appears to be much the same as the others, nothing particularly notable about the individual. Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson ( talk ) 19:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Prod of ground water in Iraqi Kurdistan
Ground water in Iraqi Kurdistan has 1-2 references. You may want to check if they are enough or not. My question is, if the prod template is still necessary. If it is, explain. If not, use other PROD or Afd.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 04:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the prod is still necessary because nothing has changed since I applied it. Also the article is almost certainly a copyvio. What on earth do you mean by "use other prod"? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Jabari Parker
Wasn't the consensus to delete Jabari Parker's high school career and not redirect it to the main page? ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 16:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC) I think most of that has to do with the AfD, so please delete. Also, what does "salt" mean? ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 18:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * True. I was thinking of the relatively high levels of page accesses. But if you ask me again, I shall delete and salt. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Salt means protect as in salting the earth, ie. make it impossible for a new article to grow on that title. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Caiden Cowger
I am unsure as to why you have decided to delete my Caiden Cowger page. I was told previously, that in the future, Cowger might eventually be eligible to be added to Wikipedia. This person is now a popular businessman in West Virginia, and a radio host for Clear Channel. Please reconsider your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyConservatism (talk • contribs)
 * I would not have minded if no link was provided, because then you could have justified ignorance – but to add a link to the wrong article? Please remember to sign and put your message in the right place. Perhaps the most galling thing of all is that you clicked 'edit' on the section that contained the message. As the page was deleted via AfD no single administrator can undelete it.-- Laun  chba  ller  21:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am very dubious as to whether you have become sufficiently notable for Wikipedia since the AfD discussion closed with an unanimous "delete" decision on 2013 Dec 31. But in any case when you do become notable, writing of the article should be left to someone with no COI. (Launchballer, I don't understand at all what your "most galling thing" is. Certainly I find blanking the AfD discussion not so much galling as downright childish.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What annoyed me is that when Cowger added the message, he clicked 'edit' on the section that contained the 'wikify!' box. I had to move the message to the bottom of the page.-- Laun  chba  ller  21:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, all you are saying is that he put the message in the wrong place. It is more likely he used whole article edit because a) section edit generates an automatick edit summary including a → link and b) if he clicked on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/Archive_index&action=edit&section=T-1 edit] link beside the Archives section header, he would have been taken to a different page!
 * DailyConservatism, another hurdle that you would need to overcome to get an article in here is that Wikipedia is run by a cabal of liberals. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I never noticed that! Is it worth putting up a page notice like this one I have?-- Laun  chba  ller  22:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Then instead of deleting an article, why not just notify that it needs a correction? What difference does it make if Mr. Cowger is a conservative or not? He is popular, and it worthy to be added to Wikipedia. What steps would I need to go through to re-submit it and add more sources and fixing the problem. It appears that it has been locked, and I am unable to create a revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyConservatism (talk • contribs)

Personally, I believe that I am finished with Wikipedia. I will suggest that you at least unblock the article from being recreated, because sometime in the near future, it may be very well unavoidable for Wikipedia not to include an article about this individual. I am not sure if you are familiar with Clear Channel, but it is the largest broadcasting service in the United States. Some of the most popular radio hosts, such as: Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity work for Clear Channel, and now Cowger does too. It appears to me that this decision was made on the basis of his political ideology. Though I personally don't agree with everything he says, he is still popular and worthy to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyConservatism (talk • contribs)


 * The reference to cabal was a joke . I have never seen the term "unavoidable" used before. When the matter does become unavoidable, then the article will need to go through a deletion review process but if the decision is to create a new article then unprotection will be unavoidable and uncontroversial. (Launchballer, I will think about transferring my "Wikify!" box to an edit notice.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest checking Wikipedia for other uses of his name, because he is mentioned in several other articles, yet he is not on Wikipedia himself. Imagine that. How do you put it through another deletion review, because based upon his spike in popularity and association with Clear Channel, it should be placed through that process once again. I will state my opinion once again. Cowger being recognized should be on Wikipedia.

Also, the previous deletion review used false information to take down my page. One of the users searched for this term exactly: "Caiden Cowger" radio, rather than "Caiden Cowger," provided the link and said that Mr. Cowger was nonexistent and another said that his exact location was not provided, which was updated in my previous article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyConservatism (talk • contribs)

Jabari Parker's high school career
Re Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination): I am trying to understand whether I don't understand WP:G4, whether you were too lazy to understand the original AFD, and whether G4 applied. On what basis did G4 apply in this case?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I have read "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." and even reviewed it with another admin who reversed a G4. I feel there are 4 reasons why G4 does not apply.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" – One third of the readable prose was removed--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies" – The complaint was that the article was chock full of trivia and unnecessary due to redundancy with the main article, which itself needed to be trimmed.
 * 3) *When AFD1 began at 19:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC), the main Jabari Parker article was 46119 characters of readable prose. When AFD2 began at 16:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC), the main article was 22433 characters. Determining whether a fork against the new article is unnecessary and redundant is not a matter for CSD, but a matter for discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) *When AFD1 closed the fork was 49260 character. AFD2 was for a 33208 character fork. Whether the greatly streamlined version was full of trivia is again a matter for discussion rather than a CSD matter. Clearly, consensus that a 49 KB version is full of trivia has little bearing on a 33 KB version.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) "content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)" – This was certainly the case since I removed one third of the readable prose and added important details in user space.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you kindly userfy the article and talk with all its historical edits. I want to check a few specifics out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I seem to be suffering from long winded contributors at the moment. I accept that the deletion may have been done outside due process. Because of the way I do deletions, I never saw that DGG had removed Tarc's speedy tag. Restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

What you have done is not that helpful. The G4 speedy delete was wrong. The Snow delete was correct. No reason not to let the SNOW stand. Please userfy this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Several users have concluded that Speedy still applies, as recreation of a previously deleted page. The consensus was that the article, AT ANY LENGTH, was unencyclopedic. Anyway, could you just close it as a SNOW since it obviously won't be kept and all it is doing is firing Tony up. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 13:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrectly, WP:N is permanent and his high school career was formerly the entirety of his notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:N's purpose is to make a determination if a topic has enough coverage to allow for a stand-alone article, but it does not say that just because a topic has this coverage that it must have a stand-alone article. Indeed, other policies will override WP:N's guideance and will prevent a standalone topic (eg such as WP:BLP1E) from being made. As both AFDs have clearly established, a topic only on the HS career of a athlete is far too much indiscriminate info for an encyclopedia even if you can well document it; we're summarizing that career, not detailing it out fully. --M ASEM (t) 16:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete my sandbox
Excuse me, I am wondering why you deleted my sandbox. A sandbox is a private working ground for users and is not a real Wikipedia page. ( User: H.Brian Griffin talkundefinedcontribs 20:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC))
 * I did not delete your sandbox. I simply merged it with another page on the same subject to save you from being confused. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Continua CI speedy deletion
Why was this page Continua CI deleted when it was entirely in keeping with existing wikipedia pages for TeamCity and Bamboo. This smacks of double standards, why have these pages been allowed to exist for years? I am struggling to understand how this is allowed to happen? I responded to the speedy deletion request pointing out the above, and instead of an explaination my page was just deleted. Vsoft-tech (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * When your product becomes notable someone with no COI will write about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Bamboo
Hi! I just wanted to inform you: I dePRODed Bamboo (software) because it was not eligible – WP:Articles for deletion/Bamboo (software) exists. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I always thought it was only ineligible for proposed deletion if the article had already been prodded. That said, I believe AfD would be a better venue for this, but given the response to the AfD you link to I'd like another view before I send it there.-- Laun  chba  ller  10:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Kislay Pandey
Dear,

i want to write again for kislay pandey page. I have few good reference now. Please guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandeykislay (talk • contribs) 10:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You have a very similar name to that article, RHaworth will need more than 'few good reference now' doktorb wordsdeeds 11:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can think of no other article that has been deleted via BLP Prod, A7 and G12.-- Laun  chba  ller  11:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

West Seattle Bridge collision
RHaworth, I strongly believe that you violated both the spirit and the word of the G12 speedy delete criteria on West Seattle Bridge collision. The criteria explicitly says only to delete "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving", and I had written quite a lot of my own content, and had rewritten some of the content I took from the "infringing" text I originally took from West Seattle Bridge. The criteria also states that the text must have no credible assertion of being fair use or free content, but if you had actually visited the website in question, you would have seen at the bottom of every page "This essay is licensed under a Creative Commons license that encourages reproduction with attribution. Credit should be given to both HistoryLink.org and to the author, and sources must be included with any reproduction. Click the icon for more info. Please note that this Creative Commons license applies to text only, and not to images. For more information regarding individual photos or images, please contact the source noted in the image credit." Therefore, it's free content, and if for some reason not, it's still a credible assertion of free content, and that's enough to exclude use of speedy deletion. Ego White Tray (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to add that it sure looks like you didn't check the history first. If you had, you would have noticed edit summaries saying things like "removing possibly infringing content." Ego White Tray (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If you use text from a site with a compatible licence, you should mention this in: an HTML comment in the article, in the edit summary and on the talk page. Text emailed. The West Seattle Bridge article is relatively small so probably better to put the collision story in there. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You are the administrator – checking this stuff is YOUR JOB. It is not my job to put 500 notices on a page to avoid problem with lazy administrators. Since it was a creative commons page, the text should be restored, not e-mailed, since your speedy delete was plainly wrong. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Lama Energy Group
Dear RHaworth,

I would like to kindly ask you to tell me the reason because of which you deleted Lama Energy Group. Thank you and best regards, 88.100.132.19 (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Tomas Mottl
 * G11: Overly promotional, serves only to promote the company (see WP:NPOV); G12: Copied directly from a source.-- Laun  chba  ller  16:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

New Orioles Yankees rivalry
Hi there. I saw that you had mentioned that there was a previous attempt at an Orioles-Yankees rivalry article. In the previous deletion description, users agreed that the article lacked reliable sources speaking of the rivalry. However, I made another attempt at the article because I found more reliable sources and listed them because of it. Was the reason why you turned it down solely because there was a failed attempt in the past? I just was curious as to what more would be needed to make it into an article. Thanks for your help. Arnabdas (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly not wise to start the article by referring to the previous AfD discussion – better to keep schtum about that! I also deleted it because it was empty – but that was wrong since it was in draft: space. It is more than four year since the AfD decision. So I have restored it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARHaworth&diff=610371196&oldid=610368578 Yes, RHaworth, you are.] Arnabdas contributed to the AfD discussion he points to, which means he should've accepted its outcome.-- Laun  chba  ller  17:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what "yes you are" means. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Given my practice of answering multiple matters in one edit, it would be a good idea to include a fragment identifier in your link [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARHaworth&diff=610371196&oldid=610368578#New_Orioles_Yankees_rivalry_proposal_comment thus]. But even then, I still do not understand you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You asked a question in your edit summary. It was that which I was answering.-- Laun  chba  ller  21:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Got it at last. I shall try to stick to my usual hard line. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it standard Admin practice
…to allow, and even encourage (through absence of correction) another, presumably nonidentical User/editor/persona to reply, repeatedly, to administrative business-related queries that are directed to you, RHaworth, at this User Talk page? Or are RHaworth and Launchballer one and the same, or otherwise connected in their administrative practices here? Curious if this is standard practice that I just have missed—admins having editor-understudies handling their correspondence. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Launchballer is not in fact his understudy, but his supervisor! After all, RHaworth needs someone to whom he can defer, when someone asks to speak to someone of such rank. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to talk page stalkers answering on my behalf. If they say anything with which I disagree, I will resond appropriately.


 * We have a very firm rule: no legal threats. I hasten to say that I have not seen you make any actual legal threats but you have made numerous threats such as this one. These may be just as disturbing to their recipients as legal threats. You said here "blocks, and threats of blocks, are last resorts in modifying editor behaviour here, are they not?" But apparently you consider only slightly less serious threats to be perfectly OK. If you see actions which you deem inappropriate, by all means "forward them to an Admin page" (or take other action as you see fit) without any warning. But kindly cease and desist from simply issuing threats. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Bertrandroche
I was trying to get this newbie to see the errors of his way, and had userfied his article. Anyway, I tried. I see you blocked him. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you seriously consider offering any sort of help and succour to a person who writes "create a wikipedia page of our company "? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion
Ok fine, go and delete the subpages of NN4. But please let just the non-subpage pages be there because it is a form of short form. And anyway, just delete the shortcuts of all the things (in my subpages). Thanks! Don't delete the User:NN4 and User talk:NN4. It applies to User:I dream of horses too, she just use User:IDoH as short form. What's wrong with that? --NN4 |  Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!  |  No Editcountitis!  09:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point. It could create a dangerous precedent – please may I create pages at user:RH and user:RWH? Note that created user:RH but thought better of it. If you really insist, create a new account at user:NN4. I will then block it but say that it is a legitimate second account of you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Arrow
You deleted an article and provided A7 as the reasoning behind it. However, ARROW is a standard system created under directive from the European Parliament and Council to store and organize information about copyright and is not any of the things listed under A7. Please provide clarification. As you may be aware (I'm assuming you read the article since you deleted it), the process of cataloging is very time intensive. You may also be aware of the existence of the Virtual International Authority File and how that has an article of its own. Since ARROW serves a similar purpose to VIAF, I do not understand why one has an article and the other doesn't. --Llehsadam (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You claim that VIAF has an article but contradict yourself by providing a red link! A7 requires an indication of importance and it is felt that you have not provided such indication. If you can create a version with with decent references, raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's red because I included "the" in the link by accident. Fixed it. The article is not important enough for me personally to raise the issue any further. Someone who knows more on the issue of orphan works and how that affects digitization of public databases will figure it out eventually. I think it was disdainful to delete it on such short notice. --Llehsadam (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, now that article is proposed for deletion... rough day. --Llehsadam (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, it was short notice. That is why we provide deletion review to enable a more leisurely discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

my deleted page
Hi, I'm sorry I didn't know I couldn't use my user page to communicate pretty-printed text to friends. It is some useful information on how to build CLANG/LLVM compiler on windows with visual studio, it's not spamming of anything else. I used wikipedia as a notebook and as a document writer this afternoon, because I prefer typing text on wikipedia than on microsoft word, and I let it there because I didn't know I couldn't.

I read NOTWEBHOST and I understand I was wrong, but about the deletion without pre-notification, the size of the datas wasn't so large, maybe 500 lines of text ? Is there a way to retrieve the content and the source code ? I don't have any copy of this, and it represents 4 hours of work ! Thank you in advance and sorry again, R. Acx01b (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I shall be happy to email you copies of all three of your deleted pages. Please read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * done, deleted page : User:Acx01b thank you Acx01b (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Silent Criminal Records
The deletion of this page should be reversed as I do not feel it was a mis-representation and it was in fact relevant as the company had just been formed SCRecords (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So what! That the company has just been formed makes it doubly as likely to be non-notable. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI decides to write about the company. -- Laun  chba  ller  23:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

t y
From one grumpy old man to another, thank you (again) for recent deletions! –  Paine Ellsworth  C LIMAX ! 09:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Rktect
Sent you an email about a possible sock. Got your automated reply. Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So why did you not take note of my automated reply and repeat your message in the proper place, ie. here? I think you are suggesting that a certain new user is a sock puppet of . I think that as long as he just waffles on talk pages, we let him. If you see any rubbish in mainspace let me know. If it is close it is to Rktect's style, I will simply block. Otherwise we can restart Sockpuppet investigations/Rktect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, was trying to avoid drama if I'm wrong. Waffling is fine. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

See the extended rant hatted at Talk:Rhind Mathematical Papyrus and an IP edit todayTalk:English units which I think I will delete as off-topic forum stuff. Could be coincidence of course. But it looks like the account's stuff. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And this edit by the IP[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acre&diff=prev&oldid=610642540] is the same sort of stuff the account's been adding. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Howard Charles Fraser Riddle
I don't understand why Howard Charles Fraser Riddle was deleted ('under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant') as Riddle holds the office of Chief Magistrate in the UK government. There is only one Chief Magistrate. He is head of the UK government office of Chief Magistate, with a large staff and an important role in the administration of justice in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerFreischutz2014 (talk • contribs)
 * Please do not clutter this page with article material. The article was a derisorily short stub. I suggest you write a decent article and, above all, provide links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources then submit it via Draft:Howard Charles Fraser Riddle. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

AfD needs closing
Hi. Just wanted to drop a line and thank you for the speedy delete of St Lawrence's GAA, Manchester and ask if you could close the related Afd? I thought about doing it myself since it is non-controversial, but decided against it since I cast a delete !vote. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind. It's been taken care. Thanks again for your help. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

European Association for Biometrics
I believe you recently deleted an article I created for the European Association for Biometrics.

I would like to have a copy of the deleted article please.

Also I would urge you to reconsider deletion of this article.

Articles of similar organizations are allowed on Wikipedia: for example Biometrics Institute.

Please let me know should you require further informtion.

best wishes Farzin