User talk:RHaworth/2019 Dec 21

Emotional Speech Blocks Deletion Syndrome
[Title width guide. Delete above here if no further edits - already in archive. If further edits, move below here.]

Draft:NASLite
? Draft:NASLite g12? g11? : Indirect scummering Arbom candidate ? : Ho hum. Couldn't make it up could we? — 31.50.16.186 (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I know you have to rely on the NPP guys before of the amount of work you but I am somewhat minded they are getting a tad trigger happy in Draft? (I was 31.50.16.186 down the line). Ta. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 31.50.16.186's message is incomprehensible and Djm-leighpark's is not much better. Take it to DRV is you insist. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is at DRV for consideration ... prepping was started at 12:15 and mostly done by the time of this message. Unlucky.  You were sold a dog. — Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey there . Now that this has been closed, I'm reaching out because I had hoped that my edit summaries would have been enough to avoid problems with this article. Obviously that wasn't the case. Any thoughts about what I can do in the future to make things clearer to other sysops? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you feel it necessary to reach out. Why cannot you simply ask? Please reply. What's with this thread that every message to me seems incomprehensible? You have done three edits to draft:NASLite all of them with proper edit summaries so what are you actually trying to say? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm trying to say I found it surprising that you speedy deleted it after I'd just closed the AfD. I'm trying to say that I am always looking to improve myself as an editor and I would like to avoid having this happen in the future, so I would welcome feedback on that from you, an experienced sysop in this area, have about that. The answer seems to be "I couldn't have done anything" which is helpful feedback as well. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am trying to get you to say why "reach out" is preferable to "ask". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow response - I didn't watchlist this and didn't think to come back here but just found my way back here and saw you'd replied to me again. I don't know that "reach out" is preferable to "ask". It was what came to mind so it's what I wrote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft : Zendyll Records
Dear RHaworth, I would like to know the reason for the deletion of this draft article. I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for unambiguous advertising or promotion and needs to conform to WP:SOAP. However, as this was a draft article and was meant to be improved, I do no see why it has to be deleted. It was also stated as A7. However, I can assure you that the subject I am currently writing about is credible enough to have its own page. It has been talked about on news articles and magazines and has worked with notable companies and people. I've spent the past week working on this article and would really appreciate if you are able to restore it. Thank you! :) Chlchqy (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Learn wikilinks. I strongly suspect that you should be making CoI and paid editing declarations. Draft:Zendyll Records restored. Creffett, please allow it to be reviewed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for restoring it ! I really appreciate it ! :)--Chlchqy (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Contesting speedy deletion of AnyChart page
hello, I created this article about AnyChart (among several other articles I created about JS libaries and other subjects these days) as and consider it to be a legitimate article which cannot be subject to speedy deletion in particular on the basis of G11 according to my understanding. I do not see how the article can be considered exclusively promotional, and moreover, it actually describes the subject from a neutral point of view in my understanding (honestly, I do not have another point of view here as in any other article that I have created so far, only neutral) and, in particular, G11 says that "Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." Unfortunately, you and user (by the way, Jaclar0529 have multiple warnings and vandalism claims oh their talk page) did not let me even contest the speedy deletion nomination. I am close to considering the deletion of AnyChart vandalism or error (Update: I am terribly sorry, did not mean it is vandalism, just was afraid it could be, but I am not thinking even like that any more thanks to additional research, thinking, and kind explanations from other editors. Please accept my sincere apologies if that hurt somebody of you guys. — Avbgok (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)).

Would you be so kind to restore the article as the nomination for speedy deletion and deletion itself seem to be unwarranted and made by mistake. If you feel any edits are needed, I would suggest that we work on improving it together with you and (or) other editors, because that is what Wikipedia is all about as I understand it. Thanks. Avbgok (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

For your information, the user who initially placed the G11 tag on the AnyChart article has just replied on my talk page: "The article has already been deleted. I suggest you talk to the deleting administrator, which in this case is RHaworth, as I cannot assist you further. — jaclar0529 (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)" - could you please look into this issue with deleting the AnyChart article again and restore it? That user jaclar0529 even has been warned with "Final warning on vandalizing Wikipedia on their talk page, so the nomination is likely to be just another vandalism attempt from them . Thanks. Avbgok (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You do not deserve it. Within seven minutes of doing your first edit here you had left a pointless message at the Teahouse about it. I consider it perfectly acceptable if someone has to wait seven hours for a reply from me. I find your use of the word "hurt" very curious. Experienced Wikipedia editors do not feel hurt: For those of us who work in the deletions area the only emotion is a resigned acceptance that we are going to see the same inappropriate rubbish for ever.
 * Regarding your piece: I have to admit that by the time I had got to removing the fourth link to the page I was thinking that possibly you did not have a CoI. Restored to draft:AnyChart. Please leave it there for a regular draft reviewer to look at it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thank you very much for restoring this article as a draft. I am terribly sorry, I just did not know what to do and felt upset after all my efforts, and I could not understand why it had happened that it had been removed and so quickly. I joined Wikipedia as an editor only last month, but now I know I should wait more and I have learned a lot thanks to those actions regarding this article. I sincerely apologize again for that and for any misuse of words. I have never wanted to offend anyone, just somehow felt offended and found myself too worried about all that. Please pardon.

Regarding the article, I have received a lot of invaluable advice at the Teahouse and on my talk page and read a lot of instructions here and there, and I have just submitted a significant update to the draft. Would you be so kind to look at Draft:AnyChart again and tell me if I am on the right path? (Now) I absolutely understand you and everyone else so experienced on Wikipedia are extremely busy and so on, so no problem if you cannot, but I will appreciate if you can do it. I really want to learn and become better and better as an editor. Thank you anyway. I apologize again. Avbgok (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Try and suppress all emotion when editing Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Lactobacillus Acidophilus MPH734
Greetings! I read your notes on creating a wikilink. I am still unsure that I have succeeded though it seems it should look like this: /wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Draft:Lactobacillus_Acidophilus_MPH734 or /wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Draft:Lactobacillus_Acidophilus_MPH734 perhaps?

I found a fascinating substance—specifically a bioengineered bacillus—that was absolutely stunning in its functionality. It is capable of completely eliminating the symptoms of lactose intolerance.  I performed a significant amount of research to find out all about it, but strangely found nothing at all on wikipedia. Since I had done all the research already, it seemed logical to compose an article about it and share what I had discovered. I waited for a fairly long time and had all but given up receiving a response, but when I looked in today it had been G11'd or "speedily deleted". I am not associated with the company that created it, and have no financial interest in it. At best one might suggest that I have a bit of enthusiasm for it, but the reporting seemed to have been fairly innocuous and even handed, in my point of view.

Maybe you can help me out by indicating where I went wrong? And I'd just like to emphasise that I have absolutely no financial connection to the company; there is no money to be made here. My joie de vie is entirely aimed at sharing knowledge and reducing ignorance. Specifically it was identified by this: RHaworth talk contribs deleted page Draft:Lactobacillus Acidophilus MPH734 (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) — CanadaSFwriter (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Since you had worked out the correct way to link, you should have deleted your two cack-handed attempts at links. But you did not manage to link to my user page even though there are several specimens already on this page! Article restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

user:46.69.115.235
User:46.69.115.235 is abusing her talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLCStudent (talk • contribs)
 * Learn to sign talk page messages with ~&#126; . Why do you say "she" - the IP address has been using some distinctly unladylike language. Has been blocked. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

draft: yaya and co.
why did you delete the draft for YaYa and Co. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianWiki826 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Help with article
Hi Roger! Hope you're having a nice day so far. We spoke a few months ago after you deleted and helped me with the article Draft:Sano Genetics. I've been waiting for more press coverage since then and have edited it with help from other users as well. I was wondering, if you had a moment, if you could take a look at see whether I've addressed all of your original concerns with the article? No worries if not, I appreciate all of your help so far anyway. All the best, Clarealev (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't do draft reviewing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Bobby-C
Hi RHaworth, I have a BLP that I think is a clear A7 (and also a G11), which involves two new authors, who keep removing my CSD tags. Can you take a look? If I have to run via AfD, I will, but if it can be CSD'ed than I think it is more efficient. Thanks for your help. Britishfinance (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Dealt with but keep watching for more! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Alex Merced
I was wondering if you could export the entire Alex Merced article history and e-mail to me at &lt;redacted>? Thanks! —  AMK152  (t • c) 18:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Request to restore draft for improvement.
Hi, after my first article attempt Draft:Ibrahim Hanif I have taken time to review guidelines more thoroughly and want to improve the article. Because I penned it on the platform, I do not have a copy of the article. If you could restore it as a draft, I will be able to filter out the subjective portions which make the article seem promotional. I plan to cover businessmen in UAE and this is the only candidate I have been able to interview so far. Would really appreciate if I am able to cover them according to Wikipedia's standards. Thanks. Saghar.Shams (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Saghar.Shams


 * Restored. GPL93, please allow it to be reviewed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

For your kind attention
I have received notification that you have recommended the page titled as Bahahuddin Nadwi for speedy deletion citing the lack of reliable reference. I want to invite your kind attention to the fact that Dr Nadwi is one of the renowned Islamic academicians in Tafseer (Quran interpretation) and has acclaimed the reputation as the resource person in Islamic Jurisprudence after authoring good books in the area. I kindly request you to restore the page, so that i can supplement it with enough references. — Ashrafnlkn (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There has never been any page entitled Bahahuddin Nadwi. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But there has been Draft:Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi. This recently deleted, long version has a very feeble-looking reference for the claim that the man is "an influential Muslim intellectual", and no reference whatever for anything else, within what appears to be a promotional CV. The deletion was very proper. See also Articles for deletion/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi (closed as delete). -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Help
Hi, I moved Dan Lanning to Draft:Dan Lanning and the draft has been declined and the user appears to have now recreated it in the mainspace. I can't find an appropriate speedy delete tag in the page review choices. Could you help me out please? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actioned. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Why?
Please explain why it is being deleted. It is sourced. There is no copyright info. There is literally ZERO reason to be deleted. — User:FSUNolez06 (talk)

Also, with it being a draft, why was a redirect to the draft not submitted for the page? — User:FSUNolez06 (talk)
 *  Questions above added by, linking his or her name to the user page of 


 * Please explain why what is being deleted, FSUNolez06? And why do you link your signature to User:Hughesdarren? -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The page for Dan Lanning. And I clearly copy and pasted, yet forgot to remove a single portion of the link.  My apologies.  Not sure how that wasn't obvious. —  User:FSUNolez06 (talk)


 * Sorry, I sleepily failed to notice that the subheading "Why?" was in a smaller font than (because it had a pair more "=" than) the subheading "Help". Draft:Dan Lanning currently says very little about Lanning, and what little it does say comes with no independent reference. It's very obvious that, in anything like its current form, this doesn't qualify as an article. So feel free to use published, reliable, independent sources to improve the draft, so that eventually Lanning's notability will be obvious and what you've got will qualify as an article. Meanwhile, there'll be no redirect to the draft from Dan Lanning, because what appear to be article titles never redirect to drafts (and rightly so). -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * FSUNolez06, instead of moaning here, go and make it into a proper article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft deleted - Kapila Pashu Ahaar
Hi RHaworth Sir, I copied the history data from the same company only I understood and I won't do it again but I didn't understood how it was promotional which is helpful for farmers. I am new I would appreciate the guidance. Thanks in Advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govindbangalore (talk • contribs) 13:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a trade directory. I see that your account has been blocked. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Trolling
Hi RHaworth. I have an editor called, who has been trying to troll me on Wikipedia (he used to have a user name that was a derivative of my user name but I got that blocked at UAA). You will see from my user page about me that I do get trolled by some Irish-based accounts who don't like the articles I have written about Ireland's tax system. This user has been putting my name directly into Wikipedia articles like here. I have let some of this go (fighting trolls is not what I came to WP for), however, has resumed this today here, by trying to troll my name in a BLP. I would be interested in your view on this? Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At first glance this edit seemed acceptable. We avoid self-references to Wikipedia but if Wikipedia activities have been reported in reliable sources then self-reference is OK. I deal with blatant sinning on Wikipedia. Your case is more debatable. Raise the matter at AN - I suspect it may spark a lively debate. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Username Eligible
My username is eligible for Wikipedia editing? — WeTalkWiki 14:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

So that means, I can continue with my username? Right? — WeTalkWiki 04:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * In the edit I did on your user page, I provided a link to nosism. Did you follow that link? Your user name is just about acceptable but I advise you to change it because a) even if it is nosism, the "we" suggests a multi-user account and b) the "wiki" bit suggests possibly an "official" Wikipedia account and also it suggests an unhealthy narrowness of interest in Wikipedia itself rather than its content. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply. Yes, I did. I respect your advise. "We" Ok for nosism. Meaning of wiki in Hawaiian is quick. — WeTalk<b style="color:black">Wiki</b> 03:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The "FixMeFast" user name acceptable or not? I need your suggest about it. Thank you! — <b style="color:black">We</b><b style="color:red">Talk</b><b style="color:black">Wiki</b> 08:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You provided a link, in the wrong format, to Wiktionary. Follow it and add to the Wiktionary entry that it means quick in Hawaiian.
 * I cannot think of any reason why FixMeFast might be rejected as a user name but do you want a name that suggestes you are broken in some unspecified way? How about a name of IAmFixedFast with "fixed" meaning "secured" as in "fixture" rather than suggesting repaired. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

How about ToBeEasy. Is that acceptable? <b style="color:black">We</b><b style="color:red">Talk</b><b style="color:black">Wiki</b> 08:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

My username accepted. That means, I don't need to change WeTalkWiki ? Right? <b style="color:black">We</b><b style="color:red">Talk</b><b style="color:black">Wiki</b> 08:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes it has been accepted but ToBeEasy would be better. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice to meet you on Wikipedia! Thank you for your help. If I have a issue again, I'll hope to talk to you again. Have a nice day! <b style="color:black">We</b><b style="color:red">Talk</b><b style="color:black">Wiki</b> 08:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Bold360 Deleted Wiki Page
Hi Roger - apologies but I was flagged for G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion - user link here. I'd like to link to the Bold360 page from here. Based on feedback, I've edited the text. My re submission would be as follows: Bold360 is an AI-powered chatbot for business. etc. Should I resubmit? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrugrosu (talk • contribs)


 * Why on earth do you link to Alexandru Grosu? Why is it relevant? Please reply. Wrong direction for link - I have created Bold360 as one. The most you can probably get away with is to modestly expand the Bold360 item within the LogMeIn page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please move deleted articles as Draft
I think articles such as Cute Princess, Cutie2Cutie, Kai Braden, Wiktoria Gąsiewska should not be deleted. Restore the page, allow recreation as Draft, then delete them again. — CuteDolphin712 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for RHaworth, however, three of these articles (one of which was just a redirect) were deleted as a result of consensus at WP:AfD and RHaworth wasn't the last deleting admin on any of the articles, so I doubt you'll get any traction with this request. --  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The other thing to do is to watchlist those titles so they (mostly) can be then immediately G4'd on recreation :)   ——  SN  54129  19:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cute Princess was a redirect to a band, which is now an article again. Cutie2Cutie was A7'd, so G4 doesn't apply. The other two were sent to AFD, so you should try WP:DRV. Most importantly, RHaworth wasn't involved with the deletions of the last three, so you shouldn't take it out on him. — ミラP 04:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I know you are not RHaworth, but can you re-create them as draft? — CuteDolphin712 (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd love to but I'm busy with other things. — ミラP 06:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The others writing above have more patience than me. I am not going to consider your request until you provide links. And what earthly point is there in restoring articles and then deleting them again? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I Need Help
Good day RHaworth, I just moved the page Yung Miraboi Mark to its updated name Miraboi. Please I would like to inform you that it also has a delete discussion that the result was keep and still carrying the old name Yung Miraboi Mark discussion. Can you help in moving the delete discussion Articles for deletion/Yung Miraboi Mark (2nd nomination) to Articles for deletion/Miraboi (2nd nomination) OR theirs no need for that. I just want to clarify so it won’t be confused to other editors. -- Hyttgf975 (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No need to move it - have you never heard of redirects? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Resgate, Mozambican Feature Film
Hello, I am trying to make a Wiki page for our movie Resgate (Redemption) but you deleted the page. Sorry, I just not sure how I should do this. Can you give me some pointers on how to make a page for our movie on Wiki? Please HELP. My email is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipasforjaz (talk • contribs) 12:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no CoI thinks your movie is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Unprotected Harsh Beniwal
Please unprotect Harsh Beniwal title. — Vikas.bikaneri (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait patiently for draft:Harsh Beniwal to be reviewed. If it is accepted, unprotection of the mainspace title will be uncontroversial. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

LOVFM Top Songs
Hi RHaworth, thank you for deleting Category:Belarusian music chart "LOVFM Top Songs" - there is an LTA who persistently re-creates this category and places song articles in it, in a frantic effort to promote their non-notable internet radio station. The URL of the station is on the cross-wiki spam blacklist. Take a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Alex9777777/Archive for details of the LTA behind all this. Recent Alex9777777 socks like User:Wiki.musicinfos have been blocked and reverted on sight. What I'm not sure about is why you recreated the category? Could you delete it again? There is no likelihood - in my opinion - that this is ever going to be a valid, notable category and I have emptied it of the latest sock's additions. Many thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I now accept your judgement. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

User talk:CSMISFFINDIA
You may wish to revoke talk page access. -- Cahk (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

They did it again
The same draft, Draft:Jeju Air Flight 502 you deleted because of an AFD and SALTED also, has been recreated again- Draft:Jeju Air Flight 502. by adding a period to the end. This is getting to be disruptive IMHO. You may want to take care of the draft and speak to the editor. — ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Even as you were leaving your message, I was taking action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Baja Rally
Hey pleasure making an acquaintance you with I have a few questions for you regarding the page I will try to rewrite it with new content and will talk on it further. Looking for your prompt reply. — Bambo 124 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have sent this to AfD Articles for deletion/Baja Rally; this author shares some of the traits that I was discussing with a few days ago which they might want to check out.  Using non-searchable references is a veteran technique of gaming A7 (although they forgot that the event only started in 2013, post their refs of 2012). — Britishfinance (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I will accept the AfD decision. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Dan Spilo
Hello, I am writing this to you because you speedily deleted an article that I wrote, Dan Spilo. It was not, as asserted, an "attack page"; it contained no non-neutral terminology, it was exhaustively well-sourced, and any negative impression it left comes simply from the subject matter. I am going to deletion review soon, but I wanted to run it by you first to see why you thought it needed to be speedily taken care of. — Red   Slash  19:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because, not one, but three valid deletion reason reasons were given. Feel free to go to deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now at Deletion review/Log/2019 December 17. — Cryptic 02:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted draft Draft:Caserta Agreement
Lovely Rita, may I inquire discreetly whether you've seen the new article Cassata Agreement Caserta Agreement? — Pete "when we go for gelati, I always ask for "Zuppa Inglese" because I can pronounce it" AU aka -- Shirt58 (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to be discreet but I will let Rita reply. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Refund of Ponni Concessao to draft space
Hi RHaworth, could you please restore Ponni Concessao and send it to draft space instead? It didn't look like a G11 as far as I remember, but in any case it was a notable subject which has now been deleted twice, and I think it would be better to improve it to an acceptable article than to just delete it and be done with it. — Fram (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC) RHaworth, please restore it to draft space instead of emailing it. If I restore it to draftspace from the email, the attribution history will be lost. CoI is not a deletion reason (or a reason not to refund). I'll contact User:Bbb23 about the sockpuppetry: while I see that the two editors are blocked, I don't really understand it. We have one editor creating an article, which gets A7 deleted (I haven't seen that version, so I can't judge whether A7 was applicable or not). That editor ceased editing on 8 December (right?), and restarted under a new name the 17th. Being a newbie, they probably weren't even aware that this is not really encouraged, but being successive accounts, with the first one not blocked or sanctioned, is allowed. So, unless there is another account involved (which seems unlikely, as the first has the text "This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of Velanatti"), I think this checkuser block is not policy compliant and very WP:BITE, just like the deletions (certainly the second). Fram (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The article screams CoI at me and I have not received a reply to this question about possible sock puppetry. I have emailed the text to all three of you. If one of you restores it to draft space, I shall take no action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Restored and one of the creator accounts unblocked. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You deleted my page
You deleted my page Sam Zuga. I was asked by Wikipedia to talk to you about the deletion. — Charles Okorobo (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has not been deleted, it's been moved to here Draft:Sam Zuga. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You say page was not deleted. What would this image say? Wouldn't it be saying otherwise? Then, there are the other images speaking also of deletion placed below and this also.

When I went to the draft, I cried because that draft was something I was working on and ignored when I came to realize that I can actually work from a sandbox. The draft had been placed in oblivion in my mind, and now, my real article that i was laboured on was deleted and I was sent to a draft that was light years behind. For me to agree that my page was not deleted, all the modifications to its current state must be present. But no, this is very lacking and I'm in great pain for all the work I've put in. — Charles Okorobo (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Charles Okorobo, will you stop with the guilt-tripping theatrics. I already explained to you here that your article was a very promotional piece on a non notable person who didn’t qualify per WP:GNG and that the article was on Mainspace not in your sandbox when it was speedy deleted. Keep on deliberately making untrue comments and see where it lands you and bothering other people about it wouldn’t change the facts. — Celestina007 (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What's with this ridiculous idea of laboriously creating screen shots and uploading them to Commons? You created one which could just as easily have been repaced with this link but was not needed anyway since the message is still visible here.
 * I have moved your latest edit to draft space. So drop the guilt-tripping theatrics and turn your rubbisch into a Wikipedia article. Note that if you do not make a proper CoI declaration, you are liable to find yourself blocked and the draft deleted.
 * Celestina007, please note the change I have made to your message - you used external ink format instead of wikilink and worse, it was an "en.m" link, ie. optimised for mobile devices. If you use wikilink format, the wikisoftware will format an appropriate link depending on the user's device. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RHaworth, I’m sorry about that. Duly noted. — Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity
What happens if someone like Terry Ananny attains notability in the future? Do LTA get unsalted on a case-by-case basis? I haven't been contracted by her, or had any contact with her, and I only just now learned of her from the salting, and then looked at her site. She's been moderately successful after the LTA, and I believe at some point she will likely reach GNG. I am not asking for unsalting, but if someone were to want that in the future, what would they do? Write a userspace draft and then petition at WP:AN? Or directly to you? — EllenCT (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sure that one of the things that deters new editors is the use of wiki jargon. Yes, I use it but I am always scrupulous to create every use as a link to the definition - scan this page and prove me wrong! So what have the Lawn Tennis Association and the German Naval Group got to do with this matter? Also, I always provide a link to the page under discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You said she's been moderately successful, but as per usual I can't find any evidence she's notable (because successful doesn't equate to notability.) Do you have some new sources that would indicate it's heading there? (I actually got here because I have a gsearch set up for this name.) — Praxidicae (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm just going from the trajectory of what I can infer from her career so far, as an example of someone with a salted article who may someday attain notability. I just want to know what to do if I ever run across those, because I'd like to do BLP work which I've shied away from because I wanted to learn things like this first. — EllenCT (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe you are telling me that the answers should be somewhere in WP:LTA and WP:GNG? I will look there and let you know if I can't find it. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not telling you that the answers should be somewhere in WP:LTA and WP:GNG. In fact WP:LTA is somewhat irrelevant: it is applied to user accounts rather than articles. It is eleven years since Articles for deletion/Terry Ananny closed with "delete" and five years since I salted the page so it is possible that she now meets our notability requirements. To anybody seeking to create a new article about her, I give a reply which I have made many times on this page: create draft:Terry Ananny. If it gets accepted then unprotection of the mainspace title will be uncontroversial. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

A Cloud Guru
You speedy deleted my article stub on A Cloud Guru. Is there an archive of it so I can move it to my sandbox? - Zr2d2 (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have been editing for fourteen years and you have not learnt to provide a link to the page under discussion or to set up an email address. Please read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

About the A7'd article A Cloud Guru
Lovely Rita, I read the news today, oh boy.

See this temporary page. and this was just from a quick survey doing the WP:BEFORE before listing this article for at the WP:AFD deletion process.
 * mentioned in The Sydney Morning Herald
 * mentioned in Austin American-Statesman
 * mentioned in The Australian

There are many options here, of course. Perhaps you could have WP:USERFIED the article or sent it into draftspace? In summary: I think the speedy deletion was incorrect. Your thoughts about this? Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Given that the Rita in question was probably in her 20s in 1967 (taking into account, of course, that in her cap she looked much older), I would prefer a response from you. The other lovely RHaworth is, understandably, not available for comment. Come on, Roger. Unjustified WP:A7s like this one appears to be an ongoing issue. Maybe make nice, be a mensh, in this one particular case? -- Shirt58 (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I will let Rita reply. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Restored. If you were satisfied that the subject was notable, why did you not remove the speedy tag? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Velanatti
I am at a loss to understand how, as a long-time administrator, you could have unblocked this user. You did not consult with me beforehand, and you violated WP:CHECKUSER as my block was a CU block and cannot be undone except by a CheckUser or with the consent of a CheckUser. You can be desysopped for such an action. Please apologize to the user for your mistake and reblock them. -- Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry indeed for not consulting you. I assumed that after seeing the frank admission that it was an innocent mistake by a newbie, you would have no objection to unblocking one of the accounts. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion
I started a discussion at WP:AN about edits and actions by you and others. — Fram (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please restore
Please restore this as it was subject to an ongoing AFD, had two votes and repeatedly created. I would think G7 doesn't apply in cases like this. — Praxidicae (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * [kibitzer] Hrm. To me it sounds like a fairly good G7 given that other editors had essentially no contributions beyond a stub template and a wikilink or two, the two !votes were both in favour of deletion (even if for different reasons) and both versions of the page were created by the same account. — Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Praxidicae, incredible! You appear to have read my reply at above about the use of wiki jargon but you still go and write a naked G7 and I have to ask what is the relevance of the Group of Seven to this matter? Also I ask do you actually know all the deletion reasons by number? I prefer to use words so here I think of a db-user request deletion. Finally among my moans, please use a wikilink rather than external link when referring to any page, thus: Puja Sharma.
 * But as to the article, I would say that replacing the text with ,,, was a pretty unambiguous indication that the author wanted it deleted. The deletion of 2019-12-18 can be explained as being a result of the author seeing how the AfD discussion was going. I cannot see any reason for the request (again using multiple db- tags) which led to the 2019-12-03 deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what reply you're talking about but can you tone down the hostility please? I was asking because G7 is often used to abuse AFDs. And if you don't know what a G7 is after your 15 years of adminship, I really don't know what to tell you other than I literally linked you to your own deletion which explicitly says 19:00, 18 December 2019 RHaworth deleted page Puja Sharma (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) (thank) Emphasis, mine. Are you not reading the content you delete? — Praxidicae (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The reply I am talking about is this edit. All I am saying is that I hate to see G7 thus - I call it naked - I like to clothe it thus G7. I see no evidence of abuse in this case: an WP:AfD discussion was started and received a couple of "delete" !votes. The author of the article saw these and decided "if that's what you feel, I will withdraw the article and save you the trouble of further discussion". Wherein lies lies any abuse of AfD? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The comment you're pointing out has literally nothing to do with my question here. — Praxidicae (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom Notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:UArchitects
Hi, I am a new user. You recently deleted my draft:UArchitects because of copyright infringement. I would like to recreate the page again on same topic with different information and properly sourced. I was told to contact the user who removed the draft. I have new draft in my new sandbox User:Meimaar.93/new sandbox and would like it reviewed. Thank you. If possible I would also like to have the draft Draft:Misak Terzibasiyan reviewed as well. -- Meimaar.93 (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't do draft reviewing. As the notice on Draft:Misak Terzibasiyan says, be patient . I have restored draft:UArchitects but don't even think about submitting it until you have used proper bulleted list markup. Also note that awards should only be cited if the award itself has a Wikipedia article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

page deletion
Hello, you've deleted my article about Alain Werner? It's just a biography of a living person with no self-promotion. Should I add more references on external reliable sources I take the information from? — Irbecca (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Restored to draft:Alain Werner. Before looking at the text, the things I noticed were: spurious boldening of headings, incorrect heading levels, unwanted &lt;br>s. Attend to all these matters before submitting. And of course we need refs to stuff about the man himself, not just his cases. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Page deletion - retrieval of information query
Hello, no problem re deletion of page Tallest approved buildings in the Republic of Ireland but is there any way I can get all the material from it in order to post it into the talk page of List of tallest buildings in Ireland so it can be considered for entry. Financefactz (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Approved" is an ill-defined term. Restored to User:Financefactz/List of future tall buildings in the Republic of Ireland. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. — Financefactz (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC) ‎

Deletion review for Energy Institute
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Energy Institute. 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. — Praxidicae (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You restored the live version of the article. Are you withdrawing your speedy deletion of this? If so we can close the DRV. If not the standard procedure is to leave only the DRV notice and so please undo your last edit. — Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

As you closed the RFD I'll respond here to this edit. I think total absence of references is pretty good grounds for deletion.. No, it's not. Have a read of WP:A7wikilinked as per your requirement: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. — Praxidicae (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, so my deletion was "wrong". I have willingly restored it. Why go on about the deletion? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure you get the bigger issue here. — Praxidicae (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

FaisalMusicFan99 socks
Sorry to bother you, but an admin who is, albeit slightly, familiar with the socks history, is usually easier to work with than someone who is not. On 4 April 2018 you deleted Draft:Simon White (guitarist) "G5 Created by a banned or blocked user (FaisalMusicFan99) in violation of ban or block" This article has, today, been re-started by a "new" user, User:TheCurefan99. As can be seen at User:Arjayay/Albert (I have yet to add today's accounts and targets) many of the user-names created by this sock-master end in 99, and there is almost always an edit to, or about, Alberto y Lost Trios Paranoias, which, again, matches.

Furthermore, the new account has been swapping edits with todays IP sock from Al Ain City, Abu Dhabi. The IP has created a number of false drafts, Draft:Paul Rudish and Draft:David Mucci Fassett which is almost identical, other than the opening para, and where the title of links, such as IMBDB have been changed, but the target is still the same. Again this is a typical pattern. Considering their other edits, having been trying to track down these socks since February 2018, I "know" that these are the same person, albeit that they occasionally move around the Arabian peninsula. Could you please delete these drafts as G5 - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actioned. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reasons?
Dear RHaworth, I just wanted to create a new article on the English Wikipedia about the German brewery "Hofbrauhaus Wolters". On the Draft-Page I was told this:

"A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. •	19:41, 24 March 2018 RHaworth talk contribs deleted page Draft:Hofbrauhaus Wolters (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (thank) •	15:59, 20 December 2017 RHaworth talk contribs deleted page Draft:Hofbrauhaus Wolters (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (thank)"

This is the draft link I guess: [|Hofbrauhaus Wolters]. So I can´t see the reasons for calling this page "unambiguous advertising or promotion", because it´s a huge part of Brunswicks history of the last centuries. I hope you can give us some answers to avoid us creating this page again for nothing. Sincerely, Lara from Oker11mediahouse (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Oker11mediahouse


 * The two previous versions of the draft did not strike me as seriously spammy but there was a total lack of independent evidence of notability. Feel free to try again with such evidence - preferably in English language sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Narendrajoshi1710/sandbox
If you look at what it's supposed to be a copyright violation of, it claims there it was a newspaper op-ed published in 1909, and so is probably not a case of copyright infringement. — Wily D 12:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, consider it restored and re-deleted with a db-notwebhost tag. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

To You
Hello RHaworth it is come to my knowledge that you protected this page (after AFD). The article was created by few people in last 1 and half years both time it got deleted because it has no notable links, so someone last month created this article again which was in draft , today i got to know that it was deleted twice , i checked all the previous references deleted it and today i recreated the article with enough references of dawn newspaper , tribune , thenews and others. i would like to know can you recheck and approve this as it is in draft since 25 november 2019 ? it will be good as the artist (Serial suno chanda) is becoming famous and virual in India and Pakistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nabeel_Zuberi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memon KutianaWala (talk • contribs) 13:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * So just be patient and wait. If draft:Nabeel Zuberi gets accepted then unprotection of Nabeel Zuberi will be uncontroversial. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

CSD
Considering the ArbCom case request and the continuing objections to some of your deletions, would you consider temporarily suspending your CSD work? — Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Thanks. — Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New Pig
Hello, I recently submitted a page for New Pig in User:Keatonk1721/sandbox. It was removed for "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion in userspace." I'm in the process of revising the content. Am I able to resubmit the new draft in my sandbox when I feel it is ready? I'm unsure due to the message, "If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below." Thank you for your help. — Keatonk1721 (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can submit but it would be much better to leave it until someone with no CoI thinks your company is notable and writes about it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion article Jean-Francois Gariepy
Hi RHaworth, on 1 December, you speedily deleted this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Talk:Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Gari%C3%A9py I was unable to find any reason as to why the article was deleted. Can you please explain in what respect the article violated Wikipedia rules? Thanks! Tacokanone (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Charles J. Brown
Hi, RHaworth. Deletion of erroneously-assumed abandoned article Charles J. Brown. On 20 December you speedily deleted this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Draft:Charles_J._Brown This is the reason it said it was deleted, and by who: 04:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC) RHaworth talk contribs deleted page Draft:Charles J. Brown (G13: Abandoned draft or AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, make your request here (TW)) (thank) I had not abandoned it. I have little experience on Wikipedia and was told as long as I had the draft in my 'sandbox' it was safe from deletion. After reading what G13 means, I now understand that is not true, that there is a rule about no activity for six months, etc. However, I would argue that I had edited it less than six months ago, regardless. I have recently been able to resume the necessary research to finish this article. I don't want to have to start all over again creating it. For me, what was already up was a lot of work. Please tell me it is possible to recover the article so I can finish it! Thank you for your help. Trishymouse (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The deletion message you quote above has a link from the word "here" to the best place to request undeletion, not this page.
 * You're right that a page in your own userspace, whether as sandbox or a named draft, has no deadline and isn't eligible for G13 if it hasn't been submitted to AfC, but it appears that this one was in Draft space not userspace so G13 applies. Hope that helps.  Pam  D  06:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RHaworth's deletion was perfectly correct, completely in accordance with policy. Drafts that have been untouched for 6 months (as this one had) are in practice almost always abandoned, so they may be deleted. However, if anyone does wish to continue work on such a draft, the policy is that it is restored automatically on request. I don't remember ever knowing an administrator fail to restore a draft he or she has deleted as abandoned as soon as they receive a message from an editor who wishes to work on the draft, and no doubt RHaworth would have done so, but to save time I have now restored it for you. — JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 10:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)