User talk:RHaworth/2011 Nov 19

Archives

Archives Edit list Up to: 2005 March 2005 June 2005 August 2005 Oct 2005 Nov 2006 Jan 2006 March 2006 May 2006 July 2006 Sept 2006 Nov 2007 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 April 2007 May 2007 July 2007 Oct 2007 Dec 2008 Jan 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 Sept 2008 Oct 2009 Jan 2009 Feb 2009 March 2009 April 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2010 March 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 Sept 2010 Oct 2010 Dec 2011 Jan 06 2011 Jan 14 2011 Jan 27 2011 Feb 09 2011 Feb 23 2011 Mar 06 2011 Mar 18 2011 Mar 30 2011 Apr 07 2011 May 02 2011 May 22 2011 Jun 08 2011 Jun 26 2011 Jul 26 2011 Aug 18 2011 Sep 06 2011 Sep 28 2011 Oct 17 2011 Nov 04 2011 Nov 19 2012 Jan 29 2012 Feb 26 2012 Mar 10 2012 Mar 31 2012 Apr 14 2012 May 07 2012 Jun 01 2012 Jun 23 2012 Jul 06 2012 Aug 31 2012 Oct 06 2012 Oct 30 JWJ 2012 Dec 05 2012 Dec 27 2013 Jan 22 2013 Feb 05 2013 Mar 06 2013 Mar 26 2013 Apr 15 2013 May 09 2013 Jun 07 2013 Jun 27 2013 Jul 22 2013 Aug 06 2013 Aug 20 2013 Sep 03 2013 Sep 19 2013 Oct 11 2013 Oct 23 2013 Nov 09 2013 Nov 22 2013 Dec 18 2014 Jan 11 2014 Jan 25 2014 Feb 18 2014 Mar 08 2014 Mar 29 2014 Apr 11 2014 Apr 23 2014 May 08 2014 May 22 2014 May 30 2014 Jun 07 2014 Jun 18 2014 Jul 17 2014 Aug 09 2014 Aug 27 2014 Sep 04 2014 Sep 16 2014 Sep 28 2014 Oct 11 2014 Oct 28 2014 Nov 18 2014 Dec 18 2015 Jan 10 2015 Jan 26 2015 Feb 11 2015 Feb 24 2015 Mar 11 2015 Mar 30 2015 Apr 20 2015 May 12 2015 Jun 12 2015 Jul 07 2015 Jul 25 2015 Aug 11 2015 Sep 03 2015 Sep 23 2015 Oct 25 2015 Nov 28 2015 Dec 21 2016 Jan 13 2016 Feb 10 2016 Mar 03 2016 Mar 30 2016 Apr 18 2016 May 16 2016 Jun 02 2016 Jul 09 2016 Aug 11 framework 2016 Sep 02 2016 Oct 05 2016 Nov 02 2016 Nov 27 2016 Dec 18 2017 Jan 10 2017 Jan 31 2017 Feb 23 2017 Mar 15 2017 Apr 20 2017 May 18 2017 Jun 21 2017 Jul 05 2017 Jul 25 2017 Aug 15 2017 Sep 07 2017 Sep 30 2017 Nov 14 2017 Dec 21 2018 Jan 12 2018 Jan 30 2018 Feb 25 2018 Mar 11 2018 Mar 28 2018 Apr 16 2018 May 03 2018 May 22 2018 Jun 14 2018 Jun 28 2018 Jul 19 2018 Aug 03 2018 Aug 20 2018 Sep 07 2018 Oct 01 2018 Oct 24 2018 Nov 16 2018 Dec 02 2018 Dec 26 2019 Jan 27 2019 Feb 18 2019 Mar 06 2019 Mar 17 2019 Mar 30 2019 Apr 14 2019 Apr 27 2019 May 16 2019 Jun 10 2019 Jul 07 2019 Jul 26 2019 Aug 16 2019 Sep 07 2019 Sep 17 2019 Oct 07 2019 Nov 04 2019 Nov 23 2019 Dec 09 2019 Dec 21 2021 Jan 21 2023 Apr 08

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

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

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh

for previous, unenlightening discussion see User talk:RHaworth/2011 Nov 04#Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh

Hi, I went thru the entire discussion, I agree with you guys for not using Honorific, but here the matter is of identification, this is what he is known by more than 4 crore followers i.e. Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan and as sited by Vikas articles of some more Saints starting with word Guru or Saint, and He has given you the links of the certificates of Guinness World Record, aren't they enough, what else you want than? The matter here is not just of concusses, but also of what the reality is. Please come with your doubts, may be I can also help to solve this matter. Being a wiki user my purpose is to put the most accurate and the best possible information to the world. I will also suggest to please Move name to Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan or say you don't trust the certificate from Guinness World Record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prem.rakheja (talk • contribs) 19:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is not a matter of "trusting the certificate", it is simply that GWR has a different attitude to honorifices from Wikipedia. Further discussion at Talk:Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:AFC

Sry, but why did you delete Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Book car rentals and taxis online in India, from anywhere in the world? Such articles were only declined as advertisement and that was it. At AFC we delete only articles which are copyvios or are attack pages... mabdul 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blatant advertising and vandalism/hoax are grounds for speedy deletion in every namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm no admin, I only saw: A7, maybe add next time hoax to your reason next time. mabdul 11:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Where, pray, did you see "A7"? The deletion log clearly states G11. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh, G11, doesn't matter: still no hoax tagging. mabdul 17:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why should there be an hoax tag? It was not an hoax. Please get it into your head: all of the G series of speedy deletion criteria apply in every namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

the bombshellettes

Hi there, I wrote the page the bombshellettes and as you can probably tell, am totally new to this whole wikipedia thing! is there any chance you can send me the stuff I wrote as I don;t have a copy) and tell what I did wrong so I can edit and re-do? thanks so much, really appreciate it :) Rosie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennsylvania65000 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't need to send you anything - see the edit history of User:Pennsylvania65000! The article was deleted because of a total absence of links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Atmosphir

I am requesting undeletion of Atmosphir. — (via e-mail)

• I have e-mailed you the states of the article at its two deletions. Feel free to submit a new draft via AfC. If the article is accepted, unprotection of the title will be uncontroversial. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving Pages

Why didn't you just mark them as stubs? — Curb Chain (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Presumably you are referring to your bibliography of … titles. Answer: because they are so derisorily short that they do not even qualify to called stubs. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering they are notable topics, I see no reason to delete these pages.Curb Chain (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Because they are notable topics, I did not delete them. Because they had no content, they had no right in the (article) namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You were amused by the statement "fleshed out". That's not the half of it. Before Curb Chain started playing with it, the content of the page looked more like its current incarnation in WikiProject space. I had to get an administrator to help me restore the lost content. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Cough Syrup redirect

Hi there, I recently requested a move (G6: Cough Syrup (song) to Cough Syrup), with the intention of keeping the generic "Cough syrup" term as a redirect to Cough medicine, which itself would have a hatnote updated to reflect the move. My understanding is that this is acceptable per WP:CAPS, and that the move would create a situation similar to, say, "Morning glories"/"Morning Glories" - where the former redirects to the Morning glory species of plants, and the latter is an article on a comic book series.

I see that you redirected "Cough Syrup" to the "Cough syrup" redirect and so I am seeking your feedback as to whether my understanding of the naming conventions is incorrect, if my request was submitted in the wrong place/manner, if my communication was/is unclear or if there is some other factor I might have overlooked. Thank you for your help.  Gongshow ^Talk 23:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is my understanding that if you have some title then Some Title must redirect to it - we have {{R from other capitalisation}} specifically for that purpose. Or in this case Cough syrup and cough Syrup must both redirect in the same way. If nothing else, it is to save confusing Wikipedia clones which use non-case-sensitive titles. There is an hat note in cough medicine pointing to the song article - that is necessary and sufficient. We usually only create a disambiguation page when there are three or more things to disambiguate. And yes, I would prefer to see Morning Glories as a redirect to morning glory. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers,  Gongshow ^Talk 20:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

question about deleted page

Hello Mr. Haworth, I would like to know why the page about Road of Hope in Color (Ruta de Esperanza en Color) was deleted. Thanks in advance for your response. Regards, 190.121.94.165 (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Milimar

• I do not talk to IP addresses and especially not to an IP address that is not capable of reading a move log entry. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

About Talk:Nootsara Tomkom

Hi RHaworth. The usual - I've re-started a talk page you deleted, without asking you first. Cue yet another Perennial proposal: "that trusted users should granted a permission to re-start deleted pages, because lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, blah blah blah." --Shirt58 (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why just tell me about the talk page - what about the article? Next time, don't even bother to tell me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Like--Shirt58 (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of images

Deletion of Images for not complying with your completely unreasonable demands. OK buddy, I'll take different screen shots and put them there. They will look exactly the same, but they are released under the license, just like the previous ones, but now they conform to your bureaucracy. There will be no warning of licenses on the website, ever, I prefer to use the space for say, presenting the company. They are my images and I can do as I please. I released other images under the same license that appear on the website, and nobody ever complained, except for now, or they did, but they went away, because they, like you are wrong. Regardless of where the images are, and if the website states noting of licensing, because they are here now, they are what I say they are, and that is images under the creative commons 3.0 license. I will take new screen shots, call them the same thing, and put them back, and though they appear the be the same images, they are not, and are what I decide they will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Survey suppression

RHaworth, I suppressed that survey because:

1. It claimed WMF or Movement-wide authority to add legitimacy, which it did not have;
2. It claimed complete anonymity, which it did not have;
3. It had not been cleared by counsel;
4. It was being run by a third-party not bound by the privacy policies, and the survey format being used would mean that anyone filling it out would have their IP address logged outside of any applicable privacy or data protection policies.

30 seconds spent investigating my contributions would have revealed to you that I had also rolled back every other instance of the survey. It would also reveal the numerous messages I had sent to the survey's source, which made clear (both individually and collectively) the reasons for my revert. Instead of reading these, or indeed constructively objecting to my rollback, you chose to restore the survey, thus objecting in such a way as to draw further attention to the survey and put the personal data of both you and your 417 talkpage watchers at risk.

As an administrator, I would expect you to know that the use of the rollback tool does not provide an edit summary. As an administrator, I would expect you to do basic research before reverting edits as "vandalism", particularly edits by a WMF contractor or a long term user. As an administrator, I would expect you to know what vandalism actually is. In future, assume good faith, do basic research before assuming that such an edit constitutes "vandalism", and try to act in a way that does not put yourself or others at risk. I accept that I should, in the future, use tools that provide opportunities for an appropriate edit summary. My focus in this case, with its possible implications, was to do things as fast as possible, not as cleanly as possible - something at least partially undermined by your insistence on reverting my suppression in a high-profile manner without taking the time to investigate the circumstances. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Of course I know that rollback does not provide an edit summary. I disapprove of it for that reason. I try to avoid using it. If I was deprived of rollback rights, I would not complain. OK, to call your edit vandalism was exaggeration for effect. I am only partially persuaded by your argument that there was a need for speed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Excuse me butting in  ;) I fully support Okeys' action. The fake survey was little more than vandalism and not only was there a serious risk of compromising users' security (especially admins' as it was only addressed to them), but it makes a mockery of an official WMF survey that is currently taking place, and was blatantly dishonestly designed to convey the impression that it came from the WMF. I applaud Okeys' action, and if I had seen it sooner I would have done the same. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• RHaworth, if you don't think "a survey that provides the IP data for an undetermined number of administrators outside the privacy policy under false pretenses" is an issue - if you think that exaggerating WMF edits as vandalism "for effect" without checking to see if the edits were important or not is appropriate - then you should not be an administrator. It's as simple as. You are free to put yourself at risk however much you like, but there is no excuse for putting others at risk when the tiniest bit of research and effort on your part would have prevented it. Your job is to serve and safeguard the community, not help their personal information run into third-party hands. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ollie, will you calm down? You're using a staff account to yell at someone over an issue that could have been resolved much more amicably if you hadn't used your staff account to yell at someone else. I very much doubt that Rcsprinter was trying to impersonate staff or claim any sort of "authority" for his surveys, and it seems he was a little naive with regards to personal information the survey collected. Now maybe that justified a block, and the block has been made, so your berating everybody who questions it isn't going to help anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry if I came off as "berating"; my issue was with how RHaworth tried to deal with the situation. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Note that RHaworth is not questioning the block or the appropriateness of it - he's questioning whether reverting the survey instances was an acceptable action. Can we at least agree that having links to surveys that sniff IPs on prominent talkpages, and reverting staff edits as vandalism, are both silly things to do? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Possibly, could you first clarify that your removal of surveys was a required WMF staff action rather than as an administrator and so this description of RH's action is accurate? --Fæ (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Does it really matter? When you have to put a fire out, you don't go back home first to get changed into the right clothes for the job - you grab the nearest extinguisher and put it out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if RHaworth is to be criticised by a member of staff speaking on behalf of the WMF because they were hampered in completing staff actions then it does matter. If accurately described above, then this is not a simple case of an administrator reverting another editor's mistake. To use your own phrasing, there is no current fire and the criticism is from an official WMF account rather than an alternative account. Fæ (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• My removal was an action undertaken as a WMF contractor, with my WMF account. It was not in my personal capacity. To be fair to RHaworth, my userpage states that I'll identify those "official" edits, but he has already said he knew full well that wasn't possible with the use of rollback. I can understand him questioning the edits in the absence of immediate confirmation of their "official" status (indeed, I'd hope that in most cases, people will pay attention and point out my mistakes so I can improve) but this does not extend to reverting the edits, identifying them as vandalism, and doing so without taking any time to confirm whether or not the edit was justified. I have now voided the survey data, so the "emergency" is over, but in the time it took me to do so personal data from 36 users, including 24 administrators and an arbitrator, had been logged. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification. Could you please add to your user page role description to encompass activities such as these that may be considered by many to be part of what Wikipedia administrators do? I am sure you appreciate that confusion between official and non-official actions may crop up again if WMF role accounts are routinely used for vandal fighting or other simple administrative tasks. As you have the opportunity of talking with RHaworth in person next Sunday, you may consider having a friendly discussion to explain the nature of your contract work for the WMF and how you intend to handle future related "fire fighting". --Fæ (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I can't see this happening again, to be honest, and it's certainly not used for either vandalism or "simple administrative tasks", now or in the past. I'll reverse the burden on my account; when I do qualify a statement as from me personally, it's from me personally. In all other times it's an action in my role of as a contractor. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I did not intend the word "simple" to be read offensively, please consider it struck out. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh no, that was fine; I was replying more with confusion than annoyance :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
• Note that I don't think we're going to get anywhere on this. Right or wrong, the actions have already happened, and won't be fixed by arguing. I advocate we simply drop the subject - I'll make an effort to use more flexible tools in future, and I'm sure RHaworth will ameliorate his behaviour too. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • • • • • And a note that "you shouldn't be an admin" - not a foundation statement. god I'm a dolt Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood Connection

I noticed that Hollywood Connection Dance Convention and Competition has been deleted and I would like to write about it. Is that a possibility? I have read the guidelines and understand the expectations. Sdeere07 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Why the curious wording to the question? We do know that it was you who submitted the first version. I suspect that you have a COI and so we would prefer you not to contribute. But if you insist, if you write an article instead of an advert and provide evidence of notability, then a submission via AfC will receive consideration. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Adaptations of a horned frog

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Adaptations of a horned frog. Since you had some involvement with the Adaptations of a horned frog redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Page you deleted is back

Last year you deleted a page called SAM Group, by User:Caliclima; there now seems to be a new page called Sustainable Asset Management created by the same user which is really an article about the same company. I don't think this now falls under A7 since there does seem some indication of why the company is important in the article (they've had some major clients and claim to have a widely-used index), although these claims are not verified (almost all the links are to SAM Group's web site). I'm a relative newbie and I'd appreciate your thoughts, including if there's a better forum for me to raise this question. Thanks. Statisfactions (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is the proper place to ask my opinion. If you can bear to look at those ugly naked URIs (some of which aren't even proper links), go through them and decide how many are actually independent references providing evidence of notability. If you are not statisfied, your options are: apply a {{prod}} tag or, probably best in this case, go straight to AfD. I recommend the use of Twinkle - it enables you to do an AfD nomination in one edit rather than three. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughts, especially for recommending Twinkle. Digging in it looks like Dow Jones Sustainability Index, SAM's main product, actually is legitimately notable and has good journal sources out there for it; by extension SAM probably is as well. The articles are now ugly and super-promotional, but probably deserve to exist, so I'll challenge the unverified material instead of nominating for deletion. Statisfactions (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sam Pepper

Hi, I was just wondering why you deleted my page, Sam Pepper just now. If I could get a response on how to make it better that would be much appreciated. Thanks Isaywhat (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• You have never touched the Sam Pepper page but if you had actually looked at it, you would have seen that it is a redirect to list of Big Brother 2010 housemates (UK)#Sam where, in my view, the guy is more than adequately dealt with. Please also state your connection with Josiewilliss (talk · contribs). It is too much of a coincidence that two people should both write about the guy on the same day. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If you had read my talk area, where I requested not to have my page deleted, you would of read that I had seen the redirected page. I also have no idea who this Josiewilliss (talk · contribs) is. But yes, strange coincidence. — Isaywhat (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• What is "my talk area"? You have not yet edited User talk:Isaywhat. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it did not send. Or I did not set it up. I am new to this, cut me a break. Although, Sam Pepper is a verified memeber of twitter, and if they can recognize him, shouldn't Wikipedia ackowledge him to? I will continue to edit and 'wikify' my page until it is up to standard and not subject to be deleted. Isaywhat (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Being verified on Twitter is not an achievement. Being verified on Twitter used to be done if someone was being impersonated. This is so that you know that "BarackObama" is the real Barack Obama, but "OFFICIALobama" or whatever isn't. Verified accounts are now being granted to advertising partners at Twitter, so it is possible to pay to be given verified status. Verified status has been given to journalists on Twitter by dint of a business relationship between Twitter and the journalist's employer. This, of course, goes against WP:NOTINHERITED. I wonder whether we should mention this somewhere in Wikipedia's ever more sprawling policyspace.

Anyway, RHaworth, I do hope you've been enjoying the hilarious e-mails from Mr. Pepper's fans. User:Fox had some too. For 200,000 fans on Twitter, a measly ten emails reminded me rather of the story Jimmy Wales recounts from the neo-Nazi forums: they were all going to flood VfD and only about fifteen of them turned up! —Tom Morris (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

For the convenience of us fun-hating grumps, I have bundled together a convenient essay which can be cited in deletion discussions, namely WP:NOFRIENDS. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Pathetic is the word that springs to mind rather than hilarious. I received e-mails from three people and of these lauren hill could not even manage to say what page she was talking about - but circumstantial evidence suggests this guy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to help a friend learn from her mistake

Hi RHawthorn. A friend of mine, EDMSolix (talk · contribs) got a speedy deletion from you yesterday. Before she posted, she did run her posting by me, and given I earned a Excellent Newcomer Award, I feel sorry that maybe I gave her some bad advice.

By the way, she didn't think she published it. She thought she only created it in her sandbox as I told her to do. I didn't know she would create a bad user name like EDMSolix. She didn't run her user ID choice by me first. But the text, I had influence over what she wrote.

Would it be possible for you to either talk to her directly and gave her some feedback on what she should have done to make the text less promotional? Or, do you want to communicate through me to her. Because her user ID has been bannned, she obviously asked me to reach out to you for advice. Thx - Pnchou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnchou (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• A salutation is not required on messages on this page but if you must give one, please use copy&paste to ensure you get my name right. True, the submission in question was not in the (article) namespace but blatant advertising is grounds for deletion everywhere in Wikipedia. There is a subtle difference in Wikispeak between "blocked" - possibly allowed back under certain certain circumstances and "banned" - not wanted back under any circumstances. I this case, "blocked" is the applicable term. You ask me to talk directly:

EDMSolix, kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks that Solix Technologies are notable and writes about them here. If there are other non-spammy subjects that you wish to write about, feel free to create a new account and start contributing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi RHaworth - Sorry for the misspelling and thx for your speedy reply. Just to complete my understanding, pls clarify:

1. How/when could my friend earn the right to request her offending user ID be "unblocked"? Must she request that you personally or any volunteer to unblock her? 2. More importantly, if she wants to try and contribute to a new, non-spammy article, is the ONLY way for her to do so is to create a new User ID? Would there be any repercussions from the fact her offending User ID was attached to her email address? Hence, when she creates a new, non-offending User ID, must she use a new email address? 3. EDMSolix wanted to write about Solix, and she came to me beforehand. I studied IBM and Intel as examples before I gave her the bad advice that resulted in her writing about Solix. Bottom line is, can you cite examples of notable, non-public, company pages that we should have studied and modeled after?

Thx for making the time to teach us to learn from our mistake. … Cheers - PNChou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnchou (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• 1. I see no reason why the name EDMSolix should ever be unblocked - it violates our policy against corporate names. 2. Your friend must create a new account with a new name that gives no hint that it belongs to more than one person. Is that too difficult to understand? If she finds she is currently blocked from creating a new account, that block will expire in a day or two or she can find a different IP address to register from. She may use the same e-mail address - we cannot see e-mail addresses. It will probably be obvious anyway that it is the new account of EDMSolix! 3. I repeat: your friend has a declared COI and should not be writing about Solix. If she insists on doing so then the IBM and Intel articles are perfectly good examples. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have just been checking up. I think you are being disingenuous. Please explain the relationship between your friend and Measuredvictory (talk · contribs) who created Solix Technologies Inc., Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solix Technologies Inc. and Solix Technologies. Given these precedents, any attempt at creating a new article will need to be made via deletion review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: requesting undeletion of Atmosphir

Hi RHawthorn, I have received your instructions for creating a new draft for submission for Atmosphir. Since this is my first time doing any kind of contributions to Wikipedia, it will take me a little time to learn how to work my way around Wikipedia and how to write a good draft. I will post more updates and/or questions as necessary. Best, Nazmus Shakib Khandaker — Preceding signed comment added by Nazmus Shakib Khandaker (talk • contribs) 10:49 AM, 10 November 2011 (Central Time (US & Canada))

• Oh dear, another person incapable of copy&pasting my user name. So where did I post "instructions for creating a new draft …". Please remind me. You have not requested sight of the previous versions and since you have not set up the "e-mail this user" facility, I cannot send them anyway. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Media deletion dropdown

Hello, Roger. I have attempted to answer your questions at User talk:JamesBWatson#Media deletion dropdown. How useful my attempt will be is another matter. Incidentally, something (I know not what) prompted me to look at your user page before posting this message. (I rarely bother with user pages.) I totally agree with you that "true Wikipedians are a distinct sub-species of homo sapiens". People who come to write about their band/company/whatever are not from the same universe. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Your message

The "ibids" are not my doing, and I will fix them at the end. James500 (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what difference it makes. James500 (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

deletion of Nehemiah Tabernacle, Inc

You recently deleted my article on Nehemiah Tabernacle, Inc. The fact that this is the only church of its kind in Pennsylvania, in my opinion, makes the subject noteworthy for its historic value. The article simply stated the history of the church, it's leadership, beliefs and affiliation, the same information any encyclopedia article would contain. It didn't include specific location, service times, etc., which to my mind would constitute advertising or promotion. The purpose of the article was simply to provide factual information on a church that is unique in the history of Pennsylvania.

Would you consider restoring the article, or at least offer suggestions for an article on this church?BroWCarey (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The article was clearly written not only to publicise the church and increase public awareness of it, but also to publicise the views of the church, including telling us what the church's "doctrinal statement" is, what it "has a special focus on", and so on. In short, it was clearly promotional. As for "offer suggestions for an article on this church", that presupposes that the subject is suitable for an article, i.e. that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nothing I have been able to find indicates that that is so. You may find it helpful to read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the above. Also you should wait until someone less closely connected to the church thinks it is notable and writes about it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

TideArt

So what's the criteria for having an article about a web site? Because right now Wikipedia has hundreds of articles about web sites smaller than TideArt. If those all need to be deleted then I'll start putting up speedy delete tags. Elfguy (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• For goodness sake, you have been contributing for six years. You should know the answer to your question by now. But in case you missed it, here is the content of talk:TideArt. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Wikipedia has articles about plenty of news sites about many subjects: Health News Review GigaOM Daily Radar. — Elfguy (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

These web sites have been covered in other sources. You need to provide evidence that TideArt is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Please see WP:N and WP:WEB for more information. ... discospinster _talk 02:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

History merger requests

Hello RHaworth, I came across a couple copy/paste moves while reviewing at Articles for Creation. Could you please history merge User:Mgvet/Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons into Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons and also history merge User:Mgvet/American College of Veterinary Surgeons (ACVS) into Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American College of Veterinary Surgeons (ACVS). Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see the point. All the edits have been done by Mgvet - knowing the edit history serves no useful purpose. But I have done the moves to keep you happy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for moving the pages. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Virgin and Child with Saints (van der Weden)

Cheers for sorting this out and deleting. Ceoil (talk)

Directed panspermia

Hello RHaworth: Following your suggestions, I posted a Talk:Panspermia#Separate Article on Directed Panspermia section last month. Further as you suggested, I solicited comments from two WP contributors with related interests, Drbogdan (talk · contribs) and BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs). Their comments were favorable, finding the proposed article of good scholarly quality and that it justifies a separate article. Please see the thread on Talk:Panspermia. You may wish to check again by comparing the proposed detailed article with the brief section under "Panspermia". They also discussed the relation to "Forward Contamination" under Astrobiology. Of course, any such links between these subjects can be added by them or others once the article is published. After over a month, no more comments seem to be likely.

Given the favorable comments, I would like to ask to reinstate the proposed article on directed panspermia. I hope that you will agree that expanding life in universe is noteworthy and deserves informed public debate, and a scholarly article on Wikipedia will contribute to this debate. Regards, AbrahamDavidson (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I cannot see any statement that BatteryIncluded considers the article to be of good scholarly quality - please point me too it. Similarly with Drbogdan and in this case I find his affectation of Putting A Capital On Every Word so off-putting that I can scarcely bring myself to read his messages. I would like to see explicit support from these two and support from others before I take any action. If you want a second opinion, one possibility might be to take directed panspermia to deletion review or, as I have already suggested, ask Eeekster (talk · contribs). Please get into the habit of creating links when you write about Wikipedia pages. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of Uop seal.jpg

I request you to kindly undelete file:Uop seal.jpg because there is no copyright voilation and the image is of a public sector educational insitution's seal and is totally allowed to be used for non-commercial use. I myself study in the institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waqashsn (talk • contribs) 15:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• You made made absolutely no attempt to tag the article properly. Re-upload it, use it in an article and apply a proper fair use rationale (there are countless examples of logos for you to follow) and it will probably stick. Also, apply a proper fair use tag to File:Islamia College Peshawar seal.jpg. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How can I apply a proper fair use tag to files? Please guide. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waqashsn (talk • contribs) 06:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• You seem to have worked it out for yourself. But why on earth did you leave the speedy delete tag in place on file:Uop seal.jpg? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the person who uploads a file is not allowed to remove speedy delete tag himself... Thanks for your guidance. In coming days I will make as much improvement in bot Islamia College University and University of Peshawar articles as I can. Thanks again. Syed Waqas Hassan (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I will re-phrase that: why on earth did you re-upload the image with a speedy delete tag already in place? Read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Record companies and assertions of significance

RHaworth, can I ask you to weigh in at the discussion I started at WT:CSD#Record labels and assertions of significance. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Human Factors

Can you please undelete Human Factors Lab. I agree the article needs to be expanded on but i dont think that deleting it is needed. The band meets the wiki guidelines for notability If there is any information you would need to be given that to showe this that you could not find on your own with a good search please let me know and i will be happy to provide it. thank you and have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.234.229 (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't talk to IP addresses. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, i thought i was logged in. Hopefully you can read this as me being logged in now and address the question previously posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Your most recent submission, Human factors lab was: on the wrong title, derisorily short, contained several errors of English and was devoid of any references. It fully deserved speedy deletion. As to Human Factors Lab, you are clearly Sev3n Dunbar, founder of the band. I note your claim that the AfD, raised by BringThemDown (talk · contribs) was a bad faith nomination by an ex-member of the band. My best advice is that you should wait until someone with no COI thinks the band is notable and writes about it. If you wish to persist and force an article in: create a proper draft article in User:HFLSev3n/sandbox. Get someone to help you with spelling and other simple matters of English grammar; and with references - your version of 2010 October also deserved speedy deletion for total lack of references. Then raise the matter at deletion review. I have e-mailed you a copy of one state of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Stale draft and IP users

• (Deletion log); 11:18:37 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs | block) deleted User:LibandJustice/Harris Media LLC (stale draft. Already deleted from mainspace)

I think it's usually a good idea to consult the user in question before deleting a stale draft, even if it's simply out of courtesy. "Already deleted from mainspace" isn't an actual argument here - the page was restored as a user-space draft after it was deleted out of mainspace. I do agree, though, that the draft is stale, and little if any harm is done in deleting it unilaterally.

In other news, I don't think "I don't talk to IP addresses." is an appropriate response from an administrator, especially an online ambassador, regardless of what the query was about. Deryck C. 13:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Feel free to restore the draft if you wish. As to IP addresses, I consider it perfectly reasonable for me to refuse to talk to them - some admins would simply ignore them as with this message. But if you wish to suggest an alternative wording to "I don't talk to IP addresses" which indicates that I will respond if they repeat the message logged in, then I will use it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• I hope you see that the IP address has now done the proper thing - in fact this is quite rare - IP addresses do not usually come back. I am glad I waited - it gave a declaration of COI and enabled me to apply appropriately. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

VR-62

Good Afternoon Roger, I am writing to request information about a recent article I submitted that you deleted, and to ask for your help if possible. I am the new public affairs officer for VR-62, a C-130 reserve squadron based in Jacksonville, Fl. I attempted to submit an article to Wiki to provide our history and current information about the squadron. I recieved this reason for deletion:

23:34, 8 November 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "VR-62" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://auth.cnic.navy.mil/jacksonville/About/TenantCommands/AviationSquadrons/ReserveSquadron/VP-62/index.htm)

I am new to Wiki so your help would be most appreciated. Can you tell me what I need to do to correct this issue? Thank you. Mike Nomadpao (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think this note answers your question adequately. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

USEP discussion

You may be interested in a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Uniblue Article and related images

Hi RHaworth, I hope you are well, i am still learning how to contribute to wikipedia, so i apologize for my noobishness. I have just uploaded the article Uniblue could you please unlock the following images so i can upload them. ps i have added their description in the proper way i (i hope) :) thank you kindly for your help best regards, keith

• File:Unibluelogo.jpg
• File:UniblueRegistryBooster.jpg
• File:UnibluePowerSuite.jpg
• File:UniblueSpeedUpMyPC.jpg
• File:UniblueCausesLogo.jpg
• File:UniblueDriverScanner.jpg

Keithmonti (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• You have a blatant COI so we would prefer you to leave it to an established editor with no COI to write about Uniblue. You uploaded File:UniblueOfficiallogo.jpg. Why did you not use it in the article? As to the other uploads: do seriously think that {{Copyright Uniblue Systems Ltd}} serves any point at all? Do we have a template with that name? You were offered the {{information}} template during the upload. Why did you not use it properly? Where is the evidence that Uniblue have released these images under a CC licence? But the real problem is that they serve no useful purpose except to make the article look even more like an advert. If you insist on uploading them again, there is nothing to stop you: they are not "locked" as you call it. But I recommend you not to bother. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Recreation of salted page

Since you salted it, I thought I'd let you know that I've created Curb stomp as a redirect. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Seems contradictory to create a redirect and then prod2 the target of that redirect! But no objections. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard E. Shaw

Dear Mr Haworth, Thank you for your help with the page user:Soccertv1/Richard E Shaw! I am new to this! The profile picture is what richard shaw had taken by a friend and sent me whilst playing for Lemoyne college around 2003 and i think was available on the internet at that time! I uploaded it via my from a file on my computer that ive had for years! because of the iphone hence the black images because longways if that makes sense1 hope it thats ok though! Im not very technical though but im trying!

please could you help me i am trying to upload other pictures of Richard one taken by a friend whilst richard was tv commentating! so was trying to put it next to the sentence of Richard working for time warner! also one of richard with the blackpool squad around 1994! also was wondering could it be linked to his current soccer teams website syracuse silver knights under title Roster!!! they have done so for other players!!

what is the text i need to input to upload these photos when editing! can i send you the photos via this!! there is no issues with copy right etc!! Many thanks if you can help. DJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccertv1 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to contact you i asked a question in my last post! sorry it was actually the question how do i link richard to the website it was how do you link richard to the wikipedia article under Syracuse Silver Knights. Player number 3 is richard shaw how do we link this i see others are highlighted to read but Richard Shaw is not! so how do we connect the two! if you could help much appreciated thanks!! oh and one other question RE; richard if people search for Richard Shaw will it come up with the other Richard shaws they dont have to put Richard E Shaw do they!!?? as he is only known as Richard Shaw. Hope you can understand my wording many thanks! DJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccertv1 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• You seem to have managed to upload File:PhotoBL.png OK so you should be able to upload more in the same way. But please note: please use meaningful file names - we do not put "photo" in the name - .png tells us that it is an image; please upload photos as JPEGs not PNGs and please crop them before uploading. I think you were premature in sending the article to AfC - it is a long way from being ready. You will note that I have created links in both directions between Syracuse Silver Knights and your article, or rather your article on the title that I suggest: Richard E. Shaw. An alternative, rather ponderous title would be Richard Shaw (footballer born 1977) but I will let you decide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

richard shaw

hi i am very thankfull for you help... RICHARD SHAW ( FOOTBALLER Born 1977 ) would be great how do we do this!! and i am so sorry what is afc what tab have i pressed onto! is all ok if you could help me many thanks

DJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccertv1 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Mr Haworth I apologise! Thank you very much for you help anything that you can do to help me is much appreciated! I promise not to shout again! If you do not mind please change anything you believe would facilitate the article. I am looking through your photograph's of tenerife! A place I have been many times with my family usually the south of the island! The photo of the sunset over Gran Canaria is fantastic! again thank you very much for all your help Mr Haworth.

DJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccertv1 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:DCP 2020.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:DCP 2020.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Album art.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Album art.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

File:DCP 2020.JPG

Hi. Can you either delete this file or locate the problem or update the message on the page? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)