Wikipedia

User talk:RHaworth/2014 May 22

< User talk:RHaworth
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Jackmcbarn in topic Draft talk:Climate Summit 2014

Archives

wikify!

Slovenly is a word I find myself using quite a bit at the moment. Slovenly is what I think of anybody who leaves a message here about an article and fails to provide a wikilink to the article. How do you expect me to read the article if you don't link to it? Even if the article has been deleted, you should still link to it.
I reserve the right to ignore any message which does not provide links where appropriate, has no heading, is in the wrong place on this page, has not been signed with ~~~~, is anonymous, etc.
And if that sounds like a grumpy old man, it's because I am ...

The Knowledge Centre for Agriculture Deletion

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

Chris Griffin (Entrepreneur)

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I'd like to contest the deletion of Chris Griffin (Entrepreneur) created by me on April 30th and deleted on May 1st. The article was deleted under A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Chris Griffin is a notable British businessman, who founded Godskitchen, a dance music superbrand in the 90's, and Global Gathering, one of the largest annual dance music gatherings in the world. Latterly, he was a Director of British global clothing brand Superdry and was solely responsible for establishing the brand's presence in over 120 countries. He is also listed amongst the 50 most powerful people in online retail in the UK. Please could you reconsider deletion of this page, or provide further advice on how I can rewrite the article to meet expectations. Thank you. LWight (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  • We felt the references were insufficient. I am happy to email you your text but read this. As a variant on my usual COI mantra, please tell me what other subjects you intend to write about here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read your page of advice and I'd like to revisit the referencing for this article and resubmit for your consideration. Please could you email my text and I'll work on the referencing today. Regarding other subjects, I have an interest in the contributions that lesser-known business men and women have made to the UK, specifically from digital channels such as online retail, media and television. It is likely that I will make several contributions over the following months. For instance, I intend to write about the founder of HIT Entertainment, who brought us Bob the Builder and Chuggington, amongst others. I hope this satisfies your query. LWight (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please could you kindly email me the text as mentioned above? I would like to revisit this in the next few days. Thank you. LWight (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I've now received it. Much appreciated. LWight (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have now revisited the referencing for this article Draft:Chris Griffin (entrepreneur) and have improved both the reference sources and citations. I've submitted for further review today. I hope I've followed the appropriate protocol during this process. Thank you for your help thus far. LWight (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • It was somewhat suicidal to upload the article with a speedy tag in place! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! This is all a steep, but worthwhile learning experience. Hopefully this submission will now be accepted in due course and the next article will be a smoother process. Thanks again for your assistance, it's much appreciated. LWight (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Epigenetics of partner preference

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I am a Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Texas at Austin. I would like to discuss your reasons for deleting the page epigenetics of partner preference. It seems that you think that this article was redundant with the page Epigenetics. However, epigenetics has become a massive field that is touching all facets of biology and behavior. As such, it seems appropriate to have an introductory page and page(s) that focus on specific topics in which our understanding has recently expanded.

The Epigenetics of Partner Preference page was a semester-long project by three undergraduate students. It contains information and explanations that are not contained in the current Epigenetics page.

The reason that the students did not just add to the Epigenetics page is that we thought that doing so would highjack the page and change its focus from a general introduction to a highly focused discussion of one topic.

The students did include a general introduction of epigenetics within their document-perhaps this is what led you to flag it as redundant? They included the general introduction so that the page could be understood on its own. However, the bulk of the article did not overlap with the Epigenetics page. Perhaps, the general introduction should be removed but the page itself kept?

This students were encouraged to write this article to contribute to the common good and advance the general public's understanding of epigenetics. Does the wikipedia community prefer that students not be encouraged in this manner?

None of us are experienced contributors to wikipedia. However, I am an expert, and my students are very well informed, in the field of epigenetics.

Please note that the Epigenetics of Partner Preference page was not a vanity page. My own field of expertise is the epigenetics of alcoholism. Thanks, Theflyelectric (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The last state of the article is now at User:Michellegarza/sandbox. The phrase "insult to Wikipedia" springs to mind: "we are not interested in learning wiki markup, we just want to publish our essay". Before you do anything else you must convert all the links to Wikipedia articles to proper wikilinks. Having done that, you could raise the matter at deletion review but I suspect it will be rejected as original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
This is Wiki arrogance. Treat this subject matter expert with respect, please. He is asking a sincere question. Assist him, please. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
* So Prof, what further assistance do you you think I should give them? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
You pride yourself in speaking directly, so I will do the same (as I did briefly above). The issue raised is both about what you should not do, and what you should. The Wikiarrogance referred to was in your responding with "The phrase 'insult…" which violates WP assume good faith. Moreover, I reviewed the material, and it is—from my background with a PhD in a related area—certainly solid scientific material, even if not yet adapted for Wikipedia. Your denigrating him with "publish our essay" and the content as OR (which it is not, for it is better referenced, and more other-referenced, than much material at WP) was done instead of directing this WP-interested content matter expert to the [specific] Help pages that would have allowed him to begin trying to do the necessary conversion to WP format. As well, a kind editor, open to all comers, and wanting to encourage subject matter expertise would have taken him much further in hand (as another editor did with me on the beginning), giving an example short article—perhaps of your own—that has been very carefully constructed to have all essential Wikipedia elements in place (headings, infobox, appropriately formatted references, etc.), and so could have been used as markup template. I know there are other ways, and I know that one can find them if one looks hard enough, but he is the beginner, not us. Bottom line, the whole of this makes me suspicious, in general, of any rapid deleting that you do. Like Huggle and Twinkle-inspired reversions, such rapid steps are only as good as the heart behind them, i.e., the care taken to "act justly" and show "mercy". Merciless responses violate WP policies regarding showing other editors respect (esp. new ones), and regarding assuming good faith on the part of others. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I asked for specific advice. Have you given me any? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
See added emphasis above. I count 2 pieces of advice on things to avoid (don't insult, don't denigrate with snide comments), and 3 things you might do (assume good faith, point to specific help, suggest/provide templates), alongside the closing general advice to show respect, assume good faith, and avoid merciless, unkind treatment of others (esp. new wikipedia editors, and subject matter experts). But then, you saw all this. What is your game? You are not dim, as you are pretending. You appear to take pleasure in snide, even harsh responses. This is not your club, to turn folks away. It is arrogance to turn away potential future talented Wikipedians, because they do not see this place as you do, do not come to speed at Wiki markup as fast as you think they should, do not prioritize content and format quite as you do. Bottom line, your policies on your talk page are not WP policy, and if you are given Admin responsibility, you need to be reflecting WP convictions over your own (when they are in conflict). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
In your continuing haste to act, did you misstate? I believe you intended to say, given your expertise in the molecular biosciences, you judge the article as not appropriate for Wikipedia, and I assume never will be (a matter about which I have not yet formed an opinion, though I am ever so much more poorly qualified to hold forth). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad Blue Boys

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Was deleted with the rationale "May not create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultras Dynamo". However, Bad Blue Boys are supporters of GNK Dinamo Zagreb, rather than Dynamo Dresden - is this a some sort of mix-up? GregorB (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  • An article that has been around for nearly seven years and looks well referenced certainly should not be speedied. Restored. I suggest you ask Conformuser (talk · contribs) to explain himself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I see now Conformuser is banned, so that could have been a bad faith nom. Anyway, could you restore the talk page too? GregorB (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! GregorB (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

user:71.239.82.39

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Please advise me of the WP that is your basis for deleting the home page associated with 71.239.82.39 … you made the change without posting at that Talk, on the seeming authority of a WP. Please provide a link to the WP. Thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I have no idea what you mean by "authority of a WP". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I sometimes draw short, and refer to Wikipedia policy, as WP, pardon me. I will try to be more explicit. Use of an IP to edit — which is a fully acceptable way, per WP policy, to edit at Wikipedia, results in a User page and Talk page being generated that are associated with the IP address. You deleted one such page. You did so, saying that such pages were not to exist. I am asking you to justify, with a WP policy, this action taken at the 71.239.82.39 page — which has, by the way, self-regenerated, now with a red-flag that is seemingly was unhappy with your deletion. Perhaps, if I and the red flag am correct, you or a senior Admin can undo the deletion that you performed. Matters little to me; but you seem to find doing things properly, important. Physicians should always endeavor to first heal themselves. — Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Use of an IP address does not result in a user page and a user_talk page - they must be specifically created. Millions of IP address edits are done where there is no user page or user_talk page. "Self-regenerated" - utter nonsense. Every user page for an IP address should be a red link - here is a random example: 79.54.47.134.
As to user:71.239.82.39, NeilN (talk · contribs) applied a {{db-nouser}} tag which was good enough for me. But I could have used another reason: if we stretch a point and say that an IP address can have a user page, then the very strong convention comes into play that user:foo should only be edited by user:foo. User:71.239.82.39 had been created by someone else so speedy deletion as vandalism applied - and the creator of the page should have been reprimanded. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry mate, you seem to regularly extrapolate from limited information, data, and experience, to a sense of very broad certainty that gives you (in your view) justification to act decisively (and rashly, I would argue). First, note, the IP in question is the signature that appears if I work from one of my work sites, between other responsibilities, without logging in to WP.

Extended content
At no time, ever, in my history of working from that site, have I ever created a User or Talk page associated with the IP. If I did not create them, ever, then it is reasonable to assume that they were automatically created. What is more, periodically this Comcast IP changes, and whenever it has, a new User and Talk page have appeared. What is more, yet, after you deleted the page, a new page appeared. Lots of data; bodes well for you to further make your case, see below.

Now, whether this >three-fold observation is true of all IPs, or only those assigned in relation to a cable account, or otherwise—I do no know (or care). The point is, your strident posturing on the matter are at odds with hard data. Still, I'll give you the chance—I challenge you to demonstrate the "nonsense" you purport, by showing me that these pages were created, and by whom. If the are automatically created, or if their creation is part of a standard Wikipedia process—perhaps someone monitoring substantive, new IP activity, to create pages to contact the new WP visitor, to encourage them to continue, and register (my hunch regarding the situation)—either way, I expect you will acknowledge your mistake/overstatement. Because even if a WP process involving an Admin is at the heart of this, the intent is clear: it is the intent of the system that the IP User and User Talk pages be used by people at WP to be in contact with the IP User. Of course, you may still wish to pursue the "reprimand" you referred to, against the WP policy or group of Admins administrating the policy, that tracks and responds to IP User page page creation. Your call. Let me know how that goes.

Second, besides what clearly appears to be ignorance about how some aspects of WP work, I question the wisdom associated with your rapid deletion of a page because you saw a tag. So, "NeilN (talk · contribs) applied a {{db-nouser}}" — he says jump, you say how high? Some report comes automatically to your screen, that NeilN, an editor unknown to you, declares an IP as db-nouser, and you jump at the chance to delete something, with no further due diligence? If no human discernment was called for in these cases, if no judgment demanded, WP would automate the process and have the pages deletable, directly, by the likes of NeilN alone. The fact that another human is inserted in the process implies that WP is calling on you to do something that demands analysis and discretion. Did you do any (analysis)? I'll contact a few Admins, and ask if (to quote you) "NeilN (talk · contribs) applied a {{db-nouser}} tag which was good enough for me" [emphasis added] is what is expected of persons allowed to rapidly delete pages. If doing so is acceptable practice, I will report back and let you know that I was so informed. However, I doubt that deleting such pages, however they came to exist, based on such diligence-free prompting is acceptable; why, then, is there now a red box comment calling attention to a deleted page, at the regenerated IP page? Such a puzzling universe we live in.

Otherwise, note, honestly—you have provided no real basis for what you did. What you have said boils down to, someone suggested, and I did it because I could. I will still await from you the WP policy that has you deleting pages in response to tags from strangers, without due diligence. But I will not hold breath. Rather I will call attention to this and other seeming trigger-happy events recorded here at your Talk, to whoever keeps tabs on the behaviour of rapid deletion folks.

Cheers, will glance back for a better explanation/WP, but I've heard what I pretty much what I expected. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick input, really no response necessary; please read this. I use a netbook and in order to get your entire post on to my screen I have had to zoom out.--Launchballer 08:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Having a user page is one of the benefits of having a registered account. That, and other benefits, are explained at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. --NeilN talk to me 22:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wasting your breath, my close-following Neil. But if it gives you a sense of value, lurking about me, here stating the obvious (to one with an account), have at it. I won't complain. But know, after this, I'll generally not respond in Talk — except, as necessary, forwarding matters for higher review when you are less than "the whole truth" about any matter involving me. Cheers, and best wishes, really. We all need a life that matters. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, still no basis given for the action. Since this involves a matter of principle, and your inability or unwillingness to justify a deletion, yes, I will elevate the matter for review. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Twokinds

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, RHaworth, can you send me the versions of Twokinds that existed before the deletions, excluding the one that was deleted with G12, and the talk page that existed before the two deletions? --Kovl (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  •   Thank you very much! --Kovl (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Defense Acquistion Program Administration

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I appreciate your contributions and intensive reviewing work on articles. I just wrote an article about Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), an executive branch of the central government of the South Korea, I am working for. I'm disappointed that the article was deleted for the copyright infringement of some contents of the DAPA's official website. As DAPA different from other commercial firms and organizations provides public services, contents in the official website I believe should be public and worth sharing to anyone. I kindly ask you to reconsider the article deletion. — Judeyoungw (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Being different is no excuse for copyvio also official websites are usually written in unencyclopedic style. Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI writes about the agency here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of shortofalength page

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I find the article I was trying to create has been deleted by you. There is no intention of setting up a web page. I'm new to Wiki and was merely trying to draft an article over several days with the intention then of studying Wiki's guidelines and amending accordingly - no intention of it going public yet or allowing it to do so until I'd 'got it right' both from the article and Wiki's point of view. Gaia Dance is a noted ecological writer who should be recorded on Wikipedia. (it's not me incidentally). Please restore the page so I can work on it. I'm quite happy for you to mentor/approve it when I'm reasonably happy with it and before it goes public. It's daft to delete something in mid-draft. I look forward to hearing from you. Peter Lyons (shortofalength) Shortofalength (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I should probably give you my standard mantra about COI but I have to admit that the speedy nomination was invalid. Restored to User:Shortofalength/sandbox. Clearly the article stands no chance of survival without decent references. A photo would be good too. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Weatherboxes

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For the next few days I have the time to revisit this issue. Please do so at my talk. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 02:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Qn magazine

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Well, I've done it again, and I really don't think I'm such a Wikipedia "noob". I want to move the article Qn magazine to a new name because Yale School of Management has renamed the publication to Yale Insights. If you remember, the first time that I tried, I didn't italicize the name "Yale Insights", so I reverted the move and asked you to delete the article named "Yale Insights". You decided to nominate the "Qn magazine" article for deletion, which I thought was a good idea. Somebody disagreed. Today, I tried the move again, putting two apostrophes before and after the name in the "Move" dialog box. The result was garbage -- a new article named ''Yale Insights''. Again, I reverted the move, and again, I am asking you to now delete the article ''Yale Insights'', please.

Can I also complain about the "Move" process?

  1. The "Move" dialog box is the only place in Wikipedia that I can think of where a "Show preview" button doesn't exist. Moving an article is serious business, yet I have no way of knowing until after the fact that the move would produce garbage. (Just to be hyper careful, I tested ''Yale Insights'' in my Sandbox before attempting the move.)
  2. I still do not know how to move an article so the name of the new article is italicized.

Thanks for your help. -- LukasMatt (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Why describe the result as garbage? It was exactly what you had specified.
  1. Outrageous suggestion 1: previewing a move may be useful in certain specialised circumstances , eg. a cross namespace move of an article that contains a namespace-dependent template. Try the move as a copy-and-paste (without saving) and preview the result.
  2. Outrageous suggestion 2: italic titles - look at existing articles that have italic titles and see how they do it.
You also have {{DISPLAYTITLE}} for more complicated formatting.{{DISPLAYTITLE:RWHaworth}} — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your remark "Why describe the result as garbage? It was exactly what you had specified", I'm a retired systems programmer...I understand GIGO...No need for you to patronize. I have my own "outrageous" ideas:

  1. Outrageuos idea 1: I followed your guidance: "look at existing articles that have italic titles and see how they do it". I looked at lots of them. Apparently, articles can be created with italics in the title. Therefore, why would you expect me to anticipate such a kludge (yes, it's a kludge) as {{Italic title}}?
  2. Outrageuos idea 2: In response to my "complaint", several people updated the "Wikipedia:Moving a page" article. That's a constructive, appropriate response.
  3. Outrageous idea 3: Moving a page is the weakest component that I've encountered on Wikipedia. If it's your baby, RHaworth, then I'm sorry, but...your baby is ugly.

I've wasted enough time on this issue. I would rather work on Wiki Fixup projects. -- LukasMatt (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  • @LukasMatt: please give me a couple of examples of articles with italics in their title in the manner you suggest. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr Zeus

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi RHaworth.. You recently deleted Dr Zeus article. He is pretty well known Punjabi language singer and I think is sufficiently notable. Could you kindly userfy it to my userspace. I will fix it with proper references etc and move it to mainspace. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 00:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vigyani - I'm sure RHaworth will be answering shortly. I nominated that page for deletion after I responded to your report at WP:AIV about Big9bath. He had made several edits to Dr Zeus (as well as other pages). I attempted to verify that his edits were vandalism, but was unable to. The article contained only one reference, a BBC Review, which sourced a single line in the article. I also did not see anything indicating that this artist was notable, so I nominated it for deletion. Does he meet WP:BAND? Prodego talk 00:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Dr Zeus is definitely notable. He has produced several music albums and is fairly well known in Indian Punjab. But I understood from the deletion that article maybe lacking proper references. So I thought I could fix it. Regarding Big9bath, which I believe is actually a sock of a blocked user. I have been keeping a tab on his edits. This user works in area of Punjabi (Indian) film and music articles and is here only for promoting that kind of stuff. I think he is somehow related to these film producer and creates articles for the projects which are just in pipeline. So his edits are not really vandalism but he simply does not understand notability, neither he responds to any of the talk page messages. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 00:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Vigyani - I'm all for undeleting it if you think it meets WP:BAND and will add sources to show it. Prodego talk 01:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I did hesitate over this deletion. Restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will try to fix it tomorrow and also check carefully if it passes WP:BAND, which I think it will. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 14:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Mishari bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, can I have access to the fol. article pls, Mishari bin Abdulaziz Al Saud . — Learning Humility (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks RHaworth! Oh, and love the pun on Learning Humility (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)learning humility :)

deleted files/images

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello RHaworth, I am working in IPP ASCR, Prague and I am the creator of these pictures, which has deleted. I can put them as my work, but I wonted to protect them from commercial activity. It should used only for non commercial activity or education. Is there any problem ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamekjiri (talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood the licensing process. I have used bad license of my pictures. I think now, it should be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamekjiri (talk • contribs) 08:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Friendship "Turtle" Park

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Well, Friendship "Turtle" Park wasn't my article (even though I did the move from "them" during some Wiki Fixup project work). In any case, I'll give my two halers worth. I moved their article to a better name and I did a quick copy edit of the article because...I looked at their website...it is really nice...and I thought, "If they make such a nice website, maybe they'll eventually put similar effort into their Wiki page". In other words, I thought, why not give them a chance?

Your speedy delete seems very inappropriate for two reasons:

  1. You didn't give them a chance;
  2. The reason that you specified is not accurate. The actual criterion reads, "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves" WP:A7. Friendship "Turtle" Park is a place.

-- LukasMatt (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Did you also remove links to the Friendship "Turtle" Park article.... -- LukasMatt (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The article was hopelessly stubby - could not even manage to give coords. I don't know how you define a "nice" website. Curiously, www.turtlepark.org appears to have closed in the last 48 hours and to judge by Google's cache it was only fractionally less stubby than the Wikipedia article. Restored to User:Donotlook/sandbox. My contribs history and deletion log are available to tell you if I removed any links. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Società Italiana per l'Esercizio Telefonico p.A. ‎

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What makes this "bad faith nomination" precisely? 2.27.97.160 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Televersing

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I tried to post a article about I term that I created. I had also generated definitions, divulged the science behind the term and showed information relating to the reason for the term. I believe I was told that it was an unproven science or something weird. I can prove the science part, I can show how the science works, this is just a word like any other that gets created. I want to learn how to make the word legitimate and direct people to the website I created to explain it. Since you are the one who dismissed it as a hoax I am telling you now it is not, so help me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mups007 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The article was blatant original research and thoroughly deserved speedy deletion. Unfortunately OR, however bad is, technically not a speedy criterion so the nominator used hoax and I was happy to go with it. Firstly, you need to correct the appalling spelling and grammar of your website. Then, kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your theory is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"Teh"

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Since you seem to commonly deal with redirects, I would like to ask you, do you think it would be wise to put in some redirects of the common typographical error "Teh" for titles that start with "The". The top search results are newspapers and countries. For example, Teh New York Times as a redirect. Hoops gza (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Quantium Solutions

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, my article on Quantium Solutions recently got deleted, and I would like to know specifically which part of the content is making this inappropriate to be on wikipedia? I believe the article is already factual and does not have any promotional undertones. I understand about wikipedia's guidelines on notability and have done my part to do a thorough read on it. I have also browsed through several wikipedia pages from other logistic companies to look at their content and credibility, but many are not cited/significant yet are still on the listing. One example is: Express Kenya. Another example Embassy Freight Group is both promotional in tone, and does not have any citations as well. Hence unfortunately I do not fully understand how my article is speedily deleted, in comparison with these other articles. Please help to clarify how I can specifically amend the article to get this up then? Hope you can help, thank you. Fuzzster87 (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your company is notable and puts an article up for you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
What is your evidence, RH, that Fuzzster is associated with this Co.? Is it guilty until proven innocent, with you judge and jury? Just curious (since you state no evidence in your response). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have a very simple mind - I look at special:contributions/Fuzzster87 and leap from there to conclude COI. Yes, I suppose that is assuming guilt until proved innocent. However, I would not be so arrogant as to call myself judge and jury: there are so many ways of appeal. As with the IP address above, you are not going to make me change my mind. You are welcome to elevate the matter at deletion review but before you do so, please bear in mind that two other admins agree with me that the subject is not wiki worthy.
Please read this and set up an email address. I should be perfectly happy to send you copies of the Quantium Solutions and Rakesh Biswas articles so that you can take pity on their poor, abused authors and re-instate the pages. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Was your point that this editor has offered but a single contribution? If so (and even if not, for want of clarity of argument), then yes, it is simple-minded. Otherwise, for response to the substance of your reply, see below (where I respond to both you and the editor you have deleted). As far as access to the deletions is concerned, I can arrange should I need. And I'll not engage you on the WP policy question of requiring email to accomplish work here; let me simply say, I would not think of giving someone such as yourself access to means of communicating with me, off of Wikipedia. That requires trust, the basis of which is mutual respect. No, sorry, not a chance. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, RHaworth, though it came across not quite as professional as I would have expected from a wikipedia Admin. I see that the two wikipedia articles I cited as examples are suddenly deleted after I sent in this query. I am aware that two other admins deleted the QS page previously, what I am asking is "WHAT" is making it unworthy? You mentioned that if you send the copies to LeProf, he can re-instate the page just because he is using a different IP address that is so-called "unassociated" with QS. If this is true, I can use this logic and the solution is just to use a different IP, am I correct? I will no longer be a "poor, abused author". From a content perspective, there is nothing else wrong with the article, yes? I'm asking this civilly and professionally, and I appreciate a similar response from someone who is administrating such a renowned portal as wikipedia. Fuzzster87 (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Fuzzster, first: Professionalism is certainly not required of Wikipedia editors or administrators at RHaworth's level, though you rightly perceive that he takes a much lower view of the social responsibilities of general Wikipedians than many, if not most here. Unfortunately, though you may be in the right—if you are not a paid contributor, with a COI, simply trying to plug your own company, as RHaworth contends—it does not matter much, because Wikipedia is not about justice, it is about consensus. And even when wrong (which I perceive he is, often enough), RH will know more folks, and be able to create a consensus that you will not be able to counter. In this regard, since normative ethics do not come into play (either his personal, or this organization's), I do not hold much hope for this article. But if you ask, and I can investigate and see a case for an article such as this, I will seek an unbiased administrator to review the case. This, simply because guilty-until-proven-innocent is unacceptable, though Wikipedia clearly allows for such practices.
RH, second: Your "suggest wording" to Fuzzster is just so much more game playing, and disingenuous, and so unbefitting an Admin. Save it—it just invites response in an area where you could care less about actual engagement. You have made your decision, and you are confident in it. Just say that, to him. Otherwise, a "near enough" admission is not an admission, and in acting without any prior query, and acting alone, you are indeed acting as judge and jury; as such, arrogant is your word choice, and I cannot argue. Moreover, to act on perception is the mark, I believe, of one who does not belong as an Admin here.
Let me state clearly, the opposing opinion: Good editors and administrators investigate before acting. You act, and justify with "when I am wrong, they can always appeal". Only at Wikipedia could such organizational and philosophical nonsense, such a mockery of the notion of due process find any acceptance. I for one abhor this judgmental, guilty-until-proven-innocent approach, and the self-righteous power-hungriness that it I believe it represents. But in your "leap before you look" approach to decision-making, you are in good company here; so in these battles over article deletions, I will likely lose (if I choose to challenge at all). But on the broader point of your being both socially ornery and quick-to-judge, and the question of this bring acceptable in an Admin, there I hold some hope of bringing productive WP policy light to bear. Cheers, until such time. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Le Prof, please note that Fuzzster has near enough admitted the COI.
Fuzzster, please suggest a wording for my first message above which you would have considered professional. Using a different IP address would make absolutely no difference. Ordinary admins are not allowed to know what IP address a logged-in editor is using. Please consider this proposition: three users (Whispering (talk · contribs), SFK2 (talk · contribs) and Juhuyuta (talk · contribs)) and three admins are agreed that from a content perspective there is everything wrong with an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I know three admins have deleted it, but the content is not the same for each deletion isn't it? You cited your reason for deletion as "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", which is about notability/significance and NOT about content. Now you say it is everything about the content. Which is it, because I am utterly confused at this. I am not going to suggest a wording for your unprofessional message until you have the decency to explain which words/phrases used in the QS content made it not appropriate for Wikipedia. You mentioned in your initial message that "As with the IP address above, you are not going to make me change my mind." That means you can know what IP address a logged-in editor is using, am I right? Please clarify if I am in the wrong. @LeProf thanks for explaining the realities of wikipedia, how can I further investigate this deletion? Fuzzster87 (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest creating a sandbox with your best content to date, and posting a link here. I will get a couple of experienced editors and administrators to have a look and make suggestions, editors that I know actually want newcomers to learn this craft, and want new articles regarding businesses to appear at Wikipedia (and who ethically deplore such practices as modifying the elements of the debate—e.g., deleting referenced examples of other Co. articles—while a discussion/debate is ongoing. The form of "helping" others that RH practices here is very common, and is a principle reason that the site attracts some sorts of editors, and turns away others. What can be said. He attracts some followers, clearly. But I will help you try to navigate this. In the meantime, flesh out your User page, and, as I said, create the sandbox with the best version. If the words "create the sandbox" do not mean anything, ask RH for a hand there. Editors do have a formal obligation above being technocrats with advanced tools—i.e., to be helpful with new users on technical matters. If he will not patiently take the time, I will find someone who will. I'm off. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
If the Quantium Solutions being discussed here is about the company incorporated in 2001 as a joint venture with TNT, Royal Mail and Singapore Post, then acquired by Singapore Post Ltd in 2009, and was/is a publicly traded entity before and after, you are gong to be on shaky ground not to allow an article. Business types who write and read WP like information, including to be able to have an objective description of a Co., and its activities, and to be able to trace its M&A involvements and activities (and its securities history). That you are not interested is irrelevant; that the article is not yet substantial is also not an issue (i.e., not an issue for deletion, rather, it is an issue for improvement). If this takes the shape that it appears it might, please, stay involved, and see what editors that care about Asian business have to say. Cheers. Le Prof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprof 7272 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Leprof, I have created a sandbox under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fuzzster87 with the QS content. And yes the Quantium Solutions company you were describing is the same as the one I am writing about. Please help me to seek opinion on how this can be improved, if it is even possible to get this through. To RH, I just do not understand why it was immediately marked for speedy deletion, when so many company listings out there are similar in terms of content and notability - yet it is only marked for improvement. This is what makes me question on the subjectivity on what you think is notable or not. I am not writing about a company with only 3 staff and one small office. Singapore Post is also an old organisation which has been in operation for 150 years so I would think Quantium Solutions, which is a huge part of Singapore Post in their operations, will be of significance enough. How do admins even decide if it is significant enough? What benchmark are you basing it on? Just because you have not heard about QS does not mean that it is insignificant to somebody else in another part of the world, or to a business owner. Brushing it aside like this is not particularly fair, in my opinion. Fuzzster87 (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Out of interest, would having CheckUser rights be something that you would find useful?--Launchballer 20:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not particularly, I usually deal with sock puppetry so blatant that CheckUser is not needed. But thanks for the thought. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Bourbonism

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Deletion of Bourbonism: The blending of bourbon whiskey and tourism. Hello. I am new to Wikipedia and this is the first article I had written. Mine was deleted for A11 and one reviewer declared it as a "joke". I assure you that this is no joke and the locals take this name very seriously in Louisville, KY (a city over 1 million people). I have given references and links showing the new term being used in public conferences by the Mayor. I have never met the mayor and I am not even a drinker, but I have a sense of local pride and wanted to share the new use of the word with the world. Thanks. Natomic1 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Your non-standard title pre-disposed people to deletion even before they opened the article. It is felt that the references do not show this to be a well-established term. But your edit to Bourbonism will probably stick so be satisfied with that.
I was amused to see an advert on the London tube today by an American Bourbon distiller proudly saying "we only use new casks" whilst Glenfiddich are saying, equally proudly, "we only use the cast-offs of Bourbon distillers". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Bourbon is required to be aged in new oak barrels. Scotch does not have that requirement. To increase revenue in the USA, while saving money in Scotland, Maker's Mark and Jim Beam sell used Bourbon barrels to Scotch makers. It's a win-win for both. See this article "Things you didnt know about Bourbon".Natomic1 (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

More Prof-essional moans

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Re User talk:Launchballer#"Rakesh biswas"PAGE REVIEW: Leprof 7272 has been moaning about comments of mine, in particular my response to the above request. Please tell me if my comments towards Biswas could be considered as incivil/undiplomatic.--Launchballer 18:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, proper procedure is not for you to choose an Admin — certainly not a friendly Admin, and here, one with as many civility issues as you—to sit in adjudication over this issue. In fact, I think you are both specifically prohibited from this sort of politicking (esp. the Admin). Am I not correct? No, I will elevate it, thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • LeProf, what are you waffling about? Was anybody suggesting a choice of admin? I was suggesting that you should report me to the same admin (of your choice) for the same offence. The IP address suffered a worse fate at my end - this message was summarily deleted without any reply.
Launchballer, I had seen the moan and decided to ignore it. You would have been well to do the same. Anything you say to this woman is liable to result in a wall such as this incredible 11k byte essay. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Two notes, and then I am away: First, your use of the asterisk within your talk is your right, I imagine, but it is confusing to outsiders, and confuses dialogs where there are a series of responses. But do as you wish there; I only ever change such things to make the progression of the discussion clearer, not to exert unwarranted control (which is yours, here). Second, your using gender specific pronouns makes you appear ignorant and possibly sexist. The former said because the Fr "le" with this noun is masculine but gender neutral (both male and female Prof most often take the "le", with exceptions possibly in Francophone Canada); hence, the presupposition should be at best, gender indeterminate based on the "le". The sexism will be perceived based on the overall tone of your response, even if it is misperceived. Otherwise, I cannot plead guilty of your "she" accusation, and you misspelled liable. What an editor/admin you are, mdr. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I am always keen to make it clear who is talking, thus if someone had left a message such as this on my user_talk page, I would have slapped an {{unsigned}} tag on it instantly but you clearly prefer to leave things unclear. My apologies, I accept that you are not female. When being written about in the third person are you "he/him" or "they/them"? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
What the Scabeba matter has to do with anything I said is a neurological leap that these tee-totaling neurons are unable to make. Scabeba, a female, failed to sign. I, Leprof, failed to take her to task for not doing so. This relates to my point re: your confusing use of asterisks rather than :'s in your Talk, how? Or re: your mis-assignment of my gender, how? This is side-achingly humourous. But perhaps, as from start ("'Self-regenerated' - utter nonsense") to middle ("what are you waffling about") to finish ("Prof-essional moans"), you simply aim again to insult via humor before an admiring audience, and I am missing it. Some might say that persistence in trying to insult others (whether successful, or in this case, failing) would be unbecoming an administrator at Wikipedia. I could not possibly comment. (Here.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ahae

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Howdy, I intervened in a page you nominated for deletion, Ahae. The page as it was seems like it was plain PR written by his employees or followers (or both). Ahae is the alter-ego of a religious sect leader and corrupt businessman who is on the run from the Korean authorities for his role in the sinking of the MV Sewol. He is very, very notable, though not for the reasons the article was created. I have added external news sources (I went overboard on number of citations to play it safe), and I interlinked this page to pages on the ferry disaster as well as his religious sect. I believe this addresses all your concerns. It also means this page might need additional monitoring for the next while as this issue continues. Thanks for your work. Junganghansik (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Other people want to delete it still. I'm not sure why. Junganghansik (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox island(s)

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please reconsider this. Infoboxes are named in the singular; see {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox building}}, {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox park}}, {{Infobox event}} and thousands of others in Wikipedia:List of infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Feel free to re-instate the speedy tag. I will stand back and see what another admin thinks. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Admin's Barnstar
For patrolling new pages. Btw another deletion required here. Thank you. Jim Carter (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio recreation

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed a new copyvio article and put a notification at the user's talk. Searching showed that very similar material had previously been reported at another user's talk.

The article I reported was speedy deleted, but was recreated at Water Supply Projects in Kurdistan, and it appears that you moved that to Water supply projects in Kurdistan. The lead of that article is a copyvio of this, and the body is a copyvio of this. I don't know the best way to handle the situation now, and am hoping you will take any necessary action. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for what you have done. The reason I raised it with you is that I expected that the page would be created a third time if I requested a speedy of the second version. I cannot find the source of Ground water in Iraqi Kurdistan. Except for the "following Rivers and Lake" list, the content of Hydrography of Iraqi Kurdistan is from Kurdistan#Rivers. There is no good way to handle cases like this unfortunately. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

  • "No good way"! There is a good way - and again it has been done for you. In the case of text copied from another Wikipedia article, you simply delete it and replace with a link to the source article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

recent deletion -- how to retrieve content

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi RHaworth,

I understand there was a copyright infringement on the page I had written for submission here: User:Slsw9/sandbox. I believe you deleted it. Is there anyway I can retrieve the content (most of which was not a copyright infringement) to reconstruct the article? Also, is content is quoted, properly cited, and copyrighted under the creative commons, I still cannot use it? Or do I do one of these things incorrectly? Is there anyway to share a quote, for example of a vision statement which cannot be paraphrased to be properly recounted? Thanks for the help, I'm very new to this. Slsw9 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The problem is not so much copyvio as style-vio. An organisation's web site is rarely written in encyclopedic style. "Vision statements" are usually pretty trite. And if that was not bad enough, you insist on giving us not only their vision but lists of "mission", "goals" and "challenges" all equally trite. In short it needs a complete re-write from scratch. Text emailed but only try and re-submit if you have no COI. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Got it -- thank you for explaining the issue so clearly. I'll work on it now and resubmit. Slsw9 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Slsw9

Curtain Connection Entertainment

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sir, kindly tell me the reason because of which you deleted Curtain Connection Entertainment. Thanks and regards, Shrishty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrishjind (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. Alternatively, contact Leprof 7272 (talk · contribs) and ask him to create an article for you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Property management business models

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is not a 100 % fork. Can we smerge it? Bearian (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It means selective merge - that is, merge back some material and the citations. I started a discussion instead at Talk:Property management#Merger of Property management business models. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Reproduction of text on King Alfred's Tower

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Back in Nov 2007 you dealt with a copyright issue on King Alfred's Tower. You put a note on Talk:King Alfred's Tower saying it was OK to use text from http://www.alfredstower.info/. I think this was before OTRS was invented. I have since done some work on the article & recently nominated it at GAN. In responding to reviewers comments about further references being needed I found one and a half paragraphs of text were the same as the source site. I have rephrased most of it but there is still one sentence which is still the same. The reviewer is new to GAN and it would be great to have another pair of eyes to check everything is within the rules.— Rod talk 19:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • What has OTRS got to do with it? Has anyone complained about copyvios on this page? I never get involved with good article review but at a cursory glance it looks OK. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought that was now the system wikipedia uses to handle copyright permissions for text etc - ignore it if not. No one has complained I'm just trying to make sure we are doing everything correctly.— Rod talk 20:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox island

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I deleted this to make way for the page move, but had to revert myself after I could not fix all the redirects, see here. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't understand. What redirects are you talking about?. Your WhatLinksHere link shows the 40 or so articles which would benefit of your proposed move. What do you propose to do about the 4000 or so pages that use template:infobox islands and will have to access the template via a redirect if your proposed move is done? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I assume

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

…that my being notified about the following matter was a mistake? See [1], which appeared in my notifications. If I have mis-checked something to bring such to my attention, please let me know and correct. If you have some clever mechanism as an admin to call things unnecessary items to my attention, please, desist. Thank you in either case, in advance, for your courtesy. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Definition of a Practice Manager

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, You deleted an article I wrote on the definition of a Practice Manager from my sandbox. My assistant and I were trying to find out what additional references were needed for this article to qualify for notability. Could you please return this article to the sandbox and advise me what is needed for it to be accepted? thank you.AM10001 (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • It is not just a matter of refs, it is one of copyvio. What is required is for someone with no COI to write the article from scratch in their own words. Text emailed. Why had you duplicated it? And please note that <br/> is not usually needed in articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Global account problem

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A few days ago, I requested to change my username from 'FSCEM45212' to 'Asadwarraich'. Username was changed but I have a problem. My account with new username 'Asadwarraich' does not work anywhere else except English Wikipedia; it is active on only English Wikipedia. Why does this happen? Do I have to request to change my username on other Wikimedia projects? --Asadwarraich (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Try WP:VPT.--Launchballer 11:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

BlueMountain.com

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Dear Sir

I am very surprised to learn that you have deleted my page about "Elsa Cladera de Bravo". I most surely consider her efforts worth mentioning on Wikipedia. Please inform me about all necessary details that have to be taken into consideration in order to allow her a page on Wikipedia.

Yours sincerely

Nadezhda Bravo Cladera

Nadezhda Bravo Cladera (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Activate Learning

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

preference is not the issue; policy is

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Project Hydra

Hi

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

I am actually the webmaster of projecthydra.org (as well as a founder member of the project) and wrote a great deal of the site content. Under these circumstances, I wonder if you would be prepared to return me a full copy of the text and possibly also indicate how, given that the website is CC-BY-SA, I might avoid the copyright challenge. Wikipedia's CV page seems to suggest that it should be possible?

Richard Green (r.green@hull.ac.uk) 12:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardatthenook (talk • contribs)

Draft talk:Climate Summit 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can I ask why you removed the speedy tag from Draft talk:Climate Summit 2014? It was created as the result of an unauthorized user accepting an AfC submission, which then had to be unacccepted. When someone re-accepts it, the script will automatically create a new one, with the right information in the WikiProject AfC box (etc.), and I'm worried that it might get confused if there's one already there. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/2014_May_22&oldid=1172210254"