User talk:RHaworth/2014 Sep 04

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

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.]

Restoring NewsWatch from my Sandbox

Hi - NewsWatch was originally deleted because it did not have references. I have added references and updated the article. Can you please restore it? Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. Thank you. - Coocat86 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coocat86 (talk • contribs)

• NewsWatch has no deleted edits so what on earth do you want me to do? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The NewsWatch I am referring to is the one in my sandbox. It was deleted in November 2013 for no references and then put into my sandbox, and now the references have been added and new updates about the television show have been added. I believe this is the exact link to the page I am referring to user:Coocat86/sandbox. If this is not the correct path to get the article published can you please let me know how to? Thank you! Coocat86 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coocat86 (talk • contribs)

• To suggest that your article should be published at NewsWatch indicates a very selfish attitude - apparently you think that the numerous other entities that use this name all count for nothing. NewsWatch TV, the title from which I moved it seems suitable. I am certainly not going to move it because I am not satisfied that you have established notability. But what is stopping you doing the move yourself (it lurks under a "More" tab at the top of the page)? Make sure you do move it and not do a copy&paste. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Bad idea

Can you please explain to me why you deleted the No Bad Ideas Clothing Company Wiki page? Thank you. andy moss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.221.32 (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• No heading, no link, no signature and an IP address - I don't need to answer. Curious co-incidence - I have recently chucked out an advert by Original Chuck - another American hatter. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Modification of User Page

I insist you cite a Wikipedia policy that justifies your deletion of content from my use page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Try WP:U5 and NOR for starters. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Stellardrone

The original modification of Stellardrone article gave me 7 days, if I read correctly, to justify the page was worthy of staying on Wikipedia. What is the value in deleting the page only 3 days into that 7 day period? Why should there be less time when the creator argues that the page is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• True, Reddogsix (talk · contribs) initially applied a prod but then changed his mind, as he is fully entitled to do, and applied a speedy tag. This was possibly as a result of the weakness of your arguments on the talk page. Perhaps you should change your view that this band is sufficiently noteworthy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary changing of minds leads to the perception of unfairness, often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs)

I have done a preliminary reading of the notability guidelines and I don't fully understand them. Popularity is mentioned as not being sufficient or even necessary. It seems there's a correlation between popularity and notability. Second, my current interpretation of notability for a band would be some level of popularity, combined with several citations from a 3rd party source that somehow indicates notability, combined with a reasonable amount of text describe this band. Would that be sufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) 20:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The general notability guideline states that a topic must have been discussed (in great depth; no trivial mentions) in multiple, reliable sources (i.e., no tabloids, blogs or wikis) that are independent of the source. For musicians, one can simply meet one of the criteria listed at WP:MUSICBIO.--Launchballer 20:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a really good answer, Launchballer. :) I appreciate it. I think that should be sufficient for to ensure any future articles I try to add to Wikipedia will meet the notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs)

• Keep reading the guidelines. As far as Stellardrone goes, deletion was simple: total absence of assertion of notability and independent references. Please learn to develop articles in a sandbox until they are viable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Refusal to Cite Wikipedia Policy

Why do you refuse to cite Wikipedia policy that is allows you to modify my user page. You shared the single word 'freeloading'. Is this a reference to a Wikipedia policy (if so why don't you provide the link)? Is this how it makes you feel? Communication is necessary for a community of sentient beings with differing viewpoints to cooperate and collaborate. I did a Google search for 'freeloading + Wikipedia' and it doesn't return any results for a possible policy you're referencing.

I currently feel you modified my page because you do not like the topic concerning scientific investigation of pedophilia. I feel this is censorship and it bothers me significantly.

If you are an administrator, than be a leader of the community. Communicate to me why you have made this decision and how it is consistent with the policy of the community. We are both responsible for ensuring this doesn't turn into an ego war, as that is not productive for the community. Unfortunately, I predict you will never respond to this, and that's a horrible way to treat a human being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Stop waffling and read my reply to your previous message. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what previous message you're referencing. 1 - " freeloading", 2 - "Wikpedia is not for essays. " 3 - "this is not the place to publish your essays". These are the messages I have from you on this topic. Is the message you're referencing in this set of three messages? Why do you say waffling? I don't feel I have waffled on anything. Why are you emotionally escalating the situation when you're an administrator? Leaders should de-escalate situations, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Administrators are janitors, not leaders. Also, most Western leaders escalate situations as far and as rapidly as possible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• The only person doing any escalation is you. I simply felt battered by a barrage of messages arriving faster than I could answer them. You left a message at Modification of User Page above. I replied to it with what I claim is an adequate citation of policy. You obviously did not read the reply or you would not have written the "why did you refuse" message above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is true I contributed to the escalation, and so did you. I agree I sent many messages, and I can see how you might feel battered. I got really frustrated at what I perceive to be arbitrary censorship. (Offers a flower of peace) —JaysonSunshine (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• And my flower of peace is to apologise for not pointing you to not web host. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Censorship

Extended content

Violation of Wikipedia User Page Policy: Censorship. It seems ironic that I should be sharing this with you, rather than vice versa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages "if desired, limited autobiographical and personal content" - This indicates your position may be correct, though limited is open to interpretation. "Users believed to be in violation of these policies should first be advised on their talk page using Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively you may add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thank you. when immediate action is not otherwise necessary." - Why didn't you advise me on my talk page before modifying my user page? RHaworth: "Besides communication, other legitimate uses of user space include (but are not limited to):" "Personal writings suitable within the Wikipedia community Non-article Wikipedia material such as reasonable Wikipedia humor, essays and perspectives, personal philosophy, comments on Wikipedia matters" You have violated Wikipedia policy. I demand you immediately, or another administrator, revert the changes on my user page. It appears you have modified my page because you don't support scientific study of pedophilia. This is your legal and ethical right. It is not your right to censor others here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) I am getting endless edit conflicts. I shall reply when this page has been silent for at least an hour. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Hi, RHaworth. That is reasonable. I don't know if there's a better way to have these sorts of communications. I'm interested in learning about that. Also, one hour will be useful to allow a calming of the situation. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC) How long is it going to be before you learn to sign talk page messages? Please reply. If you think my actions have been heavy-handed, you may raise the matter at ANI. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC) How long is it going to be before you cite Wikipedia policy. JaysonSunshine (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC) You literally have a picture on your user page about how you boast about "growling" at new users more than you should https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RHaworth#mediaviewer/File:Charlie_210.jpg. You seem to be literally idolizing the mistreatment of new users on Wikipedia, which I would say is consistent with your behavior in this encounter with me. This seem to be the opposite attitude of an administrator. It's fairly evident you're never going to respond as an administrator. I accept this position. I no longer recognize you as an administrator and I shall have no further contact with you. I already escalated the issue to the general contact for Wikipedia, with citations of your violation several Wikipedia policies. I learned to sign my pages, maybe one day you'll learn how to cite and follow Wikipedia policies. Good luck. JaysonSunshine (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC) He cited two above. Whether he follows them perfectly or not, I guess varies from case to case. It's good that you are now pursuing your disagreement via email, as that seemed more appropriate from what I've seen. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I give up! Have you seen my message at Modification of User Page above? Why do you not consider that a citation of Wikipedia policy? Please reply to both questions. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I feel the Stellardrone issue is resolved reasonably well. I am talking about your deletion of content of my user page.JaysonSunshine (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I asked two questions. Please reply to them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Are you claiming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR applies to user pages? There is not a single mention to the word user in that page. It uses the word 'article' which I interpret to be the primary content pages at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaysonSunshine (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC) For, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:U5#U5, we have "Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of userspace, with the exception of plausible drafts, pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?, and résumé-style pages." Do you claim I have "made few or no edits outside of namespace". I have ~92 edits since 2009. JaysonSunshine (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC) In a similar period of time, I have made 100 times more edits to mainspace than you have, so yes, it would be reasonable to consider about 90 edits in about four years to be "few". I'm also not an especially prolific editor. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I am interested in a better metric, but here's a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics. 732,500,848 total edits, 22,299,072 users, giving an average number of edits per user at 32.8. If you can find a superior metric, I will use it, but I feel this metric is superior to your proposed metric (how many edits you've done and your awareness of other editors), as it is not quantified.JaysonSunshine (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Another possibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_frequency. Of those users in 2008 that had at least one edit, 2021613 users, only 72119 had more than 100 edits, or 3.6%. Therefore, I will conclude 92 edits is much more than a few, and the policy does not apply.JaysonSunshine (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC) It seems you've found a conclusion you like. Carry on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC) The idea is that the debate goes back and forth until a conclusion is reached. Each side offers evidence for their position. Using the same tone as your post, it appears you've run out of content and surrendered the debate. I accept.JaysonSunshine (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC) You appear to have misunderstood the terms of the debate. But that's fine, because you've escalated the issue elsewhere, so it will be dealt with in that venue. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC) R: I removed content from your page. J: This action was invalid. R: It was valid for reasons A and B. J: Reason B does not apply. D: Reason B does apply. J: Here are two reasons your argument for B applying are invalid. D: You already made up your mind. You misunderstood the terms of the debate.JaysonSunshine (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC) JaysonSunshine has been indefinitely blocked from editing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Statistical Reasoning, Thinking, and Literacy

On my userspace is a new draft of The International Research Forums on Statistical Reasoning, Thinking, and Literacy, which you deleted under WP:A7. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on whether the revised draft passes those criteria now. Statisfactions (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Do the words "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" suggest anything to you? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club

Hey! By any chance, could you email me a copy of the code for the Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club article before it was deleted? I can be reached at <redacted>. Thanks in advance! -- DrWho42 (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• It is a very bad idea to publish email addresses on Wikipedia - that is why we provide an "email this user" facility. Also, with that facility you can rely on the format being preserved. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Something to fuel that G12 button I keep making you exercise. :) Reventtalk 11:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Actually, G13 seems to be my main activity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Pilot Season (film)

Hi. Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot Season (film). If you have a moment, please could you add it to the hoax page, per the admin instructions. I've added the text and notes to the table on the page already. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Please provide links when you talk about articles. I think you were trying to ask me to restore the article. I really disapprove - the restriction for listing short lived hoaxes to those "covered in independent third-party sources" should be extended to any time limit. It is unremarkable that an orphan, uncategorised article should remain unnoticed for three years. Reluctantly restored. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

IP posting / Pusheen

The suggestion the signature was fraudulent is ludicrous. As it was *accurate*, it was arguably less fraudulent than the highly stylized signatures which (non-maliciously) obfuscate the username. ~~~~ does not produce "User:"; no user with any experience on the site would mistake what I did for the result of ~~~~. I will continue to do exactly as I did, if and when I post as an IP, whenever and for whatever reason I feel it preferable not to log in (like not having LastPass open at a public terminal) . People are entirely welcome to doubt whether or not it was my post until such a time as I log in and put the matter to rest. As long as I'm prepared for that, it's my business how I identify myself. - BalthCat (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In this situation, I would:

• Add <onlyinclude>(your signature) ([[(where you explain yourself)|logged out]])</onlyinclude> to any part of your userpage. (The only reason I can't do that is because I transclude something else on it.) If this sends this over 255 characters - which it doesn't as yours is the default signature - then so be it, because no reasonably thinking admin will complain.
• When logged out, use {{subst:User:BalthCat}} ~~~~~. This will make it clear to any user what the situation is.

But, as you say, it's your business.--Launchballer 19:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Stellar (payment protocol)

Please could you undelete Stellar (payment protocol). After the deletion notification was added to it I added info as to why it is notable. So please could you undelete it. — Jzlcdh (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• You did not add info - you added an empty statement which should have been on the talk page anyway. The only thing that will move us is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources and I am rather dubious as to whether you will be able to provide any. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] — Jzlcdh (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Stellar is not its own protocol, it is an instance of the Ripple payment protocol, albeit with a couple of extensions like inflation. The network needed a new name, like Stellar, when they forked the Ripple codebase due to trademark and branding reasons, but aside from a few minor extensions, it is still the Ripple payment protocol (RTXP).

When Microsoft and Netscape added their own extensions to HTML, they did not rename the spec from HTML to something company specific. Instead, people just referred to the result as HTML with either Netscape or Microsoft extensions. The same idea applies here. 69.94.201.250 (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are right technically it is very similar to ripple. However, as you probably know, their business models are very different. Therefore I believe it should have it's own article in the same way that Litecoin has its own article. If you agree what do you suggest the title of the article should be? Jzlcdh (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• What is wrong with Stellar (payment protocol) for the title? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ripple and Stellar aren't just similiar, at a server and protocol level they are nearly identical since stellard is a very recent fork of rippled 0.25.1. (See links at end of this comment)

I don't necessarily take issue with Stellar having a Wikipedia entry, I take issue with naming the Wikipedia entry "Stellar (payment protocol)." A more accurate description would be "Stellar is a payment network based on the Ripple protocol." In this instance, "Steller" is just a trademark/branding name for a system using the Ripple protocol (RTXP) with some extensions. The Stellar Foundation did not invent an entirely new protocol, they just added some transaction types to the Ripple protocol. Stellar_(value_network) seems to fit well.

This is all provided that Stellar sticks around and becomes used enough to deserve more than a section within the main Ripple (payment protocol) entry as an attempted fork. Litecoin has been around a long time, Stellar is a very recent fork.

Open Source code gets forked all the time, and renaming the project is a part of that. However, renaming the protocol used by the project isn't. A Stellar Wikipedia entry should certainly talk about the distinct qualities of Stellar as a Foundation and payment network, but when it gets to the description of the payment protocol, it should detail the extensions it added to the Ripple protocol and then reference the main article on the Ripple (payment protocol). Not only does that article describe the underlying mechanics of the protocol, but it gives the history of the development of the systems back to the original 2004 Ryan Fugger whitepaper. Being the same base protocol, there would be tremendous overlap by describing the Ripple protocol again within the Stellar page.

Some history and context for you:

* The commit where a Ripple Labs employee changed the version from rippled 0.24.0 to rippled 0.25.1. Before this, most committers are Ripple Labs employees; after this, most committers are Stellar Foundation employees.[5]

* Master branch of rippled merged back into stellard.[6]

* An instance of Find/Replace of Ripple references for Stellar references.[7] 69.94.201.250 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Since I made the previous naming suggestion, it came to my attention that there is a discussion happening on the Ripple_(payment_protocol)'s talk page about splitting that page into separate pages for the Transmission Protocol, the Payment & Exchange Network and for Ripple Labs. In light of that discussion, I would support moving the Stellar RTXP extensions into the proposed Ripple Transmission Protocol page and creating parallel pages for the Stellar Payment & Exchange Protocol as well as the Stellar Development Foundation. Provided that the latter two meet the notability guidelines (I'm not going to judge that).

Please stop by that talk page and join the discussion. Since Stellar and Ripple are nearly identical twins, it would be nice to get the naming and structure consistent. 69.94.201.250 (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Abuja Declaration (1989)

Abuja Declaration (1989). hi, kindly assist with access to the deleted post with link stated above. I am also curious as of why the post was deleted; if any requests were made for such. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonyc2003 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Since you know I deleted it, you have also seen, but clearly not read, in the log entry the reason for deletion. I am happy to let you see the text - read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

WT:CSD discussion

A discussion at WT:CSD#A1 clarification requested mentions to your deletion of Latvijas Dzelzceļa kauss. —teb728 t c 05:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Llanrhydd Rural

Following deletion of this page, I received this from the co–ordinator of the Ruthin area web presence team: "Robin has now received an open content agreement from DCC and has notified Wiki accordingly." Sorry I can't remember Robin's surname, but he is Welsh and employed by Wikipedia in some capacity, with a responsibility for content in Wales. [edit: found it Robin Owain <[redacted]>] Is it possible that this page can now be reinstated? I have more villages to add, but the data source will be the same, so there is little point by adding the content, if someone is then going to remove it. Talkinghorse (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkinghorse (talk • contribs) 13:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• It is a very bad idea to publish email addresses on Wikipedia. What you should have provided were links to his bio and his user page. Please read what I think of people who copy a website and think they have created a Wikipedia article. Llanrhydd Rural was an example of what happens when people do that - a totally unbalanced article - too much about the church, even a contact phone for visiting! and nothing about the village. It contained a very cheeky claim that the source page was licensed under the GFDL when it is nothing of the sort. By all means use small extracts from properly licensed sites but in general Wikipedia articles should use text specifically written for Wikipedia. The non-copyvio stuff restored to User:Talkinghorse/sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Brandywine Roller Girls

Hi there. I see that in July of last year an article on the Brandywine Roller Girls roller derby league was deleted by you with an A7. I'm interested in recreating the article, and while I don't expect you to recall the details after all this time, I wonder if you have access to the deleted article so that I may see what went wrong with it last time and use it as a basis for recreating it properly? Thanks! Echoedmyron (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Entire content of the article emailed. Enjoy! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Got it. Wow, no wonder it got deleted. It's one whole sentence and an infobox! Thanks. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Re Activate of Only Kashmir

Dear RHaworth I would like to request your good-self to reactivate the Only Kashmir Page on esteemed Wikipidia Site, sine Only Kashmir is one of the prominent News Portal of Jammu and Kashmir. So it deserves to be on Wikipedia. There fore your good self is requested to kindly maintain the decorum of Wikipidia by placeing the Only Kashmir page. there are also some pages on wikipidia of same catogarry which even does deserve to be on Internet. I hope my requested will be taken highly on the humanitarian grounds. Thanks and Regards Ajaz Ahmad War President JKYJA Bilal Wiki New (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope my requested will be taken highly on the humanitarian grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal Wiki New (talk • contribs)

Um, no. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. I have redeleted the page as a copyright violation of http://onlykashmir.in/about-us/ , which makes it spam as well. If you continue passing off "about us" pages as encyclopedia articles, you will be blocked. MER-C 10:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Humanitarian grounds indeed! What might those be? To provide in some strange way support for the starving young journalists of Jammu and Kashmir? Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your website is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

POET Technologies

Hello, I see that you have deleted the POET Technologies page? I was actually hoping to learn more about it and came to Wiki to find that it had recently been deleted by you? I actually follow the link from Ajit Manocha's Wiki page after finding that he had recently become Executive Vice Chairmen of the company. From what I understand the significance of the POET Technologies process is that it is likely going to be a huge leap in technology stepping in where silicon is now finding itself becoming stagnant. I have been researching it for a few weeks new and I saw that the Lead Scientist presented the topic at the Empire Club of Canada a very prestigious forum, one I am sure have herd of. Maybe you can put the page back up and have it edited to indicate the importance and significance?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanBaldwin (talk • contribs) 15:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I received your email response and when I replied I was told to use this method rather then email by an auto response from your account. Copy of Email response from me: I see. Well then, I do now understand why the page was removed and fault you not for doing so, in fact good job! Thank you. Would you be willing to un-delete that poorly presented page so that I and maybe a few others can take the time to properly populate it with factual information pertaining to this new technology? Thank you for taking the time to address this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanBaldwin (talk • contribs) 15:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Why on earth do I need to restore it? Simply create a new article - preferably starting in a user sandbox or the draft: namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Re List of Mega64 episodes (season 2)

What happened here? It looks like you deleted this article out of hand, which a good case could be made that it's utter cruft, but on the other hand 1) there was a discussion about these episodes in 2007 and the decision was to keep this stuff in some form, plus 2) now we have a non-parallel situation as described here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mega64 episodes (season 1). I don't think List of Mega64 episodes (season 2) was a particularly useful article but under what aegis was it deleted? — Herostratus (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• You can see the deletion log entry. If you want to pin it to one of the standard deletion reasons, {{db-spam}} will do as well as any. Text emailed. If you restore, I am sure you will agree with me that it should be a savagely reduced version. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No I don't want it restored, and I do agree it's cruft, just trying to figure out what went down. Should not have been speedied IMO but not a useful article so not quibbling. It's just that we have two matching articles and figuring out what to do with those. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

New user

Hi RHaworth, I'm a new user and i really appreciate you blocking users. You can leave a note on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelby Countess (talk • contribs) 22:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Tugmcgraw.jpg

Will you please restore this image and allow me to fix the fair use rationale? It wasn't too fair it was deleted so quickly. I received the speedy notice last night while asleep and you deleted it was I still asleep. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 13:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• The speedy tag of {{badfairuse|reason=AP photo}} was applied by Redsky89 (talk · contribs). If you can persuade Redsky89 that badfairuse does not apply in this case, then I will restore it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Redsky89: What say you? I don't believe it is a bad fair use as the subject is deceased and a free-use photo is unlikely. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 17:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

its not that its a bad photo it just that we're not aloud to use photos from the Associated Press. which is stated here under the guidelines, that's why it was deleted so quickly. the editor wouldn't have deleted it for any other reason. Redsky89 (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• The guy died in 2004. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that hundreds of other photos of him exist and probably at higher resolution than the thumbnail you were submitting. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Latvijas Dzelzceļa kauss

You deleted an earlier version of this; please see discussion initiated by another editor at WT:CSD#A1 clarification requested DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the trout. I didn't mean to embarrass you, but User:Wikicology insisted my interpretation of A1 was wrong. —teb728 t c 07:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

DGG: He did, three days ago - see this.--Launchballer 07:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What I do not see yet is a response. RH, your comment would be welcome. In particular, it is not clear whether this is an isolated error or a difference in interpretation. I know I've at very rare intervals made some really weird errors, and I think this is true of all or almost all really active editors. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Paperpile

You deleted the Paperpile page despite an ongoing dispute. Can you explain what made you decide not to let the dispute run its course. Can you also explain how the article cannot be reworded so that it is as compliant with G11 and A7 as other reference manager product pages, of which there are many on Wikipedia (Category:Reference management software), and which seem not to be deemed promotional even though inadvertently they of course are. Is it OK for me now to go ahead and tag all of these pages with speedy deletion? --Drycafe (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• What is your relationship to Ppgardne (talk · contribs)? The multiple comments on the talk page had a distinct smell of sock puppetry. How would I have been able to determine that the dispute had run its course? No changes had been made to the article. But feel free to raise the matter at Deletion Review. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no relationship to Ppgardne (talk · contribs), other than that I work in a field (Bioinformatics) related to the one he seems to work in. Re: determing status of the dispute, at least in my dispute comment, I had raised a couple of questions, similar to the ones above, which, to my knowledge (because by the time I got up again the Talk page was gone) remained unanswered. Unless the questions are deemed illegitimate or irrelevant, which, if the case, someone should state, and unless they aren't repeats of already discussed questions, which they weren't, doesn't that indicate a discourse in progress? -- Drycafe (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Keranique didn't stay deleted for long

Plenty more salt is ready... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like some salt may be necessary here. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Deli Amsterdam

Hi RHaworth, Please let me know what more I can do to make my page more suitable for Wiki! The content is : website. I have one added notable source that is a news publication here in the Nederlands but I don't know how to link it as it is not online. I have a photocopy of it though. Is the gaining of notoriety as simple as also linking to this source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsterfiend (talk • contribs) 13:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

how do you expect RHaworth (talk · contribs) to read the article without a wikilink to the article? And always remember to sign your contributions. Wikicology (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since it exists, you may continue to work on draft:Deli Amsterdam but I hope it gets rejected as spam. Thereafter, kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your website is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Amsterfiend: what you must do here on Wikipedia is not to gain notoriety for a topic or subject, but to establish the notability of the topic or subject by what you write in the proposed article about it. WP:42. And no, citing a single newspaper that discusses the subject would not suffice, because notability requires multiple independent sources to discuss the subject in detail. And yes, a news publication that is offline is totally OK as a source, I suggest you read WP:REFB to learn how to cite it. You do not need to upload it anywhere (although on a very very few occasions I have requested such a thing from others.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyvios

Sorry if I was 'bugging you' in suggesting that they contact you, since you were the deleter. TLSuda actually suggested in IRC that getting them the content just mailed so they can recreate the page without the copyvio would be easier. Anyhow, was trying to be 'polite' and not actually say what you said on the wiki instead of IRC (since it's harder to give a not-mean tone to it) but I fully approve the sentiment.

I should just start saving copies of all these G-12 pages, given the amount of talk page traffic they are getting me all of a sudden, but meh. FYI, I'm trying to actually scan the majority of the huge AfC backlog, since it seems like about 10-15% are copyvios.

Anyhow, it was funny. Revent^talk 14:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• You were not bugging me at all. And why on earth do you feel any need to be polite to spammers? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Some of us take the view that we should (try to) be polite to everyone; while of course also pointing them - still politely! - towards the door in a few necessary cases. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I consider that I am invariably polite on talk pages. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

SWEDESD

Hi RHaworth, How do I go about editing this article? SWEDESD, the Swedish International Centre of Education for Sustainable Development, Visby — Viktorvisby (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Viktor

• You probably have a COI so, preferably, you do not edit the article. But if you insist, then you edit the article in the same way as any other article: write encyclopedic content in your own words and provide decent references. The title should be Swedish International Centre of Education for Sustainable Development with a redirect at SWEDESD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Albert Pyun

Another Albert Pyun promotional item tagged for speedy deletion. The Interrogation of Cheryl Cooper. See talk page. Thanks for you help. Readyforanderson (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Readyforanderson

• If speedy tags are getting removed, raise the AfD yourself - don't leave it to me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Philip Trevino

Hello, I'm wondering about the deletion of Draft:Philip Trevino and how to avoid it. The information provided was biographical and factual beyond what was listed and well cited, so how would it be copyright infringement of this? Because of the sentence format being to similar? Simply removing sentence structure and providing a list of accomplishments would suffice? The information is an artists bio that is common to playbills as well. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.96.107.57 (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• There was a big enough proportion of the article which was word-for-word copy to justify speedy deletion. For further advice, get yourself an account. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Mbunda

Hi RH. You had an issue with the Mbunda article in its early days. I too have issues with it from verification, sources, original research etc. perspectives. But more importantly, it turns out that the editor is actually speaking on behalf on an organisation representing the Mbunda people and the content being injected into numerous articles is generated by said organisation. I have opened a COI entry here and thought you might have an opinion on the matter. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Both you and Ndandulalibingi (talk · contribs) are rather long winded. If you can put up a good case for blocking, I will willingly do so. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for being long-winded, I was trying to be comprehensive and show that there is enough evidence. Your guidance would be welcome. Can you point me to an example of "a good case"? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• And my apologies: I have not been studying the background closely enough to be able to contribute to the CoI Noticeboard discussion and I am not sure how you could escalate the matter except possibly at ANI. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Restoring Draft:Hallsville, North Carolina

Hello. You recently flagged my article Hallsville, North Carolina for an "ambiguous copyright violation" and it was deleted before I could make changes and resubmit it. I spent a deal of time writing the said article and was unaware that this would occur. The source provided as evidence for the copyright violation contained information that was public domain, so I do not think that there was in actuality a copyright violation. However, if you could restore the draft for me to edit, I will be happy to rephrase the information in a manner that does not raise any red flags. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc.bratcher (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• It was UNambiguous copyright violation. It is not a matter of information being in the public domain; it is a matter of the text which is copyrightable. I am happy to email you the text - read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hilco Global

Hello, You recently reviewed and flagged my page, Draft:Hilco Global for deletion due to copyright infringement. I would like to appeal this ruling since the information flagged as copyrighted is from the Hilco Global Website and as a party related to Hilco Global i give permission to use this information. If this is still a problem then could you please give me some information for how to fix this issue? do i just need to re-write it in my own words? I have been trying to get this article published with little success and little guidance or help for several months now. I look forward to your response. Thank you. also, i would like to get my content back so that i can amend it to an acceptable and appropriate version. — BenHilco (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) BenHilco

• I did not flag the page for deletion. When your company becomes notable, someone with no COI will write about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Honey Do Service, Inc.

Hi Grumpy Old Man, My draft Draft:The Honey Do Service, Inc. was recently deleted due to copyright violations. I've run the article through a duplicate content search and changed the things which violated copyright. I saw the message "If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below." I'd like to resubmit the article and would like to know the next step. — Honeydoservice (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• The next steps are clear: walk away from Wikipedia and stay away. When your service becomes notable, someone with no COI will write about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion User:Jvlarion

I cant revert back my User page it is suppose to be a User page of mine not an article so please revert back it as a User page not totally delete it. The system cant revert it back so my page is totally lost? I hope you can revert it as User page thank you very much admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvlarion (talk • contribs) 06:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please dont totally delete my User page Engr. Joelar V. Larion. Just revert it as my User Page. It is suppose to be a User page of mine, Im trying to revert it using the revision history but the system fail, i guest only you admin can do the revert my page only as a User page. Thank you Larion 07:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvlarion (talk • contribs)

Had it been a straight WP:A7 more generosity would have been given, but it also falls foul of WP:G11, which means it also would have been deleted if it had been your user page. Please learn: to sign your posts with --~~~~; wikilinks; to wait until someone with no COI deems you notable and writes about you here.--Launchballer 07:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

But why totally delete it? its been up for 2 years ago but why only now? its too harsh, give me a change to improve it but now how can i retrieve the deleted page of mine? -- Larion 08:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvlarion (talk • contribs)

Have you read my page? its been up for almost 2 year, there is a time that i move it in folder wikipedia and some of the admin just move it where it belongs in my User page not deleting it. you can view the revision history of it. My page is too important not only for me I hope you understand thank you. -- Larion 08:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvlarion (talk • contribs)

• Yes, I have read your page. It is pure social networking. Obviously it has no place in the (article) namespace and it has no place in the user: namespace either because you are not a Wikipedia editor and in two years you have made it obvious that you have no intention of becoming one. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to become a wikipedia editor, And I want to start in my own User page, so my concern is how can i retrieved my User page to start. Please don't judge my intentions of becoming one its unfair. Those social networking you probably you saw is just a link that I thought okay if it is not, I can delete that and anything against the rule. But how can I retrieve my User Page? I've created it with hard work and full of dedications so please dont just delete it just because of some rules, I learning my lesson here so please give me another chance, please revert back my User page. Thank you very much sorry for all inconvenience that I brought :) -- Larion 10:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvlarion (talk • contribs)

• First prove that you don't just want to become a Wikipedia editor, prove that you are one. Do at least fifty useful edits and then come back to me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said before I do some revert but the system itself cant retrieved my User page. I can do that contribution if that is what you require to be one. But I need a honest answer is my User Page can still be retrieved? you will be held liable for all my hard work after doing what you required then at the end my User page cant be retrieved, my heart will be pierced with eternal agony if my User page cant be retrieved. I hope you understand. --Larion 11:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvlarion (talk • contribs)

• "Eternal agony" indeed! I can let you have the text immediately if you promise to post it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Indeed even if you became a proper editor, your page would still be unsuitable because it is too much about you and not enough about what you do on Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much mate that will do, I will not post that page here. You can send the text in my email I already checked the Enable email from other users, Thank you very much I really appreciate it. --Larion 14:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvlarion (talk • contribs)

• Emailed on the strict understanding that it will not re-appear on Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sydney Finkelstein

Hello Roger,

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Sydney_Finkelstein&action=edit&redlink=1

Thanks for taking time to review my submission.

I would like to clarify that Sydney Finkelstein, the subject of this listing, is the same Sydney Finkelstein who maintains http://faculty.tuck.dartmouth.edu/sydney-finkelstein/about-sydney-finkelstein/ and the social media sites linked to this entry. He is a well-known teacher, researcher and speaker. I hope this clarifies the copyright issue. Please let me know if it is possible to edit and publish this page. Thanks. Imainfp (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft:The Trouble with Barry

Draft:The Trouble with Barry (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2400473/combined). Hi there, My article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Trouble_with_Barry&action=edit&redlink=1) was deleted for copyright infringement (I think) because I copied and pasted the same plot synopsis I posted on IMDB into the "plot" section of the article. Would it be possible for me to submit a new article on the same subject with an originally drafted plot synopsis that I come up with on the spot, that isn't featured anywhere else? Thank you. Mike Justice (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)