User talk:RHaworth/2012 Oct 30

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

October 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed speedy deletion tags from a handful of pages. If you believe the pages should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• a) Be specific: about which page are you talking? b) Since when has it been an offence to remove a speedy tag applied by someone else? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I forget what pages they were - but they've been deleted now. Regardless of who created the article, it's an offence to remove a speedy deletion tag unless it objectively doesn't meet any criterion for speedy deletion. But the pages in question were a set of almost identical pages that contained nothing but garbage. Containing nothing but garbage (and having no past good version to revert to) is clearly a CSD, so to untag it is inappropriate behaviour. — Smjg (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Hello. You deleted a new page called Skapoula which I started and was developing. I would like to know the reasons why, and how I can further develop it and re-create it in a way that will avoid speedy deletion. I have been developing pages on Cyprus' alternative political organisations for some time now on Wikipedia (Occupy Buffer Zone, ELAM (Cyprus)). Thank you for your time. --Tco03displays (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Help please

Hi, I have been editing Wikipedia with my current account for only a short time but in the course of my New Page reviewing I came across a highly opinionated, stylistically unacceptable, and wholly useless article called The New U.S. Industrial Revolution. The user who made it (Redsully01) is brand new and, like a lot of the newbies I encounter at Special:NewPages, does not seem to have a firm grasp of Wikipedia's style, the NPOV, or reality in general, and he seems to think that deleting the Speedy Deletion tag from the page removes his article from deletion review. No admins have gotten around to responding to my speedy delete tag, so I was wondering if you could review the article and hopefully delete it, and I also wanted to suggest giving "James Sullivan" a one day or three day block to give him some time to learn how Wikipedia works or at least to discourage him from using Wikipedia as a soapbox from which to espouse his views. It's up to you, you're the admin. -- SlimJimJones (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• OK, it did take longer to delete than it should have done. Redsully01 has probably got the message but keep watching. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Scottshepherd/sandbox deletion

I created User:Scottshepherd/sandbox (my first ever page) on the chairman of the company I work for as, having searched him out of interest I found his name appeared in several articles (most of which I reciprocally linked to) but did not have a page of his own.

As can be seen from the list of accolades and awards he is one of Scotland's best known hoteliers and as with all who are top of their field deserve a place on Wiki for anyone interested in that field to research. As all but one of the companies mentioned in the article are no longer his (most strictly speaking would be competitors) I fail to see any personal advertising benefits resulting from the article and the fact that i have mentioned all of his career acheivments keeps the article completely objective.

As far as you citing self promotion - by definition any encyclopaedic article on a person alive or dead must list their acheivements or one would argue that they are not worthy of an article. Are you suggesting we all delete all articles on sucessful sportsmen and women as their achievments will make up the vast majority of their entry? Personal promotion or fact? Please explain how the article i created on Ken Mcculloch differs in any way from this article on Robert Barclay Cook a former employee of Ken's (who is mentioned within the article) which also promotes Cooks's accolades and the companies he has worked for.

Admittedly as this was my first article it may have been a little rough around the edges but for you to mark for speedy deletion without any helpful comments, second opinions or perhaps editing to meet your own satisfaction seems to be against the "community spirit" of Wikipedia and more akin to a dictatorship. Yours in anticipation of some helpful feedback . — Scottshepherd (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• I did not mark the article for speedy deletion - that was someone else. "Dictatorship" is the wrong word - cabal might be more appropriate.

The unencyclopedic language of your first paragraph was sufficient to trigger the spam sensors of the tagger and myself. We would very much prefer it if you were to wait until someone with no COI thinks the guy is notable and writes about him here. If you must try again, my advice is actually read some existing bios and emulate them: language, layout style (no initial heading, less bold) and above all references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy...

He doesn't seem to have had a go at me yet - his other article was pure spam too (referring to above). Reason for being here: I think User talk:Prof moliterno is a better place to talk about UMass Dining - JMatthews wasn't supposed to have posted in article space and doesn't seem to really take things in yet. The Prof does listen, so far as I can see. I agree about UMass, by the way. Unless there's much more to it than I've seen up to now. Assignments seem to be given via the Prof's sandbox. I'll try to keep an eye on things if I can, but two admins on the job would be better. Peridon (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

David R. Darrow

I removed the Prod from the article as I had already added a Prod. The Prod was removed by the author of the article. The subject of the article and the editor of the article are the same person. I have a feeling an AfD will be in order. The editor left a message after the Prod on his talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs

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

Neofuturisme (literature)

Could you explain me, please, where is the problem with this article. Thanks you. e-mail: zsfmraovic@yahoo.fr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.112.222 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't talk to IP addresses even if they provide an e-mail address and any case there has never been an article called Neofuturisme (literature). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted categories

I just noticed you deleted some "empty" categories earlier today regarding Wikipedia books in X where X = some US states. You might have noticed that they were from about M on. That's because I was in the process of populating them. Rather than create 1 at a time it was easier to create them all and then populate them so deleting them essentially is just a waste of time because now I have to go and recreate them again. Which I will do in the next day or so. I mentioned this to the editor who submitted them but they just ignored me. Kumioko (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you undelete these categories please? I started to recreate them and it occurs to me I shouldn't since they were deleted by an admin. They should be restored not recreated. Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is far better if you re-create them. If I create one while it is empty, it runs the risk of being speedily deleted. You should create them, but only when you have populated each one. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats just a waste of time. They shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. Sorry for the bad attitude but I'm tired of using my time to create something only to have some deletionist who doesn't respect my time come and submit it for deletion. I created them once, I see no reason to do so again so I'll just work on something else until that gets deleted. It just means when I create the books they won't have a category associated to them. I'm tired of having to redo my work 3 or 4 times. Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• You seem to be missing my point that categories should not be created until they are about to be populated. How many of your categories have been deleted while that had items in them? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of SmartArtMovement

SmartArtMovement page got deleted because of copyright infringement "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 08:54, 30 August 2012 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page SmartArtMovement (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of this on Myspace)" Totally untrue! As a matter of a fact; The article was first published on Wikipedia!!!! weeks later on Myspace!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozef vercrusse (talk • contribs) 10:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• So why does not the Myspace page acknowledge that the article was first published on Wikipedia and provide a GFDL licence for the text? In any case we could also delete the page for total lack of references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

SmartArtMovement was a GRASSROOTS organisation Active for 7 years on a voluntary context. Not even ONE single official reference is existing on that matter. Wikipedia would be the first.

So you are stating that not even one story of an organization without official status can be published on Wikipedia? If so, i can post here a lot of pages about organizations/persons/music or whatever with no official status. In other words.. Wikipedia allows only well known stories to be published?

What the point of that? Extremely boring, that is! So it comes to the point we have to realize that Wikipedia is offering no new stories at all? And that all the information written on Wikipedia is officially approved by references? References by who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozef vercrusse (talk • contribs) 04:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• WIkipedia offers no "new stories". Correct. This is firm policy - we say: no original research. "Official" is an inappropriate word. The key word for Wikipedia is "notability". Notability is determined by reliable sources. Since you admit that the SmartArtMovement lacks reliable sources, then it must remain outside Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And "reliable" is not an inappropriate word in this context? Everybody knows who writes history. It always comes to the point that the strongest rule, and they & no one else will write history in their own benefit, with or without massacres. The word "reliable" is wrong. I hope you get that.

To put a long story short. Wikipedia is just another brick in the wall, repeating everything exactly what the big boss is saying. Probably repeating lies, on and on.

Now its getting clear to me why Wikipedia is so scared to be stealing something from someone else. Because the only stories they publish are stories they didn't write themselves in the first place! If you have nothing else to say on this matter, then you can also delete my profile because its a fake to call yourself FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA when you're only spreading unfree/one sided historical facts written by a conqueror. Good Bye OpenSource Ideology, period. Good bye Neutrality, period.

Besides all this: The SmartArtMovement Facebook and the myspace pages are full of evidence for the existence of SmartArtMovement (old flyers, posters, stickers, drinking, tickets,... more on Facebook than on Myspace). Or do you really think, people will make all these graphic designs to be on Wikipedia? But yeah, you say thats not a reliable source! :D of course! How could i've been thinking something else!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozef vercrusse (talk • contribs) 15:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has biases and the process are not perfect, but as an encyclopedia, the policies of WP:OR and WP:V and their expression through WP:N in almost all cases serve the creation of an encyclopedia very well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Waffle by Jozef noted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Arsion

I dont understand why Arsion would be nominated for speedy deletion, I have made numerous articles in the past that were less important than this and I also dont understand what it mean by "does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant". I would have at first dismissed you as a troll but you seem to be a long time wikipedian.

Can you please at least stop the "speedy" deletion while we discuss, after all I have no idea how long "speedy" is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• So apply an {{hangon}} tag to the article and make a good case on the talk page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you try help my what you mean because surely I don't just write "this is important because...", this situtation is quite confussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Better to word it: "this promotion is notable because", but that tis exactly what you do say - obviously. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I understood that but the phrase "does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant" is , to me, saying that importance should be implied on the article, and I wouldn't know how to do that... if I write Arsion again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps my suggestion was misleading. Notability is best established by providing links to reliable sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

San Juanico disaster

Thanks for taking care of that. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 23:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)