Jump to content

User talk:RHaworth/2017 Mar 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is an Online Ambassador on the English Wikipedia
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Emotional Speech Blocks Deletion Syndrome

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

Email

You have one. Feel free to reply here if you want, no worries. Cheers! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

What do we do when a page is promotional, is tagged, but then the creator blanks the page, so removing the promotion and the tag from the page (which of course he shouldn't do) - do they cancel each other out? Like, the tags gone, but so is the promotional material? thank for the advice. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC) [by email]

  • Why on earth did you send this by email? If you had cited specific examples, then email might have been appropriate. Very simple answer: slap a {{db-blanked}} tag on it! And if that gets blanked keep re-applying until an admin catches it and actions it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry RH, I just thought you didn't appreciate getting unecessary messages here. Thanks for that though. Blindingly obvious as you say- I was distracted by the promo aspects rather than the simple fact of author deletion. I'll remember that, cheers, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 18:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@RHaworth: One more thing - if it was a user talkpage that had the spam / tag on it and was then blanked? Still U1 but with the mandatory rationale? Thanks again! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that {{ping|RHaworth}}  ;) -all it was, as I was replying to an old message half way up your page, rather than starting a new section. Cheers for the info. So the important thing is preserving the preservable history. Check. I wasn't thinking so much of archives though- haven't encounterd that yet. Perhaps luckily enough. But this was the cause of my question- where the page had been blanked, tag removed, but the promo material is still in the history. Although there's nothing else in the history apart from the tag. Alright. Thanks again, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Pinging because you were replying half way up the page! Just because you do not how to get a diff report do not assume that nobody else uses them. I am using this report to check what I need to reply to. User talk:Shahdahmad was a perfectly clear case - mis-use of a talk page; no proper messages to cloud the issue - zap it without hesitation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Like, nuke from orbit. That's wot some say. Did you see Cronx. Zapped! :) — O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 21:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I have drunk Cronx beer. I walk past the Cronx Boxpark frequently. I recently rode through The Bronx on a train but I never saw the connection! I wish now that I had allocated some time to explore The Bronx a bit and compare and contrast it with Croydon. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If we'd known it was your local we would have conferred immediate notability upon it  :) Escape from the Cronx!

Croydon. The Cartoon Club. Some years ago; is it still there? — O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It was 2006. The Fall. Four night residency. Days on railway, nights of glory  :) not. Right: new email on your way. Will leave the thing at the bottom of your page instead of half way through it. — O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 20:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Change of plan; email no longer required. Cheers! 🍸 O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC) New something similar. — here- advice appreciated?! Cheers — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 06:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Right- thanks for that! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 17:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia (as a poster) but I wanted to know why you took down my Justin Anthony page? For reasoning, you put down "copyright infringement" along with this link (http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=166440). While these two people have the same name, it is not the same Justin Anthony. Is there something I should be doing differently to change this? - 12:48 March 13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirkeab (talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Mandela Effect Wikipedia page

Good afternoon, My purpose for contacting you is to ask why, in your own words, the Mandela effect Wikipedia page was taken down and ultimately to ask you to please reinstate it. I am an admin for the largest membered Mandela effect page on Facebook where we are steadily approaching 22,000 members at this time and the page being deleted has troubled many of our members. As for the purpose of its deletion being stated that the article had no meaningful, substantive content is not entirely up to you or whomever it was to decide. This is a very sensitive subject matter where it has not received much, if any, coverage through mainstream media sources and many who do run across the subject turn to more "credible" sites such as Wikipedia to get a better foundational understanding of what exactly the matter entails. Also, I notice controversial results when searching "Mandela Effect Wikipedia" as the two leading results are "False memories" and "Confabulation" but I won't bother you on that matter as I'm sure you don't have any control of that. Being so, I politely ask that you reinstate the page or direct me to someone who can. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke1132 (talk • contribs)

  • I think you would agree that a totally blank page can be said to have "no meaningful, substantive content" and that was the state of the most recent edit to Mandela effect when I deleted it. All the earlier edits to that title were merely redirects. Now Mandela Effect did have some content - it was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandela Effect and apparently immediately re-created.
"The scientific basis for the Mandela effect is in quantum mechanics" shows that this is a crank / fringe theory. There are plenty of articles in wikipedia about fringe theories but each one needs to show its notability and "22,000 members of a Facebook page" is not such evidence. This discussion shows that the editors of the confabulation article think that the effect has no place there. Likewise the editors of false memory would probably reject it.
So will it work as a separate article? You clearly have a CoI so you should not be trying to re-create one. The best I can offer is that you should follow this advice: find a well-established editor such as CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) and get them to help you create a new article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, it seems to me that the false memory article explains the type of effect. I see some, but not a lot of good mainstream media sources that mention the Mandela effect, so I'm not seeing "significant" coverage, per WP:GNG. I think I was involved in a discussion about a redirect earlier about this - and at that time didn't think it warranted a separate article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Mandela Effect 2

Can you also delete the mandela effect because that continues to be redirect to false memory. Thanks -- Jack Upland (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer5 deletion

Hello, I would like to contest the deletion of this page Peer5. I think that speedy deletion criteria have not been met. Primarily, the page created had reputable, industry relevant sources, and the article topic is a well-known company in its industry. In addition, Wikipedia already has similar articles about companies in the same industry. So, I think that the first speedy deletion criteria was not met, ie, A7. As for G11, I'm ready to remedy that if my complain is taken into consideration. Thank you -- Reollun (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Deletion Request

Hi Roger, Please could you kindly send me the text for the following article of mine that you deleted - Draft:Advantage Testing. I understand your reasons for deleting, as it appears to be simply marketing for a company. So I wish to rewrite the article in an unbiased, objective manner. Many thanks for your assistance and for giving your time to Wikipedia - it's a tremendous resource. Best wishes, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslox (talk • contribs) 11:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Are the two articles Advantage Testing substantially different? The current one still lauds the company somewhat. — O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
RHaworth — You having gone to the trouble of restoring it, surely now some do-gooder will drive-by nominate it for deletion ;) — O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Request at AFC/R

This request came in from Gamebuster19901. I have no real opinion on whether it should be created or not, but thought I should notify you since you did the last G4. — TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Good job

You could've just created the page Template:Playmates of 2017 as requested and improve the wiki. But why be helpful when deleting is so much fun, eh. — 95.90.220.201 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Mandela effect

Yes, that seems to be credibly significant enough. — SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unprotect

Do you mind unprotecting 🔞? There's a WP:AFC/R request to create it as a redirect to Content rating, because it literally is a content rating, regardless of the age-of-majority issues that were relevant at the more recent RFD. If you were inactive, I'd readily unprotect it myself, but of course I don't want to step on toes. — Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Regards and help me please

Help me urgent that this article Amaruk Kayshapanta is not erased or deleted, I am new to wikipedia I still have some difficulties, but I have already corrected and edited again. I say goodbye waiting for positive news, thank you -- Gatita Estrella10 (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Speeder Razor (Rapper)

New stub - I found when I tried to move it to correct title that you'd deleted and salted Speeder Razor in Dec 2015, so you might like to have a look. — PamD 11:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

User page deletion

I was surprised to see you had deleted the user page for Sander.v.Ginkel yesterday on the grounds that it is a "fake article". I can assure you that many editors on the English wiki have written user pages in the same way but have not (yet) suffered the same fate. Please restore the page as many would like to see the profile of someone who has been banned for the time being but whose BLP articles are still receiving attention as drafts. I see for example that Kudpung's user page has been drafted along the same lines. Should this be blanked too? -- Ipigott (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Kupung's page looks nothing like SvG's. How many articles that we have that are hatted, for a start? Let alone all the design tweaks etc. — O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thanks for coming in on this so quickly and for your interesting observation. I'm not so sure what you mean by "hatted" but I would point out that unlike Kudpung's, S.v.G's page had a header clearly explaining it was a user page and not a Wikipedia article. But it was still deleted. -- 15:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Ipigott (talk)

Yeah none of my business I know, Ipigott; by 'hatted' I meant, within {{collapsetop}} / {{collapsebottom}}- the bright green bar he's got, that's the one. — O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I see. Well, if that's what's bothering you, how about Plucas58? But maybe we should just wait patiently for our friend RH to return. He's usually very understanding. -- Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me. Nothing bothers me. That could be the mescaline, of course. No worries, Ipigott. Cheers! — O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

As I have explained above there are many user pages written in the third person which have the appearance of articles. Although many such pages provide general background about the user and follow the kind of display used in main-space biographies, the ones I have seen include descriptions of the user's work on Wikipedia. On re-examining S.v.G's page, I have to agree with you that there was no mention of his Wikipedia activities. It therefore does indeed coincide with rules on "fake articles" and I agree that you took the correct action in deleting the page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes (El Mencho)

There was plenty of context, as shown by a Google translation. Nor was the article very short. I do not think A1 applied here. Adam9007 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

User:ㅂㄱㅇ/1

What was the text of User:ㅂㄱㅇ/1? Can I know that? -- ㅂㄱㅇ (talk) (Bieup Giyeok Ieung) 03:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I was translating from Korean to create new articles in English Wikipedia, but some templates I used in that page don't exist in Korean Wikipedia. -- ㅂㄱㅇ (talk) (Bieup Giyeok Ieung) 01:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

How about history? I lost all history of that page. -- ㅂㄱㅇ (talk) (Bieup Giyeok Ieung) 10:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

In User:ㅂㄱㅇ/0, you deleted some edits, but why did you delete all of User:ㅂㄱㅇ/1? -- ㅂㄱㅇ (talk) (Bieup Giyeok Ieung) 03:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I've used translation tool, but I thought it's hard to use wiki markup in that tool, so I used my user subpage. -- ㅂㄱㅇ (talk) (Bieup Giyeok Ieung) 08:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Tram / trolley

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect how can a tram route cross a trolley bus route without short circuits. Since you had some involvement with the how can a tram route cross a trolley bus route without short circuits redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Page deletion

For the gazillionth time, thanks again!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  18:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

deleted text

Hi. Can you give me text that I posted that was deleted today from Health at Every Size? Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HAES108 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jasmar Cassar Just Be.jpg

Hi, I was given permission by the owner of the photo to upload and use File:Jasmar Cassar Just Be.jpg how can you un-delete it? If needed, I can show the email which I received from Mr. Cassar (Mr. Cassar has the full rights of File:Jasmar Cassar Just Be.jpg) which shows that the picture can be used and shared freely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanMarion (talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi! Can уоu undelete this redirect: Province of Aosta? You speedied it as WP:G7, but it was not blanked by its author, it was blanked by totally different user. — Vanjagenije (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Erroneous email?

Greetings - I think you may have sent an email to me that was intended for someone else! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ha, sorry for my overly quick response! Exemplo347 (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Batting

Hello my friend. I am missing something obvious, but why delete here? And if you need background on rapper odg, please say. I've been blocking and deleting that for ages. P.S. I am half asleep and about to go to bed, so, again, I may be missing somethign obvious. I usually am. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see. I modified Batting the dab page. Padding, eh? Was there a discussion? Batting, I thought, is the normal term. — Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Anna, second time in a week that I have deleted something on the say-so of a random IP address - see Slavery … above. Restored but you need to ensure that "batting" appears in the padding article and if it is more commomly used specifically for quilting, that needs to be stated. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've added content and source to the lead of Padding to mention batting. I am pleased that batting (material) is restored because there were a ton of articles that linked to it. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wei Han Headshot.jpg

Hi there. I was told that the you had deleted file:Wei Han Headshot.jpg uploaded because it had media file copyright violation without credible claim of fair use or permission. The uploader wished to convey to you that the license should have been "Own work, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0." Could you please restore it? Thanks.Supermann (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  • So: make sure that every web page that displays this image has it clearly marked as carrying a {{cc-by-4.0}} licence declaration. Then upload it to the Commons - at its full size of 702×651px, declare its source as one of those web pages and point out that it carries an appropriate CC licence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

London Treaty (disambiguation)

You say: 00:04, 2 March 2017 RHaworth (Talk | contribs) deleted page London Treaty (disambiguation) (G6: This page is a redirect with " (disambiguation)" in its title that does not target a dab page and for which a suitable dab page cannot be found)
However, I think what you say was inaccurate. However, as you have deleted the page, I am unable to tell.
I need more information please. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. You may find the following UBX useful. (I have.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This user is a Grumpy Old Man
(You've been warned!)
  • When foo is a disambiguation page, then I consider it utterly pointless to have "foo (disambiguation)" existing as well but the rule book says it is OK - indeed I think there is a bot that goes around creating such redirects. However when bar is itself a redirect, I consider it absolutely unnecessary for "bar (disambiguation)" to exist.
I do not consider myself at all grumpy but I admit that the tone of my writing often makes me sound so. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

My my! "Utterly pointless" and "absolutely unnecessary". You are not one for understatement, are you!

Had it not occurred to you that there just might possibly be a good reason for the existence of this situation, a good reason for the rule book specifically catering for it, and a good reason for the existence of a bot that creates such pages? (Or failing "good reason", then "good enough reason"?) Well, never mind. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(BTW & FYI: The deletion proposer has come to the conclusion that his nomination was in error - Refer Talk:Treaty of London#This is not a dab page.) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

New

mail, sorry about that. — O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Luckily an object lesson sometimes suffices. — O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 08:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  • There was absolutely no need to use email to tell me about User talk:Nidhi2592. It was a simple case: Nidhi2592 posted inappropriate stuff; you applied a speedy tag; Tropicalkitty came along and blanked it for some unknown reason; the Winged Blades of Godric added a message. So I deleted it and restored the last two edits so that none of Nidhi2592's rubbisch was visible. (This is the only way of doing selective deletions.)
User talk:DouglasRoberts1986 is an example of a more tricky case: DouglasRoberts posted inappropriate stuff then five edits were done all of them leaving Douglas' rubbisch in place. My only option here was to delete everything and re-create the page with just the non-rubbisch edits. This preserves the comments as the rule book demands but a purist might say "where is the evidence that these are the words of Exemplo347, etc. - the edit history shows just one edit - by RHaworth"? I am still unsure whether I am doing the right thing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I only emailed you to annoy you

Only kidding sorry :) in the first case, is there anything I could've done at the time, rather than letting you know two days later or whatever it was? And as for rulebooks... isn't that what WP:IAR is all about? Take care, — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 10:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wilco. Chech. I was going to, but couldn't find anything in policy that didn't allow her to. If you know what I mean. See my new sig? — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Restore Request

Hi, I want to clarify that you have deleted article without any reason. I added 27 Refferences which were from Top sites. There was nothing about advertising or promotion. Also I have not added anything promotional. Kindly restore the article and help me where I promoting anything? As you said, It is my first article. No...It is not first. Please review your action and respect the others work. RHaworth — Preceding unsigned comment added by LARZZE (talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear, Kindly inform me why you have deleted my article Zaki Ameer. It is not promotional and advertising. If you think this is advertising, then please help me to edit this article. Kindly check the notability of the person. At least being a senior, you should help me instead of killing me. I hope you understand how painful it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LARZZE (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A senior?! — O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 19:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Fortuna, I have no objection to be called a senior but I have absolutely no idea why that should be a reason for me to keep the article. Larzze, I don't care how much pain you feel you are suffering - it is all of your own making by trying to promote yourself here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I say let the Tsar have his own dog poo shitpile whereever he likes. Let's keep knowledge for our own sake in our own sack, that's lesson we all must learn. See the Buddha, kill the man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthingsgo (talk • contribs) 01:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Restoration Request

Hey, My draft Draft:Fifteen-ball pool was flagged for speedy deletion for copyright infringement of this page: https://alberta55plus.ca/rules/pool-8-ball/ I would like to have said draft restored so that I can move it to my sandbox. I submitted the draft while it was incomplete, accidentally, as I had other things to attend to (newbie mistake). I also had no intention to infringe upon that webpage's copyright. The entirety of what I had wrote was only intended to model the wording of the first paragraph of the wikipedia article for Eight-ball Thanks for your time, AbsconditumEtIncognitum (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. — AbsconditumEtIncognitum (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Basketball

Why did you delete 2017-18 NCAA Division I Men's Basketall season because it's too soon but why did you do this? — 68.102.39.189 (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Mohamed Rafi Puthukkudi

Just a head's up that I think Mohamed Rafi Puthukkudi has been recreated since your speedy delete close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Rafi Puthukkudi. — Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Water wheel

Please reinstate this draft immediately. It is being used to prepare edits for the extant article and represent many tens of hours of work. The present page is large and has both structural and accuracy problems. Some of the work, for example the section on power calculations, has been fed back into the main article, and lot more is expected to follow shortly. This is all explained in the logs and talk pages of both the published article and the draft. Consequently I find the deletion completely inexplicable. — Malcolm Boura (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

محمد حيدر

I wonder if you could expand on your reasons for deleting the above article under CSD G1, which explictly excludes "coherent non-English material, or poorly translated material"? It seems to be a coherent piece of work, albeit not in English. Or is there some other reason for deletion that I've missed and I'm not seeing? — Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC).

Redirects deletion request

Hello there RHaworth, I have a quick question for you/request, could you please delete the two redirects I nominated for deletion (listed here: User talk:TheSandDoctor/Archive 2 (Requested deletion of own works))? The reasoning for the request is that one of the two was made by accident (TheSandDoctor/Peter_Bell_(Reichstag)) as I forgot to remove the TheSandDoctor/ prefix (as it was created as a user page) and I do not think anyone would think to search for TheSandDoctor/Peter_Bell_(Reichstag) and the second one is on similar reasoning that I doubt anyone will look for Peter Bell (Reichstag) in User:TheSandDoctor/Peter_Bell_(Reichstag). From my judgement, both redirects fall under Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F #1.
Thanks for your time!
TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@RHaworth: Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSandDoctor (talk • contribs)

PM² Project Management Methodology

Hi RHaworth, It looks like you deleted a new page I created. I'm new to wikipedia, so I may not have followed the best/correct publishing process.

Regarding the reasons you deleted this page, i would like to let you know that there is no copyright infringement issue as: 1) The European Commission has published the methodology with an "open source" license (EUPL) which is more or less equivalent to the creative commons (CC) license. This is indicated in the first few pages of the publication.

I realize that I may not have made this clear in the wikipedia text (so you may have missed it in the first pages of the PDF publication). I'm also providing you with this source: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/node/153404 where you will find towards the bottom of the page the following copyright statement: "The PM² Guide - Open Edition is published with a full share and reuse EUPL Licence, and is positioned to become an open source project management methodology. This means that reproduction and reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged."

So I would like to request that you un-delete the page and give me some tips on how I can avoid this happening again by another editor. I also read your tips on how to activate my wikipedia-emailbox so you can email me the content. Or move back to my sandbox. I spend several hours creating this content, so I don't want to risk loosing it. Thanks for your time! Nicos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkouroun (talk • contribs)

Ok - thanks - In the mean time, could you please send me the page text? Can you please put back in my sandbox?. — nkouroun 08:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Remorse esports

Hi. I linked to the article which you speedily deleted back in February. Not sure if this is an issue, but I don't have the tools to look into, not even sure if it is something that needs looking into. User:LivingLegend 7 is a new editor which has had some problematic edits in their brief time. They have recreated the above article, this time as Remorse eSports, which another editor has tagged for speedy deletion. That's not the issue. When I went back to the editors' contributions, I noticed something strange. The tag that the original article was to be deleted is dated 28 February. However, looking at their history, it shows them starting on 1 March. Strange. Not sure it's an issue, but it looks like someone might be trying to hide something. Thought someone might like to look into it, take care. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - User:onel5969 if you go to User:LivingLegend 7's contributions page and click on logs, you will find "01:40, 10 January 2017 User account LivingLegend 7 (Talk | contribs) was created" - If you click "edit count" they have made 49 edits of which 30 have been deleted - this would include the edits you are referring to - Arjayay (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Arjayay - of course if the page got deleted, his edits would also go away. Duh. Onel5969 TT me 14:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User:BonellaH/sandbox

Hello RHaworth, we are currently leading an edithaton in Paris. Could you restore the page you deleted, your deletion seems to have broken our ongoing work. We (few confirmed French users and admins) will check out for the possible copyvio, but please let us few hours to work peacefully. -- Yug (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User:BonellaH seems to be a promising contributor, we try to retrieve the translation just done. -- Yug (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RHaworth, seems we successfully retrieve our translation. 80% of the article is done, we push for for the 100% :D Please feel free to watch the page so we solve your concerns later on. -- Yug (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem is back as soon as you delete the page. -- Yug (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

We are translating using a wikimedia tool, our work is binded to the User:BonellaH/sandbox page, as soon as it get deleted we cannot work and lost access to our work. -- Yug (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello RHaworth, no evil intent from me. I've been running around for that editathon and I don't have internet access at home to polish things up on my private evening. I made a mistake when kick starting the translation... my bad sorry. I made is the old way, as I/we used to do around 2012. Things have changed, I'am catching up. Yug (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

My patrolling experience

Hello, I'm not sure if there is a way for you remember my patrolling experience from my username (I do your's since I receive email notifications of page deletion from your end for the ones I tag via CSD). In any case, if you do, would you please consider endorsing my request for 'New Page Patroller' rights (which has been denied for now) - here? However, if you think that I do not have sufficient experience, I would understand and re-apply once I do.
Thanks for your time.
TopCipher (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@RHaworth: Thank you for your consideration! TopCipher (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Antonioatrylia's Request for Permissions

Would you be willing to take a look at this permissions request that was declined by Kudpung? I've posted to Kudpung's talk page regarding the matter of getting a third opinion, and since you just recently did this, I figured you might do it again. While I'm not an admin and I'm not super experienced in permissions discussions and so forth, I can't help but question Kudpung's judgement on this one. It would be much appreciated if you could provide another opinion. Thanks. R. A. Simmons Talk 20:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Abandoned draft

Could you please take a look at Draft:Konrad Hennemann as it has not been edited since 16 October 2015? I nominated it but was undone as was said to be an invalid request? -- TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Chirlishly hyding my stuff

Restore my post with the prooer suggestions. Its for a class assignment and you keep deleting it. Restore my post. — Hyde8228 (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

CHIRLA Barrio Profile You deleted my page for simpy not having the correct cotation for the background info, <http://chirla.org/about%20us> Would you restore my page with the correct citation. It has been annoyingly been deleted various times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyde8228 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

huh?

What business do you have deleting pages from my user space as vandalism? These were my personal study notes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Towers (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the pages you wrongfully deleted again, as it is impossible for you to discern my intentions for this material. If you must know, I am collecting this information in order to create a new article on Wikipedia. Please restore them, stay away from my pages, and stop abusing your role here. — Robert Towers (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Robert Towers: why are you having the same discussion on Premeditated Chaos's, talk page? — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 10:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Because all of my notes and article drafts were deleted, several by her and another by this guy. She informed me that I was inadvertently duplicating category links and that is why they were removed. — Robert Towers (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Robert, I am not going discuss any deletions that I may have done until you povide links to the deleted page/s. I would also like a reply to the following question: it is now a year since you did any useful edit here. When can we expect to see you making any use off your extensive fiddling about in user space? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. I'll take my work elsewhere. Goodbye. Robert Towers (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

That was not a request for deletion, it was a request to leave me alone! You have caused me enough headache, are you done yet? It is not your job to impose deadlines on me or to judge how "useful" I am! All material supposedly in copyright violation was removed. I did not ask you to delete my page. I just wanted you to stop trying to boss me around. That's not what Wikipedia is for, and you are acting out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Towers (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been easier to just a) remove the inappropriate category tags and b) add a note sourcing the content to the relevant wikipedia articles thereby providing attribution? Seriously. DS (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What Robert forgot to mention is that his sandbox was called User:Robert Towers/Eat my faaaaarrrrt, and perhaps that's why he avoided the request to link the page he was complaining about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

HMCS Prince Robert page request

Good Afternoon Roger - I was wondering if you might be willing to send me the details on the page that you recently deleted on HMCS Prince Robert. While I acknowledge that I first plagiarized another website's work, I was in the process of amending the page to be in my own words with my own references to other sites. In hindsight, I should have created /edited it in the sandbox before publishing officially. Please accept my most remorseful regrets. — PhoenixAF24 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  • As well as learning to use a sandbox or draft: space you also need to learn how to create wikilinks and that you do not put <p> at the start of each paragraph. Text emailed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for sending this to me. I will make the appropriate changes and repost. PhoenixAF24 (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Why ?

Why you deleted my work on wikipedia? Whats the reason ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.248.199 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion

You deleted my file without even letting me defend it, if my knowledge of the rules is correct, you cannot do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwiiz (talk • contribs) 15:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The one on Dr. Jackson Crawford's curriculum for clarification. &mdsh; Schwiiz (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Learn the difference between "can" and "may". I deleted it so clearly I can do such things. The file was totally unencyclopedic. Even if you managed to establish your notability and created an article, we are not interested in this amount of detail. It was also anti-collaborative - stubb on Wikipedia is editable by others - PDF's are not. But in any case Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not my work, I stated that it is the Curriculum of Dr. Jackson Crawford, it is not meant to be edited, and the file uploader says that .pdf is allowed.Schwiiz (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Robert Towers

Hi RHaworth. You deleted User:Robert Towers per WP:G12, but as you can see it seems to have been recreated. It has been suggested on the User talk:Robert Tower#Draft articles that this content might be more suitable for the draft namespace or a user sandbox, but the editor might be misunderstanding what that means. Is there a point in tagging this for speedy again? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Payandehnasser

Hi, You have deleted my page underPayandehnasser. Why is this? I reviewed the T&C's and cannot see where this contradicts them. Please can you advise further, thank you. (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host).Payandehnasser (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion

Could you please look at User:Sir7 16/sandbox and User:Pierat567/sandbox to determine if they are worthy of deletion? Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit: Draft:Utz Claassen as well please --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Opinion, but I'd say U5 and G1 respectively. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 18:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: @RHaworth: That's the thing Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, the first two linked I nominated for speedy deletion and they were declined by another admin saying that they did not. The one admin, GBFan has seemingly been reverting a lot of the nominations for speedy deletion I have made today (including ones that are for drafts about already existent articles) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit: Please note that I do not intend to accuse GB fan of anything, just stating that they have indeed reverted a lot of my speedy deletion nominations. I have clarified the statement within the original message posted that mentioned this (the above) to clarify --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
See. Well, fair enough- he was right about CSD#G1, because: 'nor does it apply to user sandboxes or other pages in the user namespace.' The problem is that you tagged them both G1, so both were rightfully declined. I suggested U5 though for User:Sir7 16/sandbox. And see what GBFan says :) although, on a slightly more serious note, your previous comment could- at a stretch- be interpreted as an WP:ASPERSION. WP:AN is the place to discuss an admin's behaviour. Just FYI. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 18:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
According to WP:G1, it does not apply to pages in the userspace. The second one U5 definitely applies. The first one may or may not depending on what is "few edits" outside of userspace. Draft:Utz Claassen is a weird one in that it was moved to article space and then copied back to draft space. ~ GB fan 18:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Ah, I see. I will try U5 on that one. What about the other? Thank you for pointing that out, at a stretch is correct. It was not my intention to do that (thanks for the FYI). Also, please don't forget to tag me or I won't be alerted to your response(s). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor, Draft:Subterfuge (game) is an active draft, what reason would there be to delete it? ~ GB fan 18:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@GB fan: Good point, I did not notice the last edited time, I was going by the latest reviewer comment. I removed it from the original question--TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I apologize as I did not see your second to last comment on here GB fan. To clarify, you are saying that U5 definitely applies to User:Pierat567/sandbox, right? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, yes that is what I am saying. ~ GB fan 00:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User:TheSandDoctor - Please explain why you are requesting deletion of so many drafts, both via CSD and via MFD. The arguments that you are using appear to be valid reasons for the deletion of articles, such as duplication of an existing topic (A10), lack of notability (the usual reason for AFD, but drafts do not require notability, and lack of notability is not a reason for deletion of drafts), and being crud (we try to find a valid basis for deleting articles that are crud, but there is no rule against drafts that are crud). Is there a reason why you are working to get rid of so many drafts? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I did not realize that those were not valid reasons to delete drafts. I am surprised that the article already existing is not a valid reason actually. That aside, I am just attempting to help reduce the number of blank drafts that are most likely abandoned as well as abandoned duplicates of existing articles sitting in the draft space as they appear to be of little use. I am also nominating G13 (where draft with an AFC template has not been editing for 6+ months). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
User:TheSandDoctor - I don't know why you think it is necessary to reduce the number of drafts. Drafts are cheap. Deleting anything doesn't conserve storage (because deleted pages are still preserved and can be seen by administrators). The article already existing is a valid reason, and I !voted Delete on one of your drafts for that reason. G13 is a valid (if controversial) reason, but the drafts in question do not qualify for G13. Please do not tag drafts for speedy deletion except for reasons that apply to drafts. Please do not nominate drafts for deletion for notability. If you have more questions, ask here, ask at my talk page, or ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Duly noted. I thought after a period of time that the deleted drafts would be 'dumped' and it could potentially help with storage. I did not realize that G13 was controversial either. I will be more careful in nominating drafts in the future, the notability one in MfD was the only one I think I have nominated for notability, I shan't do it again. But didn't you say in the previous comment that article already existing isn't a valid reason? Or is that an MfD reason, rather than speedy delete? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
User:TheSandDoctor - The relationship between storage and deletion is written here. [] That's an empty box. Nothing helps with storage; it grows. Some editors have the theory that their pages are deleted to conserve storage, and are angry about it. You apparently have the theory that you can conserve storage by the cause of deletion. Nothing helps with storage. It grows. The WMF buys more disks. That is all. You can't help with storage. Stop thinking about storage. As to G13, my comment is only that some editors disagree with G13, and, although it is policy, it is not a universally accepted policy. It is a valid speedy criterion. Already existing is A10. The A stands for article; it is only a reason for deleting articles. Already existing is a reason for MFD for drafts. Please stop taking it on yourself to "help" us get rid of old drafts. They can be gotten rid of by G13, but other than that, there is no need to get rid of crud in draft space. Please stop creating work for us by trying to help get rid of drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/2017_Mar_15&oldid=1172210279"