Jump to content

User talk:RHaworth/2019 Mar 30

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.]

Speedy deletion of file:VinesauceJoel.jpg

Please restore the image. There was no copyright violation and I explained in the talk page that it was fair use and I even added a fair use rationale in the file page. — AwesumIndustrys (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It's because he seldom shows his face and I can't draw so fanart is out of the question. As I said, no free image of him exists so if an image of him were to be in a part of the article about him, non-free images are the only option. --AwesumIndustrys (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Viewmont Viking/List of Scientists

Why did you delete this userspace draft as a G13? The draft was not blank and it did not have an {{AFC submission}} template, so I'm not sure how the criterion applies. I ask this purely out of curiosity: I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia's deletion processes and I'm trying to get a better understanding of the speedy deletion criteria. — Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Don't tell anybody but it has been known for me to delete dead drafts from user space even if they have no AfC tag. Technically this one was not dead because the user had done this trivial edit, clearly in an attempt to keep the page live. However the rules for G13 state that such pages must be restored on demand so I have done so.
Viewmont Viking, within the next year, either submit the page for review or request its deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a quick follow up to this post, if you don't mind another question. I noticed that you restored the page as a draft rather than under the original title. Is that the standard procedure for the restoration of userspace drafts at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion? — Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I personally think both the deletion and restoration of this page were mishandled, but I won't make a fuss about this on behalf of another user. — Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

From Mrphilip

1st problem, you used a G12 deletion which we uncalled for and you should be reported for using.

This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with

Zero time given for the author to correct or explain the use of text which was simply verbiage from the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016. The University where is was 'cut & pasted' from added one sentence before and after public domain legislation. Did you read the article or just make a decision based on editing software summary of how the characters got on the page?

Additionally you cite improper use of information from the . http://sites.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/cpop/dbasse_190803 I used this page and the other linked from it all about a workshop they held.

Regardless of the what, 17:14, 16 March 2019 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://isgmh.northwestern.edu/2017/01/20/21st-century-cures-act-calls-for-expanded-nih-focus-on-sexual-and-gender-minority-health/, http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/DBASSE_191476.PDF) (thank). — Mrphilip (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Mrphilip, your attitude is not going to get you far. This is a collegial project. Content is decided by consensus. Don't know how it works in your neck of the woods, but in my neck of the woods it is much easier to build consensus by discussing things collegiately rather than calling other, much more experienced editors names and demanding that this 18 year old website change the way it works to accommodate you. Just sayin....you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Also, cool it with the ALLCAPS. It's just rude. John from Idegon (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
If most of the page is copyvio we ax the entire page. The newer and newer authors the faster we ax instead of remove portions. It is your responsibility not to introduce copy vio per the notice that comes on every edit you save. You don't get 6 months to fix it. — Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
FYI there is also a thread about this here Wikipedia:Teahouse#how many hours should be allowed before deleting draft article reviewed 1x. — MarnetteD|Talk 04:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

As none of you have seen this article it might be inappropriate to pass judgement on a minor portion of the articles content. What was a simple fixable copyright error on my part was in reality a subsection within one portion of the larger articles structure. — Mrphilip (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Raised the issue here [1] at ANi. — Legacypac (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Mrphilip, here is another of my moans, not directly applicable to your case but you will get the idea. Worse than being a copyvio, your piece was a style-vio: totally slovenly, no attempt at creating a Wikipedia article. If you can show the subject is notable, write a proper article in your own words and 4k bytes max in length. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Begoon/adduploadslink.js

Hi. Thanks for deleting User talk:Begoon/adduploadslink.js, but I actually only created that page to request deletion of User:Begoon/adduploadslink.js, and left a note on it to that effect. As CSD tags don't work on js pages it seemed the only option. Apologies for any confusion. -- Begoon 09:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Jaiden Animations

Hi, you deleted the draft for Jaiden Animations that I've been working on. It was deleted because it was tagged for deletion under G4 criteria. That tag was unfairly placed. G4 explicitly states: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version," which applies to the draft I was working on. First, I never saw or edited, or was involved with the version of the article that was deleted via discussion. Secondly, that version was deleted in August 2018. I began working on the draft in December. About 11 or 12 of the 27 references that were included in the draft I worked on were all published after August 2018, meaning that there is no way that the draft was "substantially identical" to the deleted version. I would like to retrieve that draft so I can continue to work on it, as I believe that if not already, it's at least on the verge of being suitable enough for inclusion on the mainspace. Thank you Soulbust (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste Vuillaume

Dear Mr Haworth, I wonder why you would choose to delete the document I posted on Wikipedia regarding the life and traits of Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume without even contacting me. Is that something that makes your life more enjoyable, I wonder? By the way, if you state the document constitutes an Infringement, (something which is rather serious legal matter), I suggest you ask first who owns the Copyright on the page you claim I infringed. Regards, MJZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtic-Lines (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Since you ask, yes: I do enjoy keeping Wikipedia free of inappropriate material. The page was deleted for multiple reasons: it was a mis-use of a user page; it was a blatant copyvio - yes, it is your site, you could fix the copyvio but don't bother: it was totally unencyclopedick material. What you should do: if you are confident of your proposed changes and can provide links to reliable sources to support your claims, edit the guy's bio! If you are less confident, propose the changes on the article talk page and there, by all means, provide a link to the page on your website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Neurosexism

Do you have the text of the page you deleted on 16 March on Draft:Neurosexism, on which I was lead editor? I would greatly appreciate recovering that text. — J.birch2 (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Threatin speedy deletion was incorrect

The article was substantially different than the deleted version so WP:G4 does not apply. While the original deletion was correct due to lack of independent sources, the subject of the article has since received considerable press coverage and now meets WP:GNG. Article was properly sourced. If you still feel the article warrants deletion, then you can of course put it through the normal Afd process. — MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I was actually coming here for the same reason. Of course, personally, I didn't think we needed to give an article in the first place, and think that the article focused too much on the man/music and not the scam that brought him notability. But, yes, he did become notable (for all the wrong reasons) after the initial page deletion. — Lazypub (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I should have ignored you both because neither of you is capable of providing a link. Some time before 09:40:02 today I loaded a few CSD pages into browser tabs and worked through them. I opened the Threatin page, thought "just another rock band but I like his hair" and zapped it being unaware that 42 seconds earlier Duffbeerforme had changed his mind and removed the speedy tag. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You want a non-existent link? OK we need Talk:Threatin back as well. — MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Max, get your terminology right: Talk:Triple H/GA1 could be called a non-existent link. Talk:Triple H/GA1 is a link to a no longer existent page and Talk:Triple H/GA17 is a link to a never existed page. Do you see the difference? When you follow the link to Talk:Triple H/GA1 you see info. that I deleted the page. When I follow the link I see in addition a link saying "view or restore 5 deleted edits". How did you expect me to restore Threatin if you did not give me a link? Please reply. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You've been kind of unfriendly so excuse my lack of enthusiasm for replying. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Leah Maines

Greetings! I’m the writer Leah Maines. Today I was told my wiki page was deleted. Please let me know why my page was deleted. Thank you, 198.37.199.189 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Leah Maines

(talk page watcher) @198.37.199.189: As (what remains of) the article Leah Maines says, it was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G12 as an Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.pw.org/content/leah_maines_1. Hope this helps! ——SerialNumber54129 13:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
...its'a dirty job, but... ——SerialNumber54129 15:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Bateaux London

Any reason why you have delete Bateaux London but not any of the other articles in Category:Transport operators in London? Do you plan to delete these too? — Cnbrb (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Well that's fine, if you think they are now against policy. They've not been considered a problem for 11 years, but I'm happy to go along with the rules. If they are not considered Wikipedia material then so be it. But I find it confusing that the many apparently non-notable bus companies are considered worth keeping, but boat companies are not. Mysteriously, Bateaux London has now been un-deleted, so I can at least comment on its proposed deletion. — Cnbrb (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleting templates and their doc pages

I don't know how admins delete pages, so please excuse my ignorance. It looks like you deleted Template:Domesday86, but its documentation page is still around, at Template:Domesday86/doc. Is that an oversight, or does the doc page need to be nominated separately, or does a bot take care of it, or something else? Sorry to bother you about this trivial matter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Not trivial at all. It was an oversight on my part just as, elsewhere on this page, you will see me being taken to task for failing to restore a talk page when I had restored an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the glorious life of an admin. Thanks for mopping! – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there just wondering how come you are one of the biggest purgers on Wikipedia yet you have 12 links pointing to your blogs on your UserPage? This goes against Wikipedia's no self-promotion, and 'not collection of links' that you so often cite. I am curious to find out how come you have these privileges and if there is a way for regular admins to join your Old Boys' club? Cheers, M Hyphunter (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I am very suspicious: "so often cite" - but your account is less than 24 hours old - do you have any previous presence here? In any case I would never cite the page in the horrible way that you presented it nor even in the state I have changed it to. When did I last cite that page?
As to user pages, I take the view that a user page is acceptable if its creation is a small proportion of that user's total edits and if the non-Wikipedia content of the page is a small proportion of the whole. So clearly on the basis of the first criterion, a person who has done no encyclopedic edits to Wikipedia is not entitled to a user page at all and I have deleted many pages on that basis. So the answer to your question "a way for regular admins …" (you mean regular users not just admins) is simple: contribute! A good benchmark might be the extended confirmed access level, ie. your account is both 30 days old and has made 500 edits. Get there and then think about extending your user page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Well spotted Inspector Gadget, it seems your sixth sense still functions correctly. Yes, I used to have another account a few years ago which you blocked and eventually got deleted. Thanks for the explanation. Hopefully soon I’ll manage to join the old boys network too sometime. — Hyphunter (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

number9ine

RHhaworth we at number9ine work to bring concise accurate information regarding artists that have not been credited with their contribution to the world we know. This includes artists that worked with Ruby Studios, Tracy (Charles L. Tracy, Ruby (Ruth Tracy), 9 (Patrick di Santo), Anna Cleveland, as well as additions to Halston (Roy), Elsa Peretti (Tiffanys), Joe Eula (Tiffany's), Milton Green, Stephen Burrows. Please advise us on how to move these pages to a convenient holding location for review as we become accustomed to the format Wikipedia uses. Thank you again. (Number9ine (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC))

Note that this user is now blocked. — CoolSkittle (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Tracy

This page is in holding we have been on hiatus due to illness unfortunately, it appears to be a great way to bring important concise information to the world regarding these artist as well as their contributions. Thank you for your guidance, we look forward to your input. — (Number9ine (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC))

Heng it all!

Hello, I had my draft of Hengameh deleted due to copyright infringement. I worked really hard on the article and was hoping if I could get the draft text back so I can resubmit. Also, the material that was deemed copyrighted was written by the Artist (which is me), and was originally on my old website (which is no longer active). Both websites that have the biography took it from my own website and had my permission because it is my biography. Please advise on how I can use the biography, as it is the only biography I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBavafa (talk • contribs) 07:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

OPEN Community

Hello, there was a wikipedia page for OPEN Community and it got deleted and protected. Sir/Mam, i had placed the page under template 'new page' and thus clearified that it is under construction. There were many changes to be made. So i request you to remove it from protected mode as I was on my way to add more information to the page about why it is being created.It got deleted and protected on - 09:02, 19 March 2019. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManushiKapoor (talk • contribs)

Thank you so much sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.210.50.22 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

My Fathers Article Has Been Deleted

Sir My Fathers Article Has Been Deleted Created By Me Sir I Need It Back There Was the Information Of My Father I Made — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehboobAliThahim (talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Heng it again

Hello: I worked really hard on Draft:Hengameh (singer) and the page has been deleted due to alleged copyright infringement from two websites. Both websites have the same content, which is my (the artist at issue) biography. Both of these websites got these biographies from my former website which is no longer active. Would I still need to remove the content, despite me being the copyright owner? Please note, my website no longer exists. I put my biography out in the public domain for free use by anybody. Please let me know if this changes things or if I need to resubmit all together. If I do need to resubmit, can I please get the draft back in order to make the changes? — SBavafa (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. I followed your instructions and added an email. If you would please email me a copy of my article that would be excellent. . — SBavafa (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Rockstone35/list of banned users

Hi there! I contested the speedy deletion of User:Rockstone35/list of banned users, yet the page was deleted without any conversation about it. Can it be restored until someone addresses it? If it should be deleted despite the fact it is a user page (I don't think it should, but I understand if users disagree), I would appreciate it if my reasons for contesting it were addressed. Thank you! Rockstonetalk to me! 19:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Rockstone35/list of banned users. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Rockstonetalk to me! 20:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

All-American Boys Chorus

Could you take a second look at All-American Boys Chorus or userfy to me? When I looked at it, it did not seem entirely promotional, or at least there were salvageable parts. Thank you. -- Bsherr (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sofia Art Academy

Hello, You deleted the above page. Would it be possible to restore the page without the Curriculum section that contained text from the website? I spent a lot of time writing it. Thank you very much. -- Euphorbia456 (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Havana D'Primera

Erm, the entire draft for Havana D'Primera has been deleted. Can you restore it? I spent a lot of time putting that together and can easily remove the copyrighted information if possible, I just didn't see the notification. — Nicksufc (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I have done that. Would appreciate a copy via email. Thanks. Nicksufc (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Paul Raison (art historian)

We don't have moderators: just janitors

Hi there RHaworth. You recently deleted draft:Paul Raison (art historian). I understand the logic behind your deleting the page, but I think it was deleted unfairly, only a small proportion of the text (less than 10%) was from here. The rest was my original wording based on other sources (I had over twenty footnotes). A number of other moderators commented that the subject was relevant. I am a professional art writer, I noticed that while Wikipedia has a large representation of articles about living players in the market for contemporary art, there is a dearth of information for the corresponding notable figures in other sectors of the art market, such as Old Masters and decorative arts. These sectors are being marginalised in the mainstream but they are still important for millions of people. This was supposed to be the first in a series of contributions about significant living figures in the Old Masters world. I have been trying to get it published for over a year. Admittedly this is my first post on Wikipedia so it has been a learning experience, but I have duly responded to every suggestion of the wikipedia moderators (more footnotes, more independent sources, etc.). The subject's biography on the Christie's website is the only source for some of the basic information about his achievements in the market but it provides less than 10% of the substance of the article. Can you please restore the draft and clarify what you would like me to change. If my most recent change (which was only to add three footnotes linking to the Christie's website, as the previous moderator felt that those points in my text were unsubstantiated) has drawn your attention to the verbatim quotation of a few phrases, I am happy to reword these to satisfy your concerns about copyright infringement. I can also delete them entirely -- as I've said, they only comprise a small portion of the text -- but it seems a shame to exclude this information, which is factually correct and substantiated by the subject's employer. Thanks for your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:3C8E:BE00:DC3C:E41B:677D:E18E (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Here is some more for your learning experience.
  • Talk page messages should be signed with ~~~~ .
  • Wikipedia does not have moderators and it is not just a matter of terminology. Editorial decisions are made by consensus among all editors. The sweeper icon which appears small at top right of this page and large to the right identifies me as an admin but my job is just to clean up messes. My actions can be, and often are, challenged and reversed
  • I and probably many other Wikipedians, view IP address editors as a very low life form. So get yourself an account so you can follow this advice.
— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

168.216.140.2

user:168.216.140.2 is making threats on her talkpage. — CLCStudent (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know it is female, and thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Vinayak P. Dravid

Hello, you deleted my draft for Vinayak P Dravid due to copyright issues. If you could kindly restore the draft, I can fix and remove these infringements. Thank you! Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elibec (talk • contribs) 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:JCW/Questionable10 etc...

Those shouldn't be create protected. The bot takes as many subpages as needed, normally JLaTondre is speedier at deleting these pages, but he was taking a lot of time so I nominated them so the Template:JCW-Main displayed correctly. Those might be needed in the future, they might not be, but they shouldn't be create-protected in the meantime. — Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

These two links

Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

  • Headbomb, unprotected. At first glance I though it was a bot gone wrong and repeating the same information multiple times. So why were you requesting their deletion? What do you mean by "compilation stops at …" - these do appear to be valid predatory journals (and what an incredible number there are!) so why is the bot not allowed to list them? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

What I mean by that is that JL-Bot compiles a list of crap journals cited on Wikipedia, and reports the results, and how many pages it needs depends on how many entries there are. The current compilation stops at WP:JCW/Questionable7 (#603). WP:JCW/Questionable8/WP:JCW/Questionable9/WP:JCW/Questionable10 are remnants of a previous compilation that used a less advanced matching algorithm. However, if more crap journals are found to be in the future, then it's very possible (although unlikely, since it only got up to /Questionable10 because of a very large number of false positives, which are mostly squashed now) that WP:JCW/Questionable8/WP:JCW/Questionable9/WP:JCW/Questionable10... are needed again. — Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I felt "Compilation stops at WP:JCW/Questionable7" was equally clear, but YMMV. — Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Hi, I understand that you deleted the page I created Draft:Quantenna Communications, Inc. due to copyright concern. I was preparing to rewrite the contents and I thought it was in the draft mode. Would you please revert the page to my sandbox? Thanks YchanQTNA (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Heavy metal

"Kindly wait until somebody with no COI thinks your government is strong and stable and writes about them here!"

You have deleted the portal Portal:Heavy metal with a summary that described it as an abandoned draft. Was that a mistake? — Cambalachero (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That was the Theresa May answer. The answer you wanted, Cambalachero, is that yes it was an error and RHaworth has restored it. — Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see in the edit history or page log that I ever edited this page. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Teresa May is a retired soft porn actress..... ;-) [2]. — Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019

Hey Roger, why have you (presumably?) deleted the actual Wiki page on Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019 and moved it to User:BukhariSaeed/terrorist_incidents_in_Pakistan_in_2019? Looked like a well-sourced page just like Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2018 and every year all the way back to 2001. There are more terrorist attacks in 2019 that need to be added. I don't think this should simply be suppressed. -- Trickipaedia (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is the original page [3] . --Trickipaedia (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Please explain why you left the second message when you had already provided a link in the proper format. Please read the footnote in this notice. "You (presumably?)". Find out how to read the deletion log and come back and tell me (confidently) who did the deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Please undelete my sandbox

Please undelete my sandboxes as I only use them for today because the wikipedia in Italian is blocked. Tomorrow morning I will empty them and transfer the Italian language to wikipedia. Thanks for understanding.-- Burgundo (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I received the data by email.-- Burgundo (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Refund

When you were cleaning up Not Active and County State-Aid Highway 21 (Polk County, Minnesota), you deleted Not Active2 as well. That one should be undone and moved back to County State-Aid Highway 3 (Pennington County, Minnesota). –Fredddie™ 22:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Grow Heathrow

Hello regarding your comment here where would do i put the draft for the new article? If there's a process i haven't been able to find it. Thanks! Mujinga (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly welcome back! I'm not sure what your reference to wikilinks means at all, that's how we got to this point. Draft space appears to be a 2017 innovation which has passed me by, thanks for pointing it out. In actual fact whilst waiting for you to reply i read Listing is not necessary if you just want to replace a redirect with an article, or change where it points so the official policy seems to be just to edit the page itself. Confusing huh? Imagine if i was newbie, i think i would have been discouraged already, it took me 2 days to see why the redirect was not speedy deleted. Wikipedia is getting more arcane. And I do wonder why people don't assume good faith any more. —Mujinga (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Mujinga, humble apologies: I am so used to seeing horrors such as this that when I saw external link format in your message, I automatically assumed it was similar. But it was a link to an history report which, of course, has to be in that format. My wikilinks link was to show you what a wikilink looks like but I now realise that you are fully aware of that. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh OK not to worry. Thanks for your reply! I've just gone ahead and made Draft:Grow Heathrow. — Mujinga (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah great, thanks for the pagemove! — Mujinga (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hello RHaworth, I was notified you opted to remove the content I prepared for Ink (technology company) as you deemed it to be advertising or promotion. My intent was to provide information about a company of interest in Silicon Valley and Lincoln, Nebraska. Would you kindly cite which portions of the article you construed as promotional? Thank you very much. All my best, Svtecheditor01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svtecheditor01 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

George Amos Poole

You recently deleted this as a copy of https://sites.rootsweb.com/~syafam/randdestxt3.htm#Poole3-1843 but I am not seeing the similarity, at least in the last version I can find on Google cache. Could you elaborate please? Was there an alternative to deletion such as changing to an earlier version? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I can see the deleted versions and every revision is more or less a copy and paste of that rootsweb article. There is no suitable version to roll back to, so G12 is correct. I would have deleted this as well for the same reason. — Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure they didn't copy us? What was the offending text? Was it me that added it? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed it's back. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hi! You recently deleted a page I had created that was flagged for Speedy Deletion, this page, just a few hours after I made a few modifications that addressed the main issues. Can you elaborate, please? The article was recently rewritten to resemble the neutral tone found in the wiki page of a almost identical service, Anime News Network, which is also under 'advertising or promotion' but doesn't have any similar flags. Is it possible to have a copy for future amendments? Thank you. ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DmJapan (talk • contribs) 19:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. I will create the draft as soon as I get the email and let you know when and if it is accepted. — DmJapan (talk· contribs) 10:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Still a noob. I'll get better, i guess. ^^ — DmJapan (talk· contribs) 19:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion?

You've deleted the JohnnyTerris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Johnny_Terris draft for copyright on the imdb, a bio I which I wrote myself on the imdb for the artist. Why did you not just ask first before removing all the work on wiki that I did for this page? Now it's all gone and I have to redo the whole thing over again, apparently in a different bio to make it eligible. seriously, why would you do that? Such a waste of time to do all that work to have it instantly gone, without even asking or discussion with the creator of the page first. Do you even have the saved draft at all that you can possible email me so I don't have to do all that work again from scratch? It would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonmaceachran (talk • contribs) 20:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Any time you write something for Wikipedia, you are told "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." There is no need for that IMDB page to say anything about copyright for us to infer that its content is copyright; but as it happens, the page reminds the reader "Copyright © 1990-2019 IMDb.com, Inc." The material was and is copyright; its deletion in Wikipedia was entirely proper. Beyond that, the very first sentence of your draft was promotional. Also, an earlier article on Terris was deleted as the result of a discussion about his notability. The person who judged the arguments pro and con and deleted the article was Xymmax; if you believe that Terris is more notable in 2019 than he was in 2015, then you should start by persuading Xymmax of this. -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

His notability has been in question for a long time and, to put it bluntly, is ridiculous. He was on Wikipedia for 10 years before someone vandalized his wiki page, who lied by telling wiki that he 'wrote it himself' and editors from Wiki brought it upon themselves to delete his page for whatever reason. Looking at the discussions, it was very clear it was vandalism and a very biased decision. He is more notable than some people on here who are still here without any hitch whatsoever. Some with no references or credibility at all. He has many references and is easily googled. Is wikipedia a website that blindly believes any random troll on the Internet coming in and lying about a Wiki page, or are they a website run by intelligent people that actually look at the facts, references and situations provided without bias? And RHaworth, thank you. There is no need to be rude here. Nobody was rude or disrespectful to you. I just asked why you deleted it so quickly without any warning or any discussion whatsoever. A civil discussion would be the mature and respectful thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonmaceachran (talk • contribs) 19:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are 2 photos of proof that his wiki was vandalized and lied about: https://pasteboard.co/I7yH4AP.jpg https://pasteboard.co/I7yHG6S.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonmaceachran (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I just re-wrote the bio and re-posted the draft. I hope it is correct. Please let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonmaceachran (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jasonmaceachran: "There is no need to be rude here. Nobody was rude or disrespectful to you. I just asked why you deleted it so quickly without any warning or any discussion whatsoever. A civil discussion would be the mature and respectful thing to do." I'm mulling over starting a follow up to this ANI thread from last year which was closed as "RHaworth has acknowleged the communication issues" and yet here we are about a year later with exactly the same issues; the reason I'm not inclined to is because a) RHaworth did apologise to one of the guys who almost quit Wikipedia because of him b) I think he's a nice guy (despite being an incompetent admin, in my opinion) c) as a direct result of b), it is stupid and foolish to file ANI threads on fellow editors because you're annoyed at them, and most importantly d) it's not nicknamed the WP:Dramaboard for no reason. — Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Ritchie333 Well even though I see that RHaworth tends to be delete happy, I don't necessarily think he needs to have another discussion opened up about him, I just wish that he would have asked me about the page first, before deleting all my work on it. I'm a very easy going guy, it's fine. Trying to get this page up though has been like pulling teeth that won't come loose. A page that has already been here for 10 years and lied and vandalized about (which I've shown proof of above). The people who did it were clearly a bunch of Tumblr kids who went on a full out attack on him for whatever reason. And for whatever reason, the attack continued on Wiki with the editors who believed them or something. I really don't see the big issue with putting it back up. There are more than enough references and notability proof and he's been here for over 10 years already without an issue until that happened. He's been in he industry since 1987. As for RHayworth, like I said, no big deal. I just re-posted a new Wiki read and re-submitted. It's all good! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonmaceachran (talk • contribs)

  • The two image to which you linked don't prove anything in my view. "Correct" is a strange word to use. All Wikipedia articles must of course be factually accurate. But factually accuracy is not sufficient to make an acceptable article. We will see how your new draft fares. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

RHaworth: In your view, that's fine; you're more than entitled to your opinon. The photos clearly show a thread attacking him and one of them saying that he's purposely going to screw with his wikipedia and another stating in the comments that they need to "readact him from the annals" (meaning wiki, net etc). The original discussions and edits on his page that was here for years actually show vandalism from these people and even another editor on Wiki agreed with that. If that isn't proof of purposeful vandalism, I don't know what is. Please let me know when this can be resolved and the page can go public, it's really been going on long enough. Thank you, I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonmaceachran (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Common attributes, not R3

Would you mind restoring Common attributes? If the redirect was due to a page move, R3 only applies if the moved page was recently created, which Common Attributes was not. CC Daiyusha ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer. I saw a total of 3 pages existing: a. Common Attributes b. Common attributes c. Draft:Common Attributes.
Page a had content. c pointed to b and b pointed to a. I wanted to move 'a' to draft(c). And i found 'b' as well since the draft pointed to it. Just putting it out there as to clear out any confusion. Daiyusha (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Amory Restored per request. — Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of PONT Group

Hello RHaworth- My page the PONT Group was deleted before I had the chance to confirm that I am not employed by PONT Group and have no connection to them. I have amended the article and would like the chance to reupload it please. — LennyBunko (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Request to undelete page

The page is Sophia Stewart. I see that this page used to be an article page. I'm not interested in making it an article. However, it does deserve to be a redirect page. A search on Wikipedia for Sophia Stewart does not redirect to the The Matrix (franchise) article page, but there is a section "Legal claims" within the article that provides details of her lawsuit. Participants in the 2009 discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Stewart, that led to the article deletion, do not appear to have mentioned making the article into a redirect page. — Mitchumch (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It never occurred to me create the redirect. I'm used to seeing those messages and asking the last admin to restore it. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia page for university chancellor

I am trying to create a page for the chancellor of the university I work for (at his request), University of Missouri-Kansas City. I've submitted a couple of drafts, but they've all been deleted because he wants me to use language I've used before when I wrote his bio (I submitted a request to have that bio page placed in Wikipedia's common source). In my attempt to try again this morning, after re-writing, the name of the page I want it to be (the name of the chancellor) has been blocked. What are my options for naming a new page for review? — Bridget BKoan (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@BKoan: Unfortunately, we have had to delete Draft:C. Mauli Agrawal, Ph.D. as it was copied entirely from another website. Copyrights on Wikipedia have a specific meaning; in a nutshell you need to write things in your own words, otherwise they have to be deleted for legal reasons. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios has further reading. (I'm not listening to excuses from Haworth any more, it took me 5 seconds to find the page title, so to complain about it, as he would undoubtedly do so, smacks of pure laziness) I have rewritten the article, adding two reliable sources to demonstrate WP:PROF and informed the author. — Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "A proven leader, Agrawal is an esteemed educator" is not the way we start a Wikipedia article. "He wants me to use language". The subject of a bio is the last person we consult when considering the wording of the bio! Ritchie's new version is an object lesson in the sort of stuff we expect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Main problem

Hi RHaworth, today I submitted a new Wikipedia article for review and I noticed it has been entirely deleted by you. Looking at the deletion log it shows a G12: copyright infringement related to a reference used for the article. Could you please let me know what I should change before submitting the page for a second opinion? Thanks for your time. With the advice I hope to get my article approved, I have spent a lot of time on it and did quite a lot of research in the area I live, which is where this company was founded and contributed to the majority of employment here, which, as result, developed the art, sports, and so on. A noteworthy company not only for the area, but also internationally as it is the leader for poultry processing, a primary protein for humankind with the lowest CO2 footprint. — Dotsonti Let's Talk! 15:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Vera Micaelsen

You deleted this as I was in mid-revert. This is not a valid WP:G7 as the creator, Geschichte (talk · contribs) has made no indication that they wish to delete the page or blanked it. — Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion candidate

I know you handle a lot of speedies, so I was hoping you'd know if User:Zahra 1369/sandbox is eligible under U5 (or something). The user is a sockmaster whose multiple sock accounts keep getting globally locked for repeated recreation of self-promotional articles. This specific sandbox holds a draft of an article subsequently created in mainspace and deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryan Star), but the draft predates the deletion discussion so it's not a recreation, and it doesn't have article wizard or AfC templates so I'm hesitant to label it as an abandoned draft. I was thinking U5. Is that valid? Thanks in advance, and no worries if you don't have time for this. — Bakazaka (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It doesn't meet WP:G13 (annoyingly) as it's not in draft space or an AfC submission, it doesn't meet WP:U5 as it looks like a sincere attempt to write an article, it doesn't meet WP:G11 as it's innocuous enough in terms of prose, it's not obviously WP:G12, and the jury's out on it being a hoax so WP:G3's out too. Send it to MfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth/2019_Mar_30&oldid=1172210361"