User talk:RHaworth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

Up to:
   

[edit] Request Assistance for Preview

Hello,

On my User:Gary WebTrain personal page I have created content which I would like to post for WebTrain.

I have had my listing deleted once (it was too blatant and POV based), so I thought I should seek assistance before attempting another post. My Talk page stated to talk to you.

In the newly content prepared at User:Gary WebTrain, I have been careful to adhere to requirements. No POV is expressed, statements are simple, references are cited. I do not believe the content is in violation of any policies.

Currently, I am the only contributor. Regarding notability: We have been around longer than most of the other vendors listed under web conferencing that have their own article. Of special note is the referenced BCTIA 2006 Technology awards (The BCTIA is an organization of 1000+ BC hi-tech companies). Other notability that has not been referenced is that our clients include the Gov't of Canada, Canadian Land forces, U of Regina, Verizon (who have hosted 500,000 meetings using our product). We have 600,00 members, so based upon history, user base and achievements, I believe we are surpass the notability requirement.

I would like to invite others to provide content as well, I'm not sure how to do this. Perhaps an underconstruction tag ?

Finally, should I ask a different person to post the article (since I am the founder) (COI).

Assistance and advice would be appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you.

Gary Campbell 250 862-4800 (call collect if you like, I am located on the west coast Pacific Time Zone) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary WebTrain (talk • contribs) 04:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • You have admitted that you have a COI. As always, I recommend you to have the modesty to wait until someone with an unbiased view thinks the company is notable and writes it up for you in their words. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, I will do this. Note I mistakenly posted the WebTrain article, too many windows open, please delete it. From your review of the content at User:Gary WebTrain does it otherwise comply? Am I on the correct path? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary WebTrain (talk • contribs)

  • The correct path is for you let others judge whether your company is notable. No, your user page looks like spam for a non-notable company. What on earth is a domaintools entry supposed to show? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, may I request your assistance to review my user talk page content (bottom most section) for User_talk:Gary_WebTrain. Comments regarding references and notability would be appreciated, have a peek at the hisory content on the user page, and kinda let me know if I am on the right track here... Thanks in advance. Gary WebTrain (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • You just don't get it do you? I consider that anything you do here is advertising. What is this nonsense about "my collegues working on this article". No one has made substantive edits except you.
If you want a positive suggestion: look at articles here about comparable products, see who has been editing them, contact one or two of those people and ask them if you are notable enough to be here. -- — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harold "Bud" Boughton

You protected my listing for Harold "Bud" Boughton for "Spam posting". It had been previously marked as blatant advertising. It is not. I even added a notoriety line to the beginning of the article in response to previous deletions. He is a notable individual and deserved of an article. Please let me know what I need to change to get this article to stick. Thanks Harold.k.rogers (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Harold.K.Rogers

  • Persuade an existing, well established editor to post the article for you. Or raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Since the work you exhibit would definitely qualify you as an existing, well established editor, is it possible to persuade you to post this article for me? Thanks Harold.k.rogers (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)harold.k.rogers

  • Are you in the real world or not? Did you notice that I deleted the article because I thought it was an advert. Do you seriously think that I am going to repost it for you? Get real man. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, sorry for the attack on your sensibilities. If you read the article, you'd realize this is a noteworthy individual not an advertisement. Thanks for the unwarranted berating. Guess I'll take it up on deletion review. I'll remeber to steer clear of you in the future. Sorry if I inconvenienced you.Harold.k.rogers (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)harold.k.rogers

[edit] Link For Alfad

Thanks for the link Alfad (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kids' safety

Wikibooks was launched on July 10, 2003, in response to a request made by Wikipedia contributor Karl Wick for a project to host and build free textbooks such as organic chemistry and physics. NOTHING IS FOR TIPS FOR OUR KIDS, so the question remain I Would like to write an article about Safety ( specialy for Kids and Free tips!!!) What is wrong with that? Alfad (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CIBT Education Group

You've blocked people from contributing to the CIBT Education Group page. Can you unblock that so that I can add some history about them and the recent changes in their schools? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyco0301 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Willimantic Footbridge

You deleted Image:WillimanticFootbridge 1.jpg as a duplicate; what was it a duplicate of? Thank you. --NE2 19:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guernsey Live

The event has been and passed. I managed to get some pictures on the Sunday for the article so copyright shouldn't be an issue. What is required for notability and how do I get the page unprotected? Thanks. Dead6re (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

BBC Day 1 This is Guernsey

I think I may wait a couple of days and see if any of the music sites get reviews online and then try a deletion review. The BBC have also got day 2 now. What do you think? (BBC Day 2) -- Dead6re (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revisionism

Can you help me have this DAB page do it's job? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: Also, if you don't mind, would you kindly Archive my User page as you had done with my Talk page? I wish to hide everything.

  • I am trying to avoid being drawn into edit wars over revisionism. I don't see the point of "archiving" your user page but I have done it for you. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Regarding EW - how do you aviod the temptation? Also, I shall learn from your example. But by your picture on your UP you do seem like a natural warrior - in fact, a Viking ready to raid the shores of the Mediterrainian(sic - can't spell that word) --Ludvikus (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ludvikus

Thanks for the effort. But I thought you were going to Archive it, not Delete it (as is now). Can you please Archive it? Or is that not done? I'm ignorant on that matter. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You are 100% right. I was unclear (I'm still learing so much)! Is it possible to just Archive the User Page? If so, that's what I meant. I meant I wanted to Archive the User Page. If it's not too much bother for you, I'd like that. Thanx. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I think that I have archived your user page (with lower case letters). What exactly do you want me to do? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to access my old User Page (I do not mean the Talk/kDiscusion Page). That Loooong page has disappeared. If you look at it's history you only get 1 revision. It has disappeared. It is NOT archived at the moment. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erie Canal photos

Shouldn't be too hard. It'll give me something to do tomorrow. It must of been frustrating for Ohlhous to have all those articles redirected. On an interesting side note (and sometimes a frustrating one for me), the Erie Canal doesn't actually go anywhere near my hometown of the same name. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 04:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think Ohlhous would mind if I removed the text from some of the photos. For example, the "Bridge 8 - Rexford" in this photo. I feel the text is redundant and detracts from the photos. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 19:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Howard is not allowed to mind - he has released them into the public domain! From a quick glance most of the texts would be easy to take out with photoshop, but it would be a good idea to e-mail Howard and ask him if he is willing to supply versions without the text and possibly larger. He may well be delighted that you are rescuing them from obscurity. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, but the only problem is that Howard hadn't set up e-mail for his account. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, the e-mail is away. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 03:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for Encyclopedia Dramatica

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ViperSnake151 22:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I would have voted to re-create the article but the review was speedily closed. ED does seem to be having a rough ride. I do not see why Uncyclopedia is allowed an article and ED is not. However I do not feel moved to take up the kudgels for you - try some of the others who voted to reinstate in March. Let me know before you make the next deletion review request! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Alexa link. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portland College

Hello RHaworth

If you have a few minutes to spare can I point you to the discussion page of Portland College as I think more views are needed on this deletion tag which has been placed on this article by Trident13. Your valued views would be much appreciated either way!Stavros1 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quantifica

I wanted to know why you deleted my article on Quantifica? Why was it blatant advertising? I tried following the guidelines on notability. I used for model the articles of Gartner, Forrester, which are in the same industry as Quantifica. Please answer me... Bebeagrafe (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I suspected, and you have confirmed, that you have a COI. For you to create the article was, in my view, advertising. Feel free to raise the matter at deletion review. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How have I confirmed that I have a COI? In any case, how should I change the article in order to make it unbiased? Thanks for your answer... Bebeagrafe (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • See DRV discussion re COI. Best advice is wait until an established Wikipedian decides the company is notable and writes about you. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Morris article

I have an issue with the "nuetrality"/"blatant advertising" issues that are arising from me posting this bio.

Yes, I work for the company. However, my opinion is not interjected at any time in the article.

I have simply provided facts about Allen Morris and his career.

Should I need to revise certain aspects to adhere to Wikipedia standards, or involve editing from an 'outside' source, I am more than happy to.

I believe that deleting the article all together is extreme as this article is not blatant advertising. I am open to editing critiques and constructive criticism.

I am a new Wikipedia user, this is the first article I have posted, and so am just learning the language of the Wikipedia culture.

As with many biographies, a person's comendable attributes and achievements are recorded. I simply doing just this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amco121 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy deletion was, I admit, a bit harsh. You can have the gentler and more democratic AfD process. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I've posted this in the Afd debate as well.Please read it whenever you have the time.I'm pretty sure an article published by The herald will establish the subjects' notability.Cheers - Amog |Talk 18:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Tabla taskforce

Thanks for your proactive input.-Deepraj | Talk 13:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:HAU has a new format

Due to popular demand, HAU has a new look. Since the changes are so dramatic, I may have made some mistakes when translating the data. Please take a look at WP:HAU/EU and make sure your checkmarks are in the right place and feel free to add or remove some. There is a new feature, SoxBot V, a recently approved bot, automatically updates your online/offline status based on the length of time since your last edit. To allow SoxBot V to do this, you'll need to copy [[Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot]] to your userpage. Obviously you are not required to add this to your userpage, however, without this, your status will always be "offline" at HAU. Thanks. Useight (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The template was a good idea. Perhaps it could use a little sprucing up, but it will definitely make changing things easier. Nice work. Useight (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Googlefight

Your speedy deletion of this article on the grounds of insignificance (A7) seems quite inappropriate since the article made a claim of notability which was supported by multiple sources. Please revert to save us the trouble of deletion review. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Contact the person who closed the AfD discussion. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, you are the person who has deleted my article without discussion today and so that's why I am asking you to reverse your action. I can only speak for my version since I am not familiar with what was in earlier attempts to document this notable site. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • So. You asked. I told you to speak to Malinaccier. Why bother to come back to me? Perhaps I did not make it clear: I am not willing to override Malinaccier's decision within 24 hours of its having been made. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

His was a different decision about a different article - one that I have not even seen. If he were to undo his decision, that would restore that other article, not mine, and so muddy the waters. The DRV will be about your action not his. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Malinaccier will decide whether whether your version was superior or significantly different (I do not think it was) and decide what if, anything should be restored. Why have you not set up an email address so I can let you see the previous version? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This doesn't look like a proper use of administrative tools, to me. Not at all. Looks like a bad faith skirting of the rules by an adminstator who wants to show how powerful he is to non-administators. Clearly an abuse of power. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Which rules do you think I am skirting? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for speedy deletion for one. Since you seem unwilling to revert your action, I shall start the deletion review now. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Which one of numerous CSDs? Criterion G4 - "recreation of deleted material" was clearly applicable. Going to DRV - thank goodness - why did you not do that in the first place? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is courteous and simpler to give an editor the opportunity to reverse such an action. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

      • In fact, the DRV instructions counsel that an editor raise a question about or objection to deletion with the deleting administrator before taking the issue to DRV (quite wrongly, IMHO, and quite possibly without a consensus for such operation as a matter of general prescription or of description of past or current practice, but those are separate matters). Jerry and Guy, for two, have called for the speedy closing (or, at the very least, temporary suspension) of DRVs of their deletions where they were not consulted prior to the DRVs' being opened (Jerry, it happens, maintains on his talk page a brief paragraph to that effect). An admin may certainly note on his userpage or user talk page that one need do no more than leave the admin a {{DRVNote}} when contesting a deletion undertaken by that admin (several do), but in the absence of such a note a user cannot reasonably be expected to know that he should take the issue to DRV straightaway (and should, indeed, be commended for his following a procedure designed to promote civility and collegiality and to minimize unnecessary discussion, however silly that procedure may be). Joe 01:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What a load of waffle. Yes, you are recommended to consult the deleting admin first. But in this case, the deleting admin then replied "contact the person who closed the AfD discussion". Why did Colonel Warden not do that? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
How on Earth did my name get tangled into this affair? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 06:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for Googlefight

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Googlefight. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Not sure what happened with my archiving... thought I followed the instructions correctly, might have messed up with the "/" before the title, not sure. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you link me to a place (or a bot maybe) that shows me how to put my archive link in a box or something like that?Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coventry places

I see you have made a note on Bannerbrook Park. I saw that one come in, PRODded it as not notable, and left a friendly (I hope) message for the author Manfromcov (talk · contribs) explaining about notability. Looking through his other contributions, it seems to me that Henley Green, Brownshill Green, Warings Green and Little Heath, Coventry are all in the same class - too small to pass any reasonable definition of notability, or to imagine how they could, even with desperate scratching around for references in local newspapers, and certainly not in the spirit of WP:N and WP:NPT. I am minded to take all five to AfD as a package, but I thought I would check with you first. It worries me that Manfromcov has not edited since my note - I would hate to drive him away, as he is obviously keen, but I would like to channel his keenness into more useful articles.

(The trend to write articles about smaller and smaller geographical units was recently taken more or less to its logical limit with My home about a house in Derbyshire, deleted at AfD to cries of "Why are people so anti-British?" from its author).

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, I fear we may have driven him away - have you seen no fines? But what I did to no fines is probably the best approach: redirect each to Tile Hill (or whatever bit of Coventry best fits) and advise the man. I will do that. If I am feeling keen, I will copy text from the redirected article into the target of the redirect. Doing it that way means that everything is still available to non-admins. (I also noted my home with surprise! Given that Rich nffc has been making sensible edits, I am inclined to be charitable and say that it was meant for user: space.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw no fines and thought it was good stuff and he would clearly be a useful contributor. Pity it was already in. What Rich nffc said in the end was "I just wanted to see if I was capable of building a location article" - and as an article (apart from the subject) it was not bad. JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bannerbrook Park page was a good start for the topic too. I have got some photos, both before and during the construction work, and I am waiting for the estate to be more complete to take some more photos. Snowman (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at this map: are Glendale Way/Wickmans Drive and Goodman Way part of Bannerbrook Park? If yes, then it might just qualify for an article in its own right. If no, then the subject only warrants a brief mention in the Tile Hill article. Is there something special about this site. It reads as no different from hundreds of other brownfield sites. I have had a quick look for comaparable developments down where I live (all on lunatic asylum sites rather than factories!) and none is mentioned: Warlingham Park, Netherne and St Lawrences, Caterham. But thanks for looking. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accursed

Hi. I was planning to fix the redirect. I had the window open when the phone rang. :) Thanks. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I always open a new window with the whatlinksto in the redirect I have nominated for speedy deletion and I wait until it's deleted, then I fix the redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of real-time operating systems

Thanks for renaming List of real-time operating systems. I should have caught that when I created it. Poor excuse is a polluted mind from working in the RTOS industry for 5+ years, plus copy and paste from original article. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revisonism

How are you? You were very wise to avoid Historical revisionism & Historical revisionism (negationism). Had I heeded your example I would not be in the mess I'm in now - I blocked for 2 years for alleged disruption. It appears, thought, that one of the reasons posted involves your editing and archiving my pages (User & Talk). Somehow, that got mis-interpreted as "disruption." I would appreciated it very much if you explained what happened on the bottom of my page. Basically, you just archived my pages as I requested. And of course, if you could find it in your heart to put in a kind word for me - without putting your neck on the line - I would certainly aprreciate that! Cheers. -- user:Ludvikus by e-mail

[edit] SwiftKnowledge

I noticed that the article SwiftKnowledge was protected due to persistent spam on April 2, 2008. What is the reason for this and how can I actually provide neutral (not advertisement) information on this company? I would like to add them to the list of Business Intelligence Software companies. Thanks -- Curtisalbert 16:40, 22 May 2008

  • The reason is persistent spam as I suspect you know perfectly well. If you can establish the company's notability, create the article at user:Curtisalbert/sandbox and raise the question at deletion review. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AcroYoga

I placed my rationale for keeping this important article on the talk page. I upgraded the article with additional content. AcroYoga has been mentioned in the most prestigious journal of yoga on the planet, Yoga Journal. I am going to remove your deletion notice again. --Comixboy (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article - John von Neumann

Mr. Haworth,

Might it be possible for you to intercede respecting the article John von Neumann? We seem to have a war of article reversion, and your help is requested. It would seem prudent to lock the article, so that perversion of the name of Edward Teller (to the form Ede Teller) will cease. Thank you so very much for your kind consideration of this request. William R. Buckley (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Impact (cyber security)

Just so you know, I've offered an opinion on why I think Impact is notable (as someone who originally put a speedy tag on the article and reverted myself when it was first created), here. I won't remove the prod yet, as I'd rather have input on if the media coverage is sufficient to show notability, rather than remove the prod tag, and force you to waste time taking it to an AfD. Dreaded Walrus t c 22:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You deleted my article...

Don't do it again. I worked hard on that and it is not spam.. it is my favorite supplement company. at least they make products that work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainofcrush (talk • contribs) 12:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another deleted article

My article was also deleted and the reason was spam. I rewrote the article trying to make it less commercial. I thought that the new article I posted was purely informational and not advertising. Please let me know what I can do to get my article posted. --Btowngreenthumb (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The article was Osmocote. What can you do? Work hard on marketing the product, using paid advertising channels. Once it becomes an household word (at least among gardeners), someone will write it up here. Do not try to get free advertising off Wikipedia.
Alternatively: find existing, comparable articles here; look carefully through the edit history of each one to find an established editor who has contributed; contact that person, e-mail them your text and ask if they are willing to create the article. (If you are willing to do that, then I will know you are not a spammer! I have just wasted ten minutes looking at the history of Miracle-Gro and cannot find a suitable person.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{articleissues}}

Hi, I noticed this edit you made to the Membrane electrode assembly article. I thought you might want to check out the {{articleissues}} template, which is more efficient in terms of space.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • "In terms of space" - do you mean disk space or screen space? But in either case my reply is: "so what"? I just tried it. To make it work would require more keying than individual maintenance tags so I will stick to my existing habits, thank you. But why don't you ask the SmackBot to convert my tags into articleissues? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted page

You have protected the creation of a new page for Ivobank. It's a new online bank. Can you create it or unprotect it so that it can be filed? AbbieG (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Before it can be "filed", we need to establish that it is notable. The version I deleted carried no evidence of notability. Create a draft at User:AbbieG/sandbox and raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted CeraSport page

Just need to understand how this administrator thing works. Yet again the CeraSport page has been deleted. Out of the 5 people who have deleted the previous pages not one person can tell me how this post was any different then what Gatorade or Poweraid or any of the other sport drink pages have posted. Not trying to be a pain, but the page that was created was taken directly from what Gatorade has posted *1*. One administrator helped to edit a previous post and that was actually up for two weeks before being pulled down. Is there a rhyme or reason to why this keeps happening. If you could offer a way that I could edit this page so that it would be acceptable that would be great.

Thanks for the consideration. — (Bjanis)Bjanis (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The rhyme and reason is that a) you seem to be an SPA which I usually equate with spammer and b) the product seems far less notable than the other two products you mention. Your wording at *1* above is a dead give-away. The whole point of Wikipedia is that the Gatorade article was not posted by Gatorade!
If you want the page to stick: work through the edit histories of Gatorade and POWERade to find an established Wikipedian who seems to be interested in this type of product. Contact that person and ask them to create the page for you. Or raise the matter at deletion review. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] womex page

hello, you have put the article of womex for deleting, please give further reasons why and compare to Popkomm, which is likely alike and no advertising. also changes have been made, please withdraw your message or give further reasons. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florfly (talk • contribs) 07:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy/Quotations

You have deleted this page and my edits of it. Would you please undelte it or tell me how to do it myself or tell me where I can find the edits that you deleted with the page--Philogo 21:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Restored. I leave you to bring your stuff to the current version. -- — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Actaully after making the above requested I resored ut by renaiing (moving) the page from the talk page; I spose thats what I should have done in the first instance.--Philogo 12:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 99-agon

I did already see the deletion page, I asked a question about merging it into some kind of page called, Polygons: 90-99 or something. I don't understand why it was deleted, even if enneacontakaienneagon is rarely to never used, it may still be important to have it's own article, like the 10000-agon. Usualy fictional characters etc... need to be merged into other pages because all they have is a short bio, and appearence, but something like a large polygon, even if it is a stub, or a lower class article is still important, it's an article that describes something real, some unknown geometry. Maybe a proffesor would like to search something up about the 99-agon. I think, even if it is not popular on the internet, it should receive a page of its own.Androo123 (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)