This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ottawahitech. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).
The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.
I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No, no. I'm done, please go ahead. I'm not a categorizer, as such; I only take an occasional look at them, at articles that I have an interest in. All done, I promise you. Bishonen | talk15:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC).
Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anil Srinivasan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carnatic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Speedy deletion nomination of 2012 New York City tornado
Hello Ottawahitech,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 2012 New York City tornado for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
How can I stop these notifications? - I have removed my name from the list a while ago.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. KTC (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Just a reminder that the correct way to begin a default sort statement is DEFAULTSORT:, not "DEFAULTSORT|", "Defaultsort|", or "defaultsort|". Using any of the incorrect ways requires the Wikipedia server to perform extra steps to substitute the correct code. — Paul A (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bgwhite (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know - but what was the rush to delete this article? I see it was deleted less than an hour after you notified me:
"08:38, 19 September 2012 Yunshui (talk | contribs) deleted page Craig Van Hulzen (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)"Ottawahitech (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Page Curation newsletter
Hey Ottawahitech. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hillcrest High School (Ottawa), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VJ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. AutomaticStrikeout18:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
No-this is not the first article I have created at Wikipedia
A well-known lawyer arrested for rape has no significance?
I have followed directions and contested this (too) speedy deletion request.
If I did not have to spend so much time defending articles on Wikipedia proposed for deletion I would have much more time to work on something actually productive. Sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but if he was otherwise notable, it might stand. Might. As it is, WP:BLP1E and also WP:BLPCRIME come into play. Even being rape doesn't make the case out of the ordinary so far. It must also be considered too that he is accused, but not yet tried. If he is proven innocent, what is the point of the article then? Feel free to take it to WP:DRV if you thing I'm wrong. (So far as I know, only three or four of my deletions have gone there, and all were upheld or deleted after an AfD. Being Perry-don not Perry Mason I've got to lose one some day. Might be this one.) Peridon (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for responding Peridon. It seems that what you are saying is that even though the article was deleted not in accordance with wiki-guidelines I must go to the trouble of making a fuss about it, if I want it restored? AND that by doing so I may ruin your spotless record? By the way - if Danfiord Grant ends up being acquitted then we can add him to Category:People acquitted of rape - I don't believe having an article about him jeopardizes his case as long as we stick to reliable sources. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
At least three more articles in reliable sources have shown up on Google since I last looked:
We need to be very careful here. This is evidently someone who knows a bit about internet gossip and the law.[1] In any event, there's not much to say about charges other than "X has been charged with n counts of whatever." Unless he's been convicted, he's innocent. The more egregious the charge, the more important that principle is. Wikipedia is wp:NOTNEWS. If he should someday be convicted, we could then have a reasonable discussion about an article. Otherwise, why should we join in an e-lynching? LeadSongDogcome howl!20:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daya Shankar (IRS officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article is too short, but could be expanded easily.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. —Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. This is a category I created by error (I meant to create a different one, which I did right after). However, to compound my error, it seems I forgot to remove this category's parent (Debuts) - sorry for the confusion. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kim Dotcom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Party, Coatesville and David Henderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Stuart until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.
However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.
Thanks Molevol1234 for commenting on my edit at Ariel_Fernandez. The reason I redlinked the term wrapping technology is exactly because I assumed many readers were unfamiliar with it.
Got it, thanks! I do not understand why this is written to suggest this person "pioneered" something that's not even part of the standard scientific lexicon. If you look at the reviews for his book, you will find four 5-star reviews, all submitted within a week or two of its release, by people who have never reviewed another thing on amazon.com. Too bad they are not as good at wiping out sockpuppetry as is wikipedia.
As to editing the page, it does not allow me to do this for whatever reason. Honestly, I do not care that much, since the majority of self-promotion has already been removed. In any case, thanks to you and to others at wikipedia for enforcing high standards. Molevol1234 (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I still had Ariel Fernandez's user page on my watchlist, so I found out about this issue. Molevol1234, once you have had your account for at least 4 days and made at least 10 edits (on pages that are not protected), you will be able to edit Ariel Fernandez yourself. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! I just reverted your several additions of the WP Nortel template to various article talk pages; since the wikiproject has been deleted, this template served no useful purpose and its rapid addition to various article after you learned that the project was deleted could be interpreted as a violation of WP:POINT. Wikipedia:Deletion review is the appropriate place to voice your concerns if you feel there was not adequate notification of the deletion (purpose #6 - substantial procedural errors), and I would suggest bringing your concerns about the deletion discussion's tone to the individuals' talk pages (WP:ANI could be an appropriate escalation if you are not satisfied with the responses, I suppose). I do notice that the nomination used the term most, not all however so it may be appropriate to consider if there is really any reason to be personally insulted by that discussion. VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Ottawa, I saw your message on the talk page for that MfD, but I doubt anyone else will (they are transcluded and no one ever looks at their talk pages). I reviewed your contributions as part of my investigation, but I concluded that you were not involved in the problematic Ayava/Nortel editing, and since you weren't listed as a member of the now-defunct Wikiproject, I did not list you on User:Gigs/Avaya_Pushers. An account being listed there is not an implication of specific wrongdoing anyway, as I'm pretty sure that Fumitol for example is a normal editor that just happened to join a sham Wikiproject. Gigs (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I think a DRV would be the best place, if you'd like to challenge the deletion result. If you just want to discuss it without challenging the deletion result, I'm not sure. Maybe WP:COIN? You could MfD my evidence page if that's the part that bothers you, but I'll delete that willingly once I feel like everything has settled out from this, so that's unnecessary. The only advantage of a new MfD would be that you would reach more of the people who commented on the MfD. There was a short thread about this on WP:AN prior to the Wikiproject MfD, but I'm not sure that would be the right place for extended discussion about the deletion. Anyway it's up to you. I have no problem taking this discussion to a more public forum, you can decide where you want it to be. Gigs (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HealthGrades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Computer Contradictionary until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
@Nouniquenames, thanks for letting me know, even though I did not start this article. I do appreciate the spcial effort (but not the deletion nomination :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aurélie Resch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatelaine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for the kudos on the newest WikiProject Report. If you have any ideas for future reports, whether they be specific projects we could interview or interesting topics were could explore in a special issue, please let me know over at the WikiProject Report's request section. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, should have addressed that as well. The standard here seems to be not to categorise redirects with a few exceptions, such as categories that indicate what kind of redirect it is (and which are usually added with templates rather than directly into the article). See WP:RCAT. But I guess that in this case I was just used to redirects being just the redirect markup and no categories. — Smjg (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Nisenholtz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NSF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Dengero (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
@Dengero, You cannot be serious? I just started this article and your notice went up within TWO seconds? - so instead of working to improve this article, I am wasting precious time trying to prevent this proposed wp:CSD
Just as I thought: total waste of my time - article (plus associated categories which I created) deleted by an admin within minutes of creation and the admin obviously paid no attention to my objection on the talk page. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand your grievances. This situation acts in contrary to what Wikipedia strives for...editors creating articles. I have found that the easiest solution is to create an article in a sandbox where it will be safe from intrusion and the "cruel hands" of deletion. I have many articles that are sitting in various sandboxes waiting for construction to be completed. I put an "Under construction" ({{construction}}) sign at the stop just to be safe. That doesn't discount what you have experienced here and I understand your ire. I think you should be able to salvage your work and start a sandbox for Kimberlt Townley-Smith. ```Buster Seven Talk20:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ottawahitech, I'm sorry about what happened to your article. While we do try not to bite newcomers, it's really hard for us as well since there's so much content created all the time. Perhaps get an admin to usefy your deleted page so you can work on it. Hope this event doesn't discourage you, keep it up!! Happy Editing =) Dengero (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
@Dengero - Huh? "So much content created all the time" - is that a bad thing? So you see your job on Wikipedia is to prevent this from happening? - just curious. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd say (don't hold me to this) around a quarter of new articles don't meet the criteria to WP:N, and I'd reckon half of those are either vandalism or blatant self-promotion. sometimes it's hard for us to distinguish established users such as yourself against the others. Again, we can prevent this problem from happening if you create an article that is higher than the speedy bar straight off the bat =D Dengero (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok let's turn the question on me instead. How do I speedy an article? If it's a person, I usually see if there's any references. Most of the time I check google unless it's very obvious the creator is self-promoting. The key question is, at first glance, is the person in the article notable? And being disbarred due to a not-very covered rape case doesn't count as notable. I mean, otherwise every accused rapist will have an article here on wikipedia. However, imagine if its someone like Jimmy Savile, and his article hasn't been created yet. His case has been covered by almost all major media in the world, and you can literally pull thousands of documents for him. Even if at the end of the day he doesn't pass the notable bar, at least his article would not be speedied, but be put up to afd for further scrutiny. Dengero (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
@Dengero, Whoa! Slow down a bit (advice I try to give to myself all the time). We are not talking about rape cases here. We are talking about Kimberly Townley-Smith. And you still have not answered my simple question: What is "higher than the speedy bar"? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
To "create an article that is higher than the speedy bar straight off the bat" is an informal way of saying that the wp:Criteria for speedy deletion (a.k.a. "speedy" criteria) are not very stringent, so it should be possible without knocking yourself out to meet them in the first stub version that you save in artice space (it's a sort of tortured reference to high-jumping over a low bar). In this case, your stub did not even say what made the subject notable, so it failed wp:CSD#A7, which excludes "An article about a real person, ..., that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". You need to decide what you would say about her in the first sentence that asserts her encyclopedic significance. Is she mostly noted for fighting the Potter case, for attempting to defend a trademark that is straight out of Macbeth, for attacking the judges, for getting disbarred as a result, or something else? What makes her stand out from the crowd? LeadSongDogcome howl!20:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, I just wanted to add my two cents into this discussion, since I am familiar with Townley-Smith's law society hearings (it was reported by a few local legal news groups, and when it first came up on CanLii I found her case entertaining). I haven't seen the deleted article, so I don't know what was in it. However, if all it said was something along the lines of "Townley-Smith is a disbarred lawyer", then it would almost certainly be deleted under A7. If it was noted that it was widely reported about what led to her disbarment, or that it was reported widely in the media, then it would pass A7, but could potentially run into a WP:BLP1E problem on an AfD. (As an aside, knowing what has been reported bout Townley-Smith, I would most likely have !voted delete in any AfD discussion due to the BLP1E problem.) Anyway, I know that you may disagree with me on that, but I think it helps to hear a different point-of-view from an editor familiar with the topic. Singularity42 (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The deletion is shown as wp:CSD#A7. I don't doubt there's sufficient material to establish notability, but it's best to ensure that's in the article before you hit "save". I suggest you ask the admin to userfy it so you can address the lack. LeadSongDogcome howl!07:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi LeadSongDog and thanks for continuing to help me. As far as this (very) speedy deletion, I am still curious to find out why it happened in the first place. It is my understanding that Wikipedia:New pages patrollers are not supposed to tag items for deletion within seconds of creation. I hope the admin who deleted it will respond to my question. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Ottawahitech. I deleted the article because it clearly qualified under WP:CSD#A7 for deletion. Normally if a speedy deletion is contested, I might wait awhile, but your rationale on the talk page for keeping the article (she's notable because she was disbarred) wasn't valid. Wikipedia:Notability and in particular Wikipedia:Notability (people) are the applicable guidelines that describe the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.
If there is something besides WP:ONEEVENT that makes her notable, I suggest that you build the article as a sub-page in your own user space, where it won't be deleted, before moving it to main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.
In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk14:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Investors in technology, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
American technology businesspeople suffices and there is not eough people for this category to take place.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Equilibrium Allure (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Mastro until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Harry the Dog WOOF14:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Equilibrium Allure (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fredric Tomczyk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TD Bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You know, you could always create a new Nortel/Avaya Wikiproject that wasn't populated with mostly SPAs with a promotional focus. Gigs (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
This is not intended to be a complete list, nor do I generally make it a point to notify anyone other than the article creator of such things, but you seem particularly interested in similar articles and have not shown any activity at these. --Nouniquenames17:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
There's really no question there to which I can respond. There are a number of articles that do not meet requirements and should be deleted. This particular company had a history of socks and spas involved in creating articles for less-than-notable aspects. Having found such a thread of content requiring attention, I'm not averse to following it. (The same could be said of my actions in certain categories of old, declined AfC pages, see my CSD log, MFD 1, and MFD 2.) If you have such a thread to unravel of another company, no matter the nationality, let me know and I'll gladly look into it if you like.
As to the "burn it with fire" for associated content, that has (to the best of my knowledge) been accomplished. The project and its associated subpages have been deleted via the MFD in which I placed the comment.
Concerning the point that I start with a Prod; understand that such a strategy may benefit you, as it makes undeletion and/or content recovery for improvement easier for you. Please see WP:REFUND. --Nouniquenames16:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, I suspect that Nouniquenames' modus operandi is like mine: you come across a dodgy looking article, and that leads to another (because of links) and then you find even more. Nouniquenames is one of at least three editors who has been concerned with Avaya related articles so you should not read anything into the work of Nouniquenames. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi mate, having had another read, the MFD talk page really wasn't the most appropriate place to continue discussions about subsequent deletion nominations of other (in some cases, entirely unrelated) articles. As such, I've archived the MFD talk page, hatted ongoing discussions and moved those to a new page I created at User talk:Ottawahitech/Nortel, a sub-page of this talk page.
Anyone who now visits the MFD talk page will be directed to that new page (not a redirect, just a note at the top of the page and throughout the discussion).
I hope you are happy with this solution - I just didn't think we should continue to use an MFD talk page to discuss entirely unrelated things. Stalwart11123:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you about where any new discussion should go, but it certainly shouldn't go on the talk page of an MFD discussion for a project that no longer exists, especially if those discussions have nothing to do with the original MFD and very little to do with the project. If you would prefer, I could "host" any subsequent discussion on a sub-page of my talk page (rather than a sub-page of yours), but continuing to use the MFD talk page to discuss other matters is a misuse of that page and could even be seen as an attempt to discuss issues in a place where most editors would be unlikely to look. That page really does need to remain closed, though I'm more than happy (as I said) to discuss where the new discussion starts if you are not happy with where I put it. Stalwart11102:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Please don't continue to post to a now-archived talk page. I don't think archiving the talk page for an already archived discussion was presumptuous at all. We really shouldn't be using that talk page to discuss anything other than the MRD in question and only while the MFD was ongoing. It has been closed. Any further discussion of that MFD should taken to WP:DRV. Unrelated discussion certainly should not be there. You'll find most other editors (if not all of them) will respect the closure and archiving and will take the discussion to a more appropriate venue (they simply won't respond to any further comments). Four different people said that page was not the appropriate place to continue those discussions and I followed that up by formally archiving the page and creating a new (more appropriate) venue for those discussions. Again, I'm happy to "host" the continued discussion if you aren't comfortable with having it "attached" to your talk page. I am one of the few people who has been willing to discuss these issues with you in detail and I'm happy to continue those discussions. But let's please have those discussions in the appropriate places. The talk page of an archived and unrelated MFD is about the least appropriate place, in my opinion. Stalwart11122:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Cataloging discussions
Re your edit to an archived discussion here, I used Cisco as an example because it was the most recent and the one I noticed and replied under. It would apply equally to any other company. VQuakr (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I did not know it was possible to remove the move permission individually. Are you sure it was not just a browser issue? VQuakr (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Ottawahitech. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, United States fiscal cliff for Dummies, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, United States fiscal cliff for Dummies. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – United States fiscal cliff. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at United States fiscal cliff – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Travelbird (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Gfosankar (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
@Gfosankar, I have contested this proposed deletion with this text (cop&paste):
If you're still waiting then it's only because you've not taken up my offer to discuss the matter as I suggested above on three occasions. Still happy to discuss it but the page in question is not the place for discussing anything other than the MFD it is attached to. That MFD was closed and archived long ago (not by me) and the talk page for that MFD really shouldn't have been used beyond that and it's unfortunate that it was. You are free to remove the content from your page or request deletion of the sub-page I created. I only put it there because it seemed like the logical place to continue a discussion you started. Again, happy for it to go somewhere else but the talk page of an old and archived MFD is not an appropriate "somewhere else". It really isn't even the appropriate place to discuss where that appropriate place might be because that MFD has nothing to do with those discussions. I left three messages above with no response; please do not now suggest that you have been "waiting" for me. Stalwart11104:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Though the courteous thing to do would have been to respond and discuss the matter, I'm glad you have now moved your discussion to Talk:Nortel. I'm not sure there was a need to copy-paste the entire archived contents of another talk page (a link and a new discussion probably would have sufficed) but your colleagues there can discuss that with you. I've now requested the speedy deletion of the sub-page I created for you. As I have said from the very start, I was one of the few people who seemed willing to discuss this with you and make an effort to help you. But the way you've approached this whole thing suggests my efforts and good faith were misguided. Good luck. Stalwart11123:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Winter Wonderland
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. For this article to be useful, it needsto be backlinked from all the listed articles. You can do this by adding a 'See also' section to the corresponding articles.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Hello, Ottawahitech. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Jonathan Obar, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
Given the substantial discussion that has occurred on this page with respect to our notability guidelines, I was somewhat surprised to see that you had created this page. Would you be willing to walk me through the process you use to determine if a subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria before you create an article? VQuakr (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Since you seem to be an experienced editor rather than the usual look-ma-I-created-an-article type, instead of just trying to PROD or AFD it, I'll ask you: Under which criteria do you feel this article merits inclusion? Because it seems to me that this is an arbitrary list of events. Initially you also had shooting sprees there, which were removed, obviously since you called it 'Murders'. There is no list for 2011, 2010, or any other year in the encyclopedia. There are of course List of murders, however that explicitly only includes notable events that involved actors, politicians, etc. §FreeRangeFrogcroak04:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nortel related articles until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I see that you have recently created a number of new lists. These lists are not really building WP since, from the ones that I have seen, are not annotated in any way and can be served by categories and templates. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2012 murders in the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Mastro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnum pistol cartridges until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak19:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of firearm brands until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Dirty needles. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Needle-exchange programme. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Needle-exchange programme – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. TheLongTone (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
@TheLongTone, the article Needle-exchange programme is not about the same topic I am attempting to cover in Dirty needles. My article deals with unhygienic practices that lead to infection - not much to do with drug use if you read the reference I provided (which someone has already deleted from wikipedia, sigh...) Ottawahitech (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the reference I used when I tried to introduce this article to wikipedia:
You say "give me time". How much more time do you need? You should have been thinking about archiving five years ago. If nothing else, spare a thought for people with mobile devices who may find this page utterly unmanageable. I shall give you a week but what on earth is wrong with MiszaBot? — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 00:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The offer I made earlier this year to set up an auto-archival bot for you, if you desire, still applies. Happy New Year! VQuakr (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the new contributors help desk, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-helpIRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi there,
My name's Tracey and I work in PR representing Pacific Equity Partners. I noticed you were a recent contributor to the PEP page so I'm reaching out to draw your attention to proposed new content posted on Private Equity Taskforce talk [[2]]. If you have time to review the suggestions it would be appreciated. Regards --Tsen2 (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC) 23:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nortel products until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join WikiProject Hotels, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of hotels, motels and lodging-related topics.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disruptive physician until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Many apologies
My apologies for the edit on the Clare Grogan article. I read the sentence and, for whatever reason, thought it said "while waiting and the SF in G" as in waiting for someone else - daft really. I'll clean my reading glasses with more vigor from now on. Thanks for fixing my error and have a good weekend. MarnetteD | Talk22:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think this is a category that is going to survive the deletion discussion? You were bold, I reverted you with an edit summary... so you reinstate the edit without discussion or edit summary? No. If you insist on populating this category with this article for a third time, I won't revert you. Be we are headed to CfD shortly. Cheers... Doctalk03:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I don't believe the 10% cut merits inclusion in the lead section, especially because it's partly about Telefilm, which is not related to the NFB. The cut is already mentioned and referenced in the most recent part of the History section, and the 10% cut is only the latest to the NFB -- and not the biggest. I just don't see how it belongs in the opening section. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I wanted to talk to you about this category as well Category:Healthcare in the United States - all of the country-level healthcare cats were deleted per CFD in April 2012, then you recreated it in October 2012. Can you tell me your thinking here? The issue I see is, almost any article you'd put in Healthcare would also belong under health, and vice versa. For example, look at the articles here: Category:Health_in_the_United_States - couldn't it be argued that some of those belong in Healthcare - and I could also argue that many of the topics you put in Healthcare belong in health too. Since removing the HC/health by country divide the health tree has gotten much cleaner overall. As of now, we don't have a clean way of deciding whether an article is about health or healthcare...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall seeing this: CFD in April 2012, but don't hold me to it - memory has never been my strong point :-)
were created years before this CFD took place - so obviously those cats escaped renaming and as a result the structure around them became unstable/inconsistent.
In general I find that decisions at wp:CFD are often poorly thought out and inconsistent, creating more headaches than they solve. But then, I guess others feel differently :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there was another CFD for those, but it passed as no consensus. Frankly I wasn't convinced by the admin's decision - you had two opposes (VW and BHG), but their arguments were not very strong (essentially, health is not the same as healthcare). In the case of the cities, it's less of a big deal, as these usually only contain hospitals and other health care infrastructure. Once you go to the national level however you run into lots more articles that straddle the line, so the distinction becomes less useful - it just adds a layer without much use.
For example, after creating this cat, when you re-categorized things into healthcare, how did you decide? Why did you leave so many things out?
I think the lower level cats are much more useful (e.g. medical schools, hospitals, physicians, research institutes, etc), but a high-level distinction between health and healthcare as categories doesn't work that well. In the real world people don't separate, since health is the result (sometimes) of healthcare. It would be like having categories for Category:Teaching by country and Category:Education by country and Category:Learning by country...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aziz Abdullah Ahmed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi there, thanks for your contribution to the Langley page regarding Derby. My concern is that Derby is a very small area, not really a major neightbourhood, however I don't want to remove smaller areas from the Langley page entirely. Would like to hear your thoughts on the talk page for the article!
James.bc (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I vaguely remember sometthing about this company receiving funds from two large VC firms - which means that some people are willing to put their money on the line for this company. Of course I never understood the No indication of importance reason for speedy deletions - seems like subjective criteria? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greenstone, Ontario, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jellicoe and Beardmore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some datum I needed to know about. I took one look at the Civil War nurses discussion and decided that, after last week's debacle, I didn't want to have anything to do with realigning gender categories. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey. I saw you had some interest in getting Bread to GA (and if you're interested, I'll sucker you into getting it to FA as well). If you look here I think it should lay out basically what's looked for; essentially an article which meets WP's standards but doesn't exceed them (that's what FA is for). If you're interested ping me on my talkpage and we can figure out who's going to do what. If you're not interested, let me know and I shan't bother you :) The Potato Hose↘01:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Also may I respectfully ask that you archive your talkpage? It's a bit on the large side, as the actress said to the bishop. The Potato Hose↘02:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steven Harper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
User:DexDor, thanks for letting me know. I have briefly looked at your contributions to wiki-categories, and it seems that you mainly nominate categories to wp:cfd. May I ask if you also contribute to that area directly? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You asked, - we miss several banned/blocked/retired/frustrated editors. If you are a project member, you can add to the list, if not you can suggest on it's talk page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, no. I expressed at a time that I am not part of Teh Community, it did not improve much since, but I changed the red link to milder ;) - I better don't say what I think of banning people from the "encyclopedia that everyone can edit". A friend got blocked and unblocked twice within a few days ... - That's why we have our own project list, and study its talk: even that gets debated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is what you are asking, but while this is fresh in my mind let me tell you how I came to post Mbz1 (talk·contribs) to wp:missing wikipedians:
I was reading the thread Are there fewer editors willing to go through the process? thread in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship where kudpung (talk·contribs), an admin I have knowledge of for several years, had posted a few comments.
I was curious to see who created it and the history revealed it was Mbz1 (talk·contribs)
I discovered that Mbz1, an editor new to me (I think), had a Retired tag on his (I assumed she was a he at that point) user page and that this editor had enough contributions to be included in wp:MW, and since the article had survived on Wikipedia I did not initially know that he/she was a blocked editor.
Later, however, I noticed that this editor’s contributions were marked as an indef block, even though the user page was not.
Normally after I post an editor’s entry to mw, and after I notify them that they have been mentioned as a missing editor, I check out other entries on their talk page. I Do this to I try to try to keep as neutral a point of view as possible. I believe this is what I did in this case as well. XOttawahitech (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
If you have a bit more time, check out her pictures (history of her user), some still appear on the Main page as featured pictures (notices on her talk), for example this one, - she's in our list, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Talkback notices
Hello, Ottawahitech. You have new messages at Xiangju's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello. I just got a notice that you thanked me for a post I made on the talk page of WikiProject Breakfast. Thanks for your feedback, but also, how did you do that? Blue Rasberry (talk)14:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bluerasberry, all you need to do when you want to thank someone is click the View history tab at the top of any wiki page (which btw I cannot copy&paste, argghhh), chose the entry for the edit and click thank. Hope I am making sense? XOttawahitech (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ottawahitech, I just wanted to let you know that your RM at Talk:List of fires was malformed; you appear to have added {{requested move/dated}} directly, which {{requested move}} says not to do. As a result, there was no signature or rationale. You'll probably want to remove or replace it, following the instructions at WP:RM/CM. Please don't hesitate to leave me a talk page message if you need any help doing so. Best, BDD (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? is clearly labeled as a blocked sockpuppet of Otto4711. Please be more careful before adding sockpuppets, even successful ones, to that list. In general, I do not see any good reason why any blocked user should ever be added to that list--we know why they're gone. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
"Review" = "Patrol". I look at the page, decide there's nothing obviously wrong with it, click 'patrolled' to remove it from the list of unpatrolled pages, close the page, move to the next. Total time, maybe 8 seconds including 'loading the page' and 'scrolling down until I see the link to click'. (I read fast.) DS (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trading (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Ottawahitech, I've just noticed that you removed a category from Air Cargo Germany. Has there been reached some general consensus somewhere on Wikipedia that those categories shall be removed, which I'm not aware of? Otherwise, I would like to point out that virtually any airline article has such "airlines (dis)established in" categories. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
A tribute from Penyulap
user:Penyulap has prepared this rather impressive barnstar-style tribute for your caring work, but is unable to post it other than on his userpage. I am posting it here so you can see it:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anton Octavian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
User:Oddbodz, thanks for letting me know - I tried to find an article about this fire before I started 2013 Arizona wild fire, but with a name like Yarnell Hill fire it was impossible to find. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree it is a hard one to find and I only knew we already had one as I've come across it a couple of times today while reviewing feedback at the Central Feedback Page. Once the event passes and the page quiets down, it may be worth requesting a move to a better name, but for now 2013 Arizona wild fire will redirect users there. Oddbodz (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank you on behalf of WikiProject Globalization! We appreciate your contribution(s) and invite you to join us in further improving Wikipedia's coverage of globalization. Feel free to ask questions or make suggestions on the project's talk page.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Foreign worker may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
special permits. The largest category however is called the [[Temporary Foreign Worker Program]]((TFWP) , under which workers are brought to Canada by their employers for specific jobs. In 2006,
I see that you've been adding categories to the archived issues of the WikiProject Report. Is there a way to include the categories in our article template so that future editions are automatically tagged with the appropriate category? Thanks! –Mabeenot (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes I have been working on categorizing the wikiproject reports. I think I am getting close, but have not quite yet figured out how to make it useful. Will keep you informed. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
@Mabeenot:, here is a bit of an update which I have been meaning to post for a while.
As you may know, WikiProjects fascinate me, and your weekly column at the Signpost has been tremendously successful at explaining this intricate topic to me. I started out categorizing your articles to help myself and others find Wikiprojects they may be interested in.
The first obstacle to building this category was that your Signpost articles do not contain the name of the WikiProject in the title… Anyway to make a long story short(er), I have had to create redirects to Signpost articles to come up with this: Category:WikiProjects in The Signpost by name. Since this is a laborious process there only 89 entries in this category so far, but I keep plugging at it one day at a time. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to put these together. I'm sure the categories will come in handy for some new, interactive archive of the future. While I try to include the project's name in the title, sometimes it's more fun to come up with something totally off the wall. Plus, the editor in chief will often shorten the titles to fit their needs, so the project name sometimes gets cut. Let me know if there are any topics or projects you'd be interested in knowing more about. –Mabeenot (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Irene Armishaw
There doesn't have to be an AFD discussion if an article meets one or more of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The article as written didn't make any actual claim of notability whatsoever — its only real claim of notability was the fact that she ran as a candidate a couple of times (not a valid claim of notability under WP:POLITICIAN), and its only cited source was one which verified a fact about her daughter, but didn't even mention Irene's name at all and thus didn't support her notability. And while her name is mentioned in the party's article, which is why I kept the redirect, even that article doesn't in and of itself make enough of a claim of her notability to salvage the separate BLP — it says that she was the party's president and said that she might have been the party's public leader, but the former is not a position that entitles a person to an automatic presumption of notability, and I had to entirely remove the second claim as Wikipedia is not in the business of making unsourced claims about what people might have been.
If you think she's notable enough for an independent article and can properly source that fact, you're always free to create a new article that's better than the first one — but the first one didn't meet our inclusion rules at all, and was speediable for that reason. If there's a better article that can be written about her, then by all means go for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The only place a CSD deletion has to be, or indeed even can be, "documented" is in the edit summary of the deletion itself. It's not at all incompatible with the redirect, because pages which have been deleted by any process are allowed to later be redirected to another title. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Removing the tag for "unlit streets" on Detroit bankruptcy was improper, and on looking for a cite to support it I see the line was plagiarized from the NYT. Please be careful, because that's to issues one can get blocked over. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, your edit (perhaps inadvertently) removed a citation needed tag from a line in the lead about "unlit streets" that had been copied without attribution from the New York Times. As long as this was not on purpose don't worry, it may have been an edit conflict. Thanks. PS, I like your user name, it looks like something Algonquian: "Ott-ah-wah-hee-tetsh". :) μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Express Personnel Services until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TKKbark !23:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2013 Dingxi China earthquake. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 2013 Dingxi earthquakes. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2013 Dingxi earthquakes – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you see my notification to you of a reply at WT:MED?
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Surf Air, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Defense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, Ottawahitech. I saw you flagged one of the sources in Richard Stengel as {{dead link}}. I did a little looking and found what I think may be the same article on The New York Observer website. I've closely reviewed this new source and it supports all of the information that the old article was used for.
If you have a moment would you be willing to update the reference? I would do it myself, but I am actually working on some other updates to the article on behalf of Time Inc. (You can see my Talk page note here.) Because of my financial COI regarding the subject I prefer to avoid direct edits to the article, even if they are small maintenance-type edits like this.
I've prepared a revised reference, in case you have the time to make this change. For now I've left the refname as "TimeWarner" so that you don't need to update all of the ref tags throughout the article, but you could change it if you want. (The full citation is found in the Early life and education section at the end of the second sentence.)
<ref name=TimeWarner>{{cite web |url=http://observer.com/2006/05/emtimeem-names-richard-stengel-me/ |title=Time Names Richard Stengel M.E. |date=17 May 2006 |work=Observer.com |accessdate=25 July 2013}}</ref>
Belatedly, I realized the citation simply could be updated by including an "archiveurl" parameter; since you seem to be occupied with other things, I've asked about this at WP:HELPDESK. Someone there may well get to it, but if you find it not completed, and have a moment, that would be cool, too. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
missing
Thank you for tireless category work, for requesting cleanup of translated articles, but most of all to look after missing editors, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marta Yanci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Sebastian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
First of all you get high marks for asking this question in the first place, not too many others care to know!
As far as the answer to your question: try clicking on the link Category:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors (which is probably located at the very bottom of your screen at wp:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors), and when you look at the category page check the section Pages in category "WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors" and you will see that the entry for the wikiproject is now placed at the very top of the list. This is what my edit did: it created a blank sort key for the entry on the category page, which means that the entry is sorted to the top of the list rather than in alphabetical order of its title.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I apologise for the inexplicable delay in answering your question; I have also apologized at the Village Pump. To answer your question; in your article you specifically state that there are many bail bond companies in Los Angeles. It seems to me that there is nothing in your text which can be seen as claiming notability in relation to these. I would stipulate that not every bail bond company is automatically intrinsically notable. If you feel that you can improve the article by adding assertion of notability let me know. Alternatively, please feel free, if you feel the article is satisfactory as posted, to post a request at deletion review. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"19:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
This was not "my" article, someone else wrote it. I just tried to help prevent its speedy deletion for what I thought were bad calls. I have put in (and am still putting in) a lot of effort into this, so I hope to get to the bottom of this mystery.
The article was tagged for speedy deletion as an A7: No explanation of significance. I did not agree with this assessment as the article clearly laid out reasons showing significance, so I contested the deletion nomination by clicking the designated button and explaining why I did not agree with the assessment.
I watched the article for a while and noticed that the tag was changed by another admin to: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, so I removed all content from the article that would lead someone to conclude that the article was promotional. I also added categories to help guide other editors to similar articles, and again contested the proposed speedy deletion.
I would still like to find out why it was deleted despite my efforts, and why the deletion was tagged as both A7 and G11? Thanks in advance and my apologies for taking up your time. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the article as an A7; although it was given a G11 listing by the nominating editor, I feel that it is very borderline, or perhaps fails to qualify, for this category. But my comment above regarding the A7 qualification remains valid. I did not mean to imply that it was "your" article in the ownership sense; I at no time intended to imply that you were claiming ownership. That was just a somewhat loose pronoun. As I say above, you can either undertake to improve the article to include assertion of notability, or you can seek the community view at deletion review. I have no axe to grind here; I am just doing my (unpaid, voluntary) job. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"14:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You have been active in revising Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians, but you added an entry at 19:25, 14 August 2013, which I moved at 19:25, 14 August 2013, and which the editor removed at 21:41, 18 August 2013. That editor is mostly active on Hebrew Wikipedia. We can use this tool to check the global contributions of an editor who seems to have retired, but whose activity may be concentrated elsewhere among Wikimedia wikis. Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians apparently does not specify whether or not other Wikimedia projects should be counted, or whether or not other languages should be counted. Something definitive might be added to the introduction, but possibly a discussion would be required first. —Wavelength (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You should ask Ryan! Actually, I wasn't forced to archive my talkpage, more like shown why it was advisable and then assisted with doing it (I pointed out at my RfA that I am far from technically competent). In February 2012 RHaworth set up a bot-maintained archive and then said why in their next edit; I reverted with my disagreement. (At that point I didn't even realize that the history numbers indicated the total bytes on the page.) Then on April 1 I was nominated for adminship and it became an issue there; you've seen that I regarded keeping the page intact as an advantage for those seeking to know about me, but persuasive arguments were made that it was going to be a problem for users with poor connections, and that as an admin I would get more people posting to my talkpage. (As you see from the RfA, it was unusual in that I didn't prepare in any way.) I started manually archiving the DYK templates as soon as I had a chance after the issue was raised, but folks agreed that wasn't enough. (Here's someone raising the issue on my talkpage on the first day of the RfA, with instructions for bot archiving.) I would probably have fumbled my way through it; once it was placed in the context of someone editing on a bad connection, I saw the point, as you can see in a response at the RfA, but meanwhile someone set it up on the 3rd day, and this time I let it stand, and pointed out that fact to those who further urged it both at the RfA and on my talkpage.
However, I really don't see why someone who is not running for adminship should be required to archive their talkpage; I'm not aware of any change to the policy applying to user talk pages (as opposed to article talk pages, which are supposed to be archived after they get big). He did it manually, so you can just undo the action manually, but I would ask him first. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Symbolically, I'd say yes :) After all, her husband has been carrying forward her legacy after her death and pictures of her still adorn important government buildings and places. I don't know if being a living person is a requirement to be designated a title like First Lady (btw the title itself is not used in an official capacity, to begin with). Either way, I don't think it's too much of an issue if the article isn't categorised in that category. You seem to be right on one count, the category probably shouldn't be there unless supported by content in the article. If I happen to stumble across a source describing her as such, then it might be appropriate to re-add it. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The concept seems notable, but maybe the term is a synonym for concepts already covered (or expandable) in other articles? There were a flurry of articles in the media regarding Marissa Mayer's maternity; maybe either more source material could be gleaned from those, or a related merge targer could be found? In any case, Ottawahitech you can contest a PROD for any good-faith reason. The proposed deletion itself appears defensible, and I double anything productive will result from questioning the nomination. VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Good to see you too; were you ever in "trouble?" And no, just throwing in my opinion for whatever that's worth. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
VQuakr, Have I ever been in trouble??? !!! – apparently from day one, but I only found out about it last year after thousands of contributions and years at Wikipedia. From what I can gather, I was a suspected spammer when I first joined. My user page was deleted and Ivaguely remember having no user page for a long time. I honestly don’t remember what I put on it when I first joined Wikipedia, but I think it was a link to my online activities outside of Wikipedia. I did not and still don’t believe it should have been deleted, but it is now water under the bridge. Now this deleted version is only available to (~2,000) admins and I hope it stays that way – I don’t want any more publicity to that chapter of my life. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, LT90001. One thing I noticed is that many of the medical articles and especially categories are not tagged with WikiProject Medicine on their talk pages. I wonder if a BOT can tag them. What do you think - should we bring it up at wt:MED? XOttawahitech (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. A bot to tag the categories would be nice and there's no harm from mentioning it on Wikimed. As you probably know the scope of wikimed is not only in flux but hugely complicated (go to WikiProject med -> assessment -> scope). I'd be worried that a bot automatically tags articles that have been de-medified. With regard to categories, how do you merge them? I'd really like to merge the category scandals -> controversies (you may notice that the MMR article is tagged w/ both controversies AND scandals), the article sociologists -> medical anthropology, and the article jurisprudence -> law! Thoughts? LT90001 (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Eugene R Milhizer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Karl 334Talk--Contribs20:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Supermom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Unfortunately, the "supermom" mentality has been linked with [[Depression (mood)|depression]] <ref>[http://news.health.ufl.edu/2013/21788/multimedia/health-in-a-heartbeat/women-impeded-by-supermom-
Non-notable fire of the type that commonly occur in B.C. every year. It was one of 1,644 fires that year and was small at 200 hectares (of 102,000+ hectares). Despite an evacuation order, no lasting coverage or impact.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Peachland wildfire until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
(the above is the standard boilerplate for when an article is nominated for deletion.) I just wanted to note that just because a wiki-project ranks something as high importance doesn't mean it cannot be nominated for deletion as it still must pass WP:GNG and any applicable project notability guidelines (of which I could find none).
Ravendrop03:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Y Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cover Oregon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Yes. Why - it's a company town reliably sourced to the Iranian census report, little different than many company towns in the US, kibutzes in Israel, etc. Why did you leave the message on my talk page? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I could name them their Persian names (in the articles), but that doesn't help the English-language reader. As for kibbutzes, not all of them are industrial, some are purely agrarian and strive for self-sufficiency not for production for other consumers (although these may be more often termed Moshav) - I would inquire at WikiProject Israel for whether these are company towns or collectives which are owned solely by their inhabitants and whether that distinction makes a difference. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yahoo! Answers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html|publisher=Yahoo! Terms|accessdate=August 22, 2012|quote=9) Content submitted or made available for inclusion on the Yahoo! Services: Yahoo! does not claim
tumblr.com/post/61040172053/introducing-the-new-yahoo-answers Introducing the new Yahoo! Answers(Tumblr announcement}]
Hi, Ottawahitech,
Thanks for the thanks! I've spent a fair amount of time looking at Editors' User Pages, in the process of getting to know Wikipedia and its history better. So much drama over the past 12 years and most of what happened in the first three years isn't even documented!
But I come across a lot of inactive Wikipedia Editors who were active in some debate I'm reading up on or who worked hard on a WikiProject I'm interested in. I didn't realize there was a place where I could mention them until I stumbled into Missing Wikipedians. I'll try to add new names as I come across them.
I guess in some sense, a list like that doesn't add much to the encyclopedia. But I think it is useful to have a page someone can go to when he/she wonders, "Whatever happened to Elen?" or any other notable person who made an impact here but then decided to leave. Of course, as a relatively new active Editor, I won't know a lot of the context for departures so maybe you can elaborate if I'm unaware of what happened.
Hi Liz, Yes, I know you have done a lot of looking at editors pages. I "met" you a couple weeks ago, and was impressed with your knowledge. You seem to be everywhere, including areas rarely visited by others.
Since you know a lot more than I do, I hope you continue to share your findings with the community at missing wikipedians. I hope you find it as rewarding as I do. It is one of the few "non-content" areas I try to contribute to, and find new reasons for doing so all the time. Another editor user:Graham87 who is heavily involved in MW is very knowledgeable about things that happened long ago.
Oh, Ottawahitech, I'm so embarrassed that I didn't recall talking with you before. My bad. I seem to have some extra time right now and I'm curious about how systems work so I've just tried to immerse myself into understanding Wikipedia governance, past disputes, projects that have been tried, projects that failed, that sort of thing. I'm trained in sociology so I like to understand organizations and Wikipedia is a very unique organization. LizRead!Talk!03:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
@Liz: Yes, I know a bit, about Wikipedia's early days, but even I occasionally discover old pages I haven't heard of before ... f there's anything I might be able to help you with, let me know. Graham8712:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank for alerting me, Ottawahitech...I use to study conflict within organizations so it is always interesting to me to read why some collaborations succeed while others fail to get off the ground. LizRead!Talk!18:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
By the way, if you look at: Category:WikiProjects in The Signpost by name you will see more Special wikiproject reports called "Where are they now?" (which I think are features that run every year) that may also be of interest if you are still looking for information on projects that have been tried and projects that failed.
I don't know of any guideline that addresses titles of WikiProjects. In general titles in WP space are less important than titles in project space. --B2C19:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
@B2C: thanks for the speedy response. I wonder why consistency in naming conventions is considered less important in non-article space. Inconsistency costs wasted editor time no matter which space. What do you think? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
@Mrfrobinson: I looked up the CFD you mention above and saw:"Nominator's rationale: Redundant category." The word redundant implies that there is another category which can replace this category, but you do not say which. Can you please explain? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, people should also go to CfD and weigh in because that's where decisions are made and not always by Editors who know a lot about the subjects (as no one is an expert on everything!). LizRead!Talk!20:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
@Liz: On October 14, 2013, I created a similar category: Category:Robert J. Shiller. The only difference between those two cats (I think) is that the latter :
Is a male
Is an American
So far no one has nominated this new cat for deletion. But if I post this to the CFD, previous experience indicates this cat will be deleted as well. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I used to participate at CfD and there are plenty of dumb categories that should be deleted (like Category:Gas Stations in Topeka, Kansas) and there are other categories (like Category:Actors of Italian ethnicity) that I argued against deleting (it was deleted any way). Unfortunately, I'd estimate that only about a dozen Editors regularly participate at CfD and decide what gets deleted. That's why it's important for people who know something about the category subject to come in and either argue for or against deletion (or merging or renaming).
The biggest problem I see is that CfD usually looks at one category a time when every category are often part of one or more larger taxonomies of categories. So, while an Editor may not like Category:African-American football players, it's one part of the parent Category: African-American sportspeople. It shouldn't be considered in isolation. LizRead!Talk!20:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2013 central Philippines earthquake. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 2013 Bohol earthquake. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2013 Bohol earthquake – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Jinkinsontalk to me15:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I created this article because I could not find a link on the main page in the text: "A 7.1-magnitude earthquake strikes the Philippines, resulting in over a hundred deaths", and saw that the Category:Current events from October 2013 was empty.
Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rental vacancy rate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bellevue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Ottawahitech. You have new messages at PamD's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quality Software Services, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Singh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I saw you complained (forgot where) about the CFD process; I agree it is mostly populated by a set of insiders, but anyone is welcome and by use of twinkle (which I do) anyone who creates the cat is usually notified and invited to participate; in addition, if you tag categories with relevant wikiprojects - and those wikiprojects have the proper discussion tracking settings, those wikiprojects will also be informed of the discussion - you should also feel free to drop a note on the page of those relevant projects to bring in more participants. That said, please don't take it personally if a cat you created is put up for deletion; I do a fair amount of category work, and the problem with categories is they are very easy to create but rather hard to maintain, so I'm actually a bit of a deletionist at heart. I don't think we should have too many fine-grained categories, and I've noticed you've created a lot of "women in X" categories which are ok, but also have a tendency to ghettoize if not handled very carefully. If you're interested I could show you some work I've been exploring around category intersection which could possibly eliminate the need for thousands of categories and make all of this much more maintainable in the long run.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Todayifoundout.com for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
A tag has been placed on One hour delivery, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
I tried to follow the instructions you left above, but still could not save this article from deletion.
I have "known" you for a while and don’t think you believe I am a spammer who gets paid to advertise products on Wikipedia(?) However, the automated message you left above would lead one to believe this is exactly what you meant. Other editors may find this type of message rather insulting. XOttawahitech (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
@PKT: To confuse the issue even more, I see that the admin who deleted this article, user:NawlinWiki used this CSD criteria for the deletion: A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. So I am still not clear – was this article deleted because it was:
Unambiguous advertising, or because
It duplicates an existing topic (and if so where is the duplicate?)
Well, I tagged it because it wasn't a good idea for an article. Maybe it could be mentioned in the article for whatever company it was that started offering it the service, but not as a standalone article. That's like having an article for "30 minutes or it's free" (which, btw, redirects you to a section of Domino's Pizza). So, then I'm left with a question of what template to use, and since it was a business service of a sort, the g11 criterion was the closest fit. PKT(alk)03:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Jeff Storey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Alexdiscussion★16:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt welcome to Wikipedia. Can you please tell me what additional information will provide enough context to satisfy Wikpedia rules for inclusion?
Just in case you don’t know I am a volunteer on Wikipedia and my time here is very limited (unfortunately). Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Alright, but keep in mind while writing articles, that one sentence is usually too short. Try to spend more effort on providing information, categorizing etc. while creating articles. Regards, Alexdiscussion★18:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Using {{WikiProject Medicinal botany}} worked in the preview to insert a talkpage banner. 'Wikiproject Medicinal botany' is a dead project that never got off the ground. It is better off as a taskforce, but I didn't get around to including it under other wikiprojects. Thanks. - Sidelight12Talk23:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Ack; I didn't realize this one was yours; I'm not trying to pick on you I promise, I was actually going after the subcat that I came across under Category:Women by rank but felt the parent had to go as well. Anyway, sorry for the flood of noms.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06
it was a whole sub-tree that started blooming and I felt was duplicative and in violation of WP:EGRS. Wikipedia:Twinkle does those automatically, so I never even I know who started the categories...anyway, sorry for the talk page spam. It is weird that Ottawa doesn't come to CFD though.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
@Obiwankenobi: (hi @Liz:) Ideally ottawahitech would love to be able to participate in every interesting discussion happening on wiki. Unfortunately this is not possible because there are only 24 hours in a day, 7 days a week, etc. So I try instead to set priorities – and wp:CfDs are way down the list. BTW it would help me greatly if you would at least wikilink all the jargon (EGRS, Twinkle etc) you use so often, so I don’t have to spend 20 minutes every time I see a comment from you chasing down elusive info. XOttawahitech (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Understood, will try to wikilink more often. In any case, if these are categories you created, it shouldn't take too long to show up and share why you think they should be kept. It's a bit odd to be building a list of categories that get deleted and saying how worrying it is, but then not showing up to defend them. I just looked at your contrib history and it seems you create a lot of women-specific categories - what is your goal in doing so? I'm not convinced that they are always useful, especially if left unpopulated (as many you have created are) - because they give a mistaken impression. I remember someone once quoted that we had more women porn stars than women poets, but it was simply not true - it's just many women poets weren't so classified. If we have Category:Women X that only has 3 elements in it, then people may think there aren't many women in that field. It's also extremely complex to correctly populate non-diffusing categories, as the algorithm linked on my homepage illustrates, so I think we should be cautious in general about creating more gendered categories as many of them just end up ghettoizing or are massively underused for years at a time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Ottawahitech, since you were awarded for your diligent work caring for the lost wikipedians page, I feel I should ask you if User:Foroa should be added to the list. He stopped editing on July 27, 2012 on commons and then gradually stopped on the other wiki's. Emails sent remain unanswered and in the meantime, the email option has been removed from his userpage. Do you have any suggestion? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
As far as Missing wikipedians is concerned, I am just one of the many who contribute to the page, so if the page itself does not answer your question, you should probably post it on the talkpage at wp miss. Hopes this helps. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Zulily requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. PamD22:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Zulily requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. KonveyorBelt19:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi @Konveyor Belt: it is not clear to me what will make this article which is about a company offering deals for mothers, babies and kids "important". What needs to be added to satisfy a7 criteria on Wikipedia? I would apprecxiate it if you can add the missing piece since I must log off. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
To make it assert notability you have to show it is well known or famous in some way and not just some other company, for example a new article about it or something. KonveyorBelt20:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Why do I have to create an account - I should be able to use my global account surely?
I do have 2 requirements - that I can watchlist a whole page, not just a section, and that searching a page is at least as easy as it is now. I hated liquid threads. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 21
Y
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pincus v. Yahoo! Inc., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Jose (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ronhjones (Talk)02:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I deleted it because the page creator had requested speedy deletion and the category was empty. Feel free to restore it if you need to based on usage etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
whoah
Just saw this [4]. Seriously, can you slow down on this? The wiki would be much better off, IMHO, if you focused on filling up existing categories, and getting rid of ones that didn't work, instead of creating women + whatever then adding one article to each. I don't want you to feel like I'm picking on you, because I'm not, but I'm of a mind to nominate the bulk of those for deletion. The vast majority are last-rung categories and in violation of WP:EGRS.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You said (here) "I ... do not understand why I am being acused of being disruptive". You create unnecessary categories (example) and categorize articles incorrectly. Continuing to do so after reverts and messages from many editors is, IMO, verging on being disruptive. DexDor (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Pre-paid credit card. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Credit_card#Prepaid_.22credit.22_cards. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Credit_card#Prepaid_.22credit.22_cards – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. JMHamo (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Earmark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I often see your name appear in my watchlist on Missing Wikipedians. Thank you for all the work you do there in ensuring that people who used to be frequent and/or influential editors don't get forgotten. Best. Acalamari22:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Nintendo litigation
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Category:Health care in Russia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
@Obi, Thanks for letting me know - I have contested. However, just to let you know I do not appreciate your taking every opportunity to nominate "my categories" for deletion on such a regular basis. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't usually look at who created a category. This one hit my Watchlist as one of the articles you moved was on my Watchlist. There was a consensus a while back that separating health from healthcare wasn't worthwhile at a country level, as healthcare produces health and there's no clear divide between the two from a categorization perspective nor in the literature. It's ultimately too finnicky a line to try to split. Is a vaccination campaign health or healthcare? What about a public health agency that does clinical outreach? The simplification we brought about is much better in my opinion - previously it was a hodge lodge with no definable difference between the two categories. I'd rather we not get into recreating all of these, so speedy was the way to go since consensus was already formed last year.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Your statement 'Contributions such as the ones added by User: Pechmerle (and others) is what changed this article from its very humble beginnings to the source of information it is today drawing over 20,000 reader views
to wikipedia every month. Can you match that? Sounds very much like '"Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality."' Which is listed here....William15:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Wastler until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William18:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Rather unusual AfD in my experience. It was closed early by user: Mark Arsten saying "The result was delete" even though the only participant in the discussion voted Keep. It continued with this rationale: "Deleted by Callanecc(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) under G12 (copyvio)". Problem is there was no copyvio in my opinion.
Yes, I didn't delete the article, but I saw that it had been deleted so I closed the discussion (as there's no point in leaving the discussion open once it's been deleted). If you're convinced there was no copyvio and Callanecc disagrees, then this would make a good WP:DRV issue. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ...William00:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Allen Wastler
No longer works for CNN. There are multiple articles that say was a CNN editor. You fix it. I'm watching a hockey game....William01:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Allen Wastler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
If you're going to demean my integrity in public, I'd appreciate it if you could at least respond to my defence. Unless you were merely trolling. Serendipodous19:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
@Serendipodous: Since you are a reporter and I am a mere reader who made a comment in the article-comment-section, I am not sure if your message above is appropriate?
Please accept my abject apologies for taking so long to respond to you. I deleted this category as (a) it was empty, (b) it was not named consistent with other similar categories ("Woman" as opposed to "Women"), (c) it is extremely unlikely that any woman will be specifically notable for being a janitor and (d) the artificial subcategorization of women within a category is poor practice and shows an inherent systemic bias unless men within a category are similarly subcategorized. As it is, Category:Janitors has few members, several of whom do not meet the criteria for membership (I'm going to clean it up now); subcategorizing a single woman who, in this case, didn't even meet inclusion criteria, was unnecessary and rendered the subcategory unreasonable. Risker (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge it was not contested at the time of deletion. The category showed up in the CSD list. Risker (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's where I found it; I was doing speedy deletions when I deleted this one. It's not uncommon to have categories there, particularly unpopulated categories, although I wouldn't say that's in the top-10 CSD reasons. Risker (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Ways to improve Christine M. Day
Hi, I'm Dreambeaver. Ottawahitech, thanks for creating Christine M. Day!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Background information on Mr. May would make the article better.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Dreambeaver(talk)16:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
You asked on the help desk
Where is the confusion? Talk pages are for discussion about how to improve the article. It's suggested that when a conversation goes off-topic, it's hatted. This conversation doesn't belong there in the first place. What good are you doing by leaving it there and hatting it? --Onorem (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree that they should be hatted...and basically nobody else did either. It was pretty clear from the discussions that removing the off-topic nonsense was the correct course of action. --Onorem (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Yahoo
You don't need to over-reference it either, but it damn sure was an edit war where you were adding back unreferenced information. Thank you for adding a source this time around. --Onorem (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cheerios may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
General mills] announced on January 2, 2014 that it will halt the use [[genetically modified]] ingredients in
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Meredith Stark, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Cheers AKS17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
@Arunsingh16: The message above is confusing and contradictory. For example how can this article be: very short and also have no content whatsoever at the same time? Would you kindly help me figure out what will satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith Stark until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Removing speedy deletion templates
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from David Hartley (computer scientist), a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Cheers AKS06:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Before you start wondering, the message above says a page you have created yourself. I am aware that the page was created by someone else and what I have posted above is a standard message using a template. FYI. Cheers AKS
@Arunsingh16: the correct template to notify someone that you have nominated an article for deletion after they have removed a speedy is {{subst:AfD-notice|article name|AfD discussion title}}, and the template you used above is wholly inappropriate since it implies that Ottawa did something wrong. VQuakr (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
VQuakr, well this user did remove the template. Check here. Thanks for sharing the template with me, I knew that the earlier template did not convey full message and hence I had posted a clarification as well. However, the discussion is about a WP:CSD and not WP:AfD tag being removed. Trust this clarifies. Cheers AKS08:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@Arunsingh16: I will follow up on your talk page since this really doesn't need to clutter Ottawa's. In short, your original CSD nomination was ill-considered, Ottawa's removal of the template was correct, and your template here was an inappropriate warning. VQuakr (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Please my comment at that CFD discussion, which concludes that you were been warned before "not to continue creating categories which are likely to be deleted, so it is frustrating to see that this category was created by Ottawahitech only a few days ago. There is a WP:IDHT problem here, which is getting into territory of tendentious and disruptive editing. I hope that the creator will draw back before sanctions are imposed".
Note that the nominated Category:CNBC women has now been deleted, and that CFds on the other related categories have also been closed as delete. This is fairly clear evidence of a persistent consensus that such categories should not be created. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Question regarding categorization of Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act
@BrownHairedGirl: If your intention, and that of obi&dexdor, is to stop me from creating new categories and drive me away from editing Wikipedia categories, then you have succeeded. If on the other hand, you want to gain my cooperation, then your approach (stick rather than carrot) fails miserably. I am not the only wp:CFD participant who is being driven away from category work. See for example:User_talk:Ottawahitech#Category:Alice Munro.
Where can an editor ask the community which categories should be created? For example we need a category for including American legislation that requires international participation to succeed. Having a proper category tree will go a long way in preventing two articles on the same legislation develop independently See for example:
Hi Ottawahitech. For info, I don't generally go looking through users contributions for bad categories they've created and don't think I've ever done so in your case. BHG or Obi may do so (and I wouldn't criticise them for it), but I come across many bad categories in other ways and I don't generally see who created a category until after I've decided to CFD it.
The best place to ask whether other editors agree with a proposed new categorization scheme is to ask at WT:CATP and also possibly inform the relevant topic wikiproject (or vice-versa).
There are many opportunities for creating new categories that would improve Wikipedia (and hence would not be deleted). For example a while ago I found that there were quite a lot of articles in Category:Military trucks so I created subcats such as Category:Military trucks of the United States (like existing categories such as Category:Combat vehicles of Austria) and moved articles down into that subcategory. Most/all of those articles were also in Category:Military vehicles of the United States so when I edited the articles I was generally replacing 2 category tags by one (more specific) category tag. An example of a category that's on my list for similar treatment is Category:Fishkeeping - it would benefit from having subcats for things like fishkeeping organizations, fishkeeping equipment, fishkeeping magazines. Category:Nautical terms currently contains (directly) 297 articles many/most of which should be moved to a more appropriate category (when I did a similar exercise for "Aviation terminology" it resulted in the creation of several categories - e.g. Category:Aircraft navigation). I could go through my (off-wiki) notes and find more suggestions for new categories - what sort of topics are you interested in? I've created many such categories (100s?) and only a handful have gone to CFD (and then generally for rename rather than delete/upmerge). I also suggest that if you want to create useful categories that you work on improving categorization of concept articles - rather than adding new cats to biographical articles.
Regarding detection of duplicate (and content fork) articles - I agree that it's one of the important uses of categorization (I've come across several), but having too many unnecessary categories actually hinders that. For example, If "Acme employees" category has subcats for "Acme engineers" and "Acme managers" etc then creating an "Acme women" category means that the "Jane Doe" article may be in the managers category while the "Jane A. Doe" article is in the women category. I hope you find this helpful. DexDor (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I was brought here by your improper use of talk back (that implies I left you a message here). I understand your frustration however your mass creation of categories has put on you a lot of people's radar. It almost appears at an attempt to create as many mainspace edits as possible. By creating very vague categories, categories that add "+ women" and categories with poor defining characteristics it only dilutes your contribution to Wikipedia and makes you feel like this. A large majority of your category additions should be deleted. I am sorry if you don't like the truth but it is what it is. Mike (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ottawa. I resent the accusation that I am trying to drive you away from categorization, and I have rarely trolled your contribs (instead, I see your additions of cats to articles I watch and then I react, or I come across them in other discussions - like the homeschooling one for example). Like others who have posted above, I find it odd that you are "shooting the messenger" - eg blaming those who nominate your categories for discussion - you should ask yourself, why are my cats being deleted in the first place? Perhaps your idea of a valid category is different than the current consensus. I have also seen several of your cats at cfd that were duplicates - and yet you still complain that your contribs are deleted, even if they duplicated existing cats?? Since you seem to take it badly when cats are deleted, allow me to suggest that you bring new ideas for significant category schemes to relevant talk pages and get rough consensus before creating - especially brand new schemes which have the potential to impact thousands of articles like (Women by organization). Filling out existing schemes is different, and you'll find that when you've done that they have rarely been put before cfd. You should also take time to defend your cats at cfd, it's rather passive aggressive to keep a running tally of all your deleted cats and accuse me and others of driving you away from cats, but not deign to visit cfd and tell us the purpose of these cats that you created! Thanks for all of your contribs and I hope you'll continue, just please try to learn from the past which sort of cats get deleted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's take a specific example which you reference above. You state that we need a cat to avoid recreation of duplicate articles, but why? And what, exactly, is globalization legislation? What is the intended scope? You created a category that you clearly feel is needed, but I have no idea looking at it what it means or what is supposed to go in it. Is such legislation regularly referred to in this way? I feel cats should be full, or deleted. A category with only a few articles in it is next to useless IMHO, so if we create categories we should fill them up as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Ottawa, your suggestion that I want to "stop me from creating new categories and drive me away from editing Wikipedia categories" is not just misplaced; it is an assumption of bad faith. I am sure that you well understand the difference between a request "stop doing X" and a request to "stop doing it this way".
All I want you to do is to remember that decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus, and to respect consensus-forming processes. That means that:
when a discussion is underway about a particular type of category, allow that discussion to conclude before doing more of whatever is discussed there
when the discussion is closed, respect the consensus which has been formed. That doesn't mean you have to agree with consensus, just that you accept that a decision has been made
Ottawa, a little tip. It is not helpful, in my mind, to call yourself an unpaid volunteer in the way you just did, as it makes it seem like you're talking to your employer - but you're not. You're talking to another unpaid volunteer. We're all in the same boat here. I will make an effort to thank you for the good work you do, for my part.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Ottawa, you assumed that my intent was to drive you away from category work. That's an ABF interpretation of substantive concerns about your edits, where there has been a consistent consensus that your approach was inappropriate.
As to your point about being a volunteer, Obi beat me to it, and he's right. We are all unpaid volunteers, so waving that status around is at best pointless, and at worst offensive. (Are you more unpaid than anyone else?)
Different editors work on different things. I don't expect you to work on the things I choose to do, so please don't expect me to follow your priorities.
Sometimes any editor may see that something another has done (or is doing) appears problematic, or outside an existing consensus. It's a very important part of the collaborative process that all editors are open to someone else coming along and challenging our work. It helps us all to improve as editors and to improve Wikipedia, and it should be seen as a positive rather than a negative.
As to the question asked above, can you see now how the way you asked it has been counterproductive? By wrapping it in a complaint about the conduct of other editors, your substantive question has been lost in a procedural discussion. The two issues should have been kept separate, and conflating them in one thread doesn't work. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
@John Vandenberg: Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately I am unable to respond in a timely manner and it appears that this redirect has already been deleted. Since I do not remember what my involvement with it was – can you please tell me if I created it so that I can include it in the correct area of User:Ottawahitech/deletions. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
User Ottawahitech, I have a good rating on the real etate information website and app, Neighborcity, so I'm not inclined to edit the article because of my potential tie to the entity. NeighborCity is also in a landmark antitrust lawsuit with the National Association of Realtors and the Multiple Listing Service that realtors post real estate ads to. This subject deserves coverage when people search for the NeighborCity lawsuit because it impacts the one and a half million real estate agents, brokers and commercial agents of which I am one, and then the millions of homebuyers each year who are likely to be impacted if the association ends up with evaluations and ratings of all of its member-brokers and agents.
If there is a problem with the litigation section, or other sections of this page, then why not fix it? If a salaried marketing assistant or intern at the company or a hired person wrote the article in the first place, write over their work like the last 12 months of editors have. I saw the link User Rybec posted, and it doesn't look like the page creator was actually blocked until months after the article was created. I'd like to see increased interest in the Neighborcity lawsuit, not less.64.182.119.244 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech:, I second BHG's suggestion to archive this page, with 300 entries it is quite long and takes a long time to load and is difficult to manage esp on a mobile device. I can set up automated archiving if you wish to get rid of old discussions and show you how to tweak the settings, let me know and I'll be happy to get it set up - we could even try to set up archive indexing, if the bot is still running, since you have so many entries an index may be of help. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canadian Bankers Association, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Snowbird and Greencard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
In 2014, I re-created the page with new references which show the importance and notability of the term. Once again it was speedily deleted with little chance for discussion.
@ARMY101: Thanks for letting me know. I rarely participate in deletion discussions (too busy trying to add something constructive here) and I did not even remember I participated in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Decade_of_Darkness - but I sure did :-) I also left a talkpage message for user:Canoe1967 in this regard since I see he also participated in that discussion. Unfortunately he has not been very active at wikipedia lately. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Re your question on Yahoo Answers page re including it in in list of sites with more than 100 million users -
When a site claims "X million users" that really is "X million visitors" which is the daily visitors number multiplied by 7 or 30 or 365, whatever period they're talking about. A lot of it obviously would be the same users returning daily. "X million visits" would be a truer way of putting it. OF course for sites that don't require membership to use, eg any news site, this is the only way to measure their usage.
If you have Comscore or Alexa membership you should be able to find traffic figures; otherwise there's none published that I know of. I believe both count yahoo.com only, but give a % breakdown for the major sub-domains, so you can work it out from there. I can tell you from internal sources that they're counting about 25 million monthly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.115 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank you on behalf of WikiProject Globalization! We appreciate your contribution(s) and invite you to join us in further improving Wikipedia's coverage of globalization. Feel free to ask questions or make suggestions on the project's talk page.
Category:Globalization legislation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Meclee (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to WikiProject Globalization. The new category above was a bit broad and somewhat misleading, as there are currently no organizations that can create global legislation. The two articles listed were US laws related to globalization of the workforce, so it seemed better to classify them as such. Kind regards, Meclee (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Note:facta applies only to US citizens and accounts held by us citizens abroad. A French national would be unaffected by this by my reading. This is an American law (though a French bank would have to comply or suffer withholding penalties for its clients)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Please stop adding FATCA to the pages of individual banks. Not only is this now disruptive but it borders on pushing a point of view. Mrfrobinson (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mrfrobinson: I assume you are referring to your reversions of material I added here:
As you probably know by now, I am not very familiar with wiki-policy. Would you be kind enough to explain to me why adding material to wikipedia is considered disruptive? I have already replied to your assumption in regards to "pushing a point" at Talk:Royal_Bank_of_Canada#FATCA. XOttawahitech (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
You have been adding the same information about FATCA to various articles. While yes FATCA MAY affect customers at these banks it is not appropriate to quote another country's laws in Canadian bank articles. Further using edit summaries and comments about the IRS getting Canadian's info is evidence of you not having a NPOV or having an agenda. Please provide a rational on why these articles should have this information included instead of asking why it shouldn't be. If you continue to post this information to articles without this information a RFC will be opened on this for community discussion on your actions and FATCA. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think you can include information into articles without providing any rationale and then reverting them asking for why they should be deleted. Furthermore, you seem to apply this mentality to all your editing and anytime your edits are reverted you restore them and demand to know why they can't be included. Since I am at two revertions of your Scotia Bank edits I am asking you to stop adding FATCA to every article you think it applies to and use some common sense. Mrfrobinson (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Google Airport. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Mineta San Jose International Airport. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Mineta San Jose International Airport – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ontario Disability Employment Network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Network (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Joanne Peters (spokeswoman) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Tony Trenkle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Yu until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Sucharita Mulpuru requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: Looks like this article has already been deleted from Wikipedia by user: Anthony Bradbury. This is a slap in the face for me and the other article contributors who have all spent time trying in good faith to add notable information regarding a woman who is very often quoted in the press. What was the hurry? Why did this not go to wp:AfD? Thanks in advance. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
You failed to indicate the importance or significance of the subject. You need to do so. There was no rush to deletion. You created this article at least two months ago and from all indication had moved on to writing other things. Merely being quoted in the press does not make a person notable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: Small correction: it is not I who failed to indicate the importance or significance of the subject – I do not own this article.The failure is shared between all contributors here (and that includes you as one who edited it as well).
To be honest I did not know that there is a requirement to show that a subject of an article is wp:important, in addition to being wp:notable. I thought it was sufficient to demonstrate the subject is notable by providing several secondary reliable sources relating to the person. Is there a policy describing what important means here?
You chose to create it. No, you don't own the article, but in choosing to create it, you do bear some responsibility when it comes to explaining/proving why the article should exist. It's nobody else's job to fix what you created. They are welcome to if they are so inclined, but they aren't obligated to. I'm confused about at what kind of research you're actually doing here. --Onorem (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
@Onorem: Believe me, I feel responsible. To the point of going around and around in circles, trying to explain to others that the behavior displayed on my talkpage is driving away not just me (who is no great loss to wikipedia), but many other editors and potential editors whom you may want to keep. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Who is being driven away? Who do you think randomly comes to your talkpage and sees these conversations? I don't want you to be driven away. I'd much rather see you focus on creating and keeping good articles around. It seems to me that you want to study the processes of the wiki like they are set in stone and easily defined. They aren't. Go with the flow. Make it better. (I'm saying this as someone who has slowly been quitting over the last couple years. I'm still hanging on. I still believe in the project. The behind the scenes nonsense is just getting too political for my tastes and I wind up logging out angry.) --Onorem (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd generally echo what Onorem has said here. If you're going to go through all the trouble of creating an article, you need to do more than say who the person is and throw in a couple links to token mentions of that person's name in the news. As in my delete !vote in the Henry Yu AfD, contributions like these may underrepresent the actual significance of the subject to such an extent that they violate WP:BLP. For instance, I seem to recall one of your articles being about a female executive in a major corporation, and that's all you say. But if you look a little farther, you'd note that said person's role at that corporation had only just begun, and that she had a substantial career prior to then that could and should have been discussed, and if she were notable, you'd be violating WP:UNDUE not to discuss. And while I understand that there is no deadline with respect to completeness, you need to put forth something more substantial when it comes to BLPs. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Creating stubs about living persons
@Mendaliv: I guess what you are saying above is that stubs about living persons must provide enough information about their subject so that Wikipedia is not accused of misrepresenting them? This is a novel thought and one I have not seen a policy about – but then, as I have already said, I am not a wiki-plicy expert. Can you help me out? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Primarily it's a matter of WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUE. That is, "All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." Where BLP comes in is just how much more important it is to affirmatively follow this policy. I won't say it's an absolute, or that there's a hard-and-fast minimum that you need to reach when creating an article, however. All that said, I feel very confident that there are minimum standards for a BLP, just that they may not have yet been codified in a specific policy or guideline. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Mary Engle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pincus v. Yahoo! Inc. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, FATCA agreement between Canada and the United States. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on S&P Municipal Bond Index, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
No sources for what amounts to a small item on a large list of products by this company
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, articles which make no attempt to show they meet WP:N are going to get deleted sooner or later. Rather than beating your head against a brick wall, you would be behooved to consider including independent reliable sources; not just to avoid deletion hassles (and possibly losing your work), but sources also provide extra reading material for readers and increase their trust in the article - they really do make the article better. (Sources are also handy for other editors looking to expand and/or copyedit articles). WilyD09:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S&P Municipal Bond Index until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FATCA agreement between Canada and the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited J. Richard Harvey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Justice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Your refusal to enter into good faith community discussion and blatant refusal to provide rationale on why you continue to readd information about FATCA to every page you feel it affects is disruptive. As you have proven that you have no intention to actuall discuss these edits I am asking you to stop adding them to Canadian Banks pages.Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
@Dougweller: Thanks for noticing and letting me know. I do not rate articles, so this must have been a copy&paste boo-boo, now corrected. Are you rating breakfast articles, if so all power to you! XOttawahitech (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I was pretty sure it was an error and that you wouldn't have done that. Nope, not rating articles, just taking part in a test of FLOW. Not impressed so far, more concerned. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
@Dougweller: Not impressed is an understatement in my case. It is so bad i don't even know where to start, or how to explain my thoughts without spending a whole lot of time on it. It is like going to see an art exhibition by a famous painter and finding kindergarten exhibits instead. XOttawahitech (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of an article is not intended to be a slap in the face, and you really should not regard it as such. I harbor no ill feeling towards you, or indeed to any other editor here, but if we allow sub-standard articles to remain because of the lack of knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines on the part of the author, then we will inevitably see a gradual degradation in the standard of the encyclopedias. If you have not as yet seen five pillars may I suggest that you take a look at them? Incidentally, this article went un-noticed for some long time before it was nominated for deletion. If you arrange to watch your pages, which you can do by clicking on the star icon at the top of the page, then by keeping an eye on the watchlist - also at the top of your page - then you will see if anyone has adding anything to the article, including a deletion tag. seeing the tag will give you more time to either contest the deletion or improve the article. If you need more help do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. I saw your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast, and just wanted to let you know that I'm happy to get feedback on my talkpage, as a last resort. ;) If nothing else, I can point you towards existing/specific threads.
Re: linking to topics on that page: For each topic, and each post, there's a "..." (dot-dot-dot) icon in the upper-right. [It's a very faint grey at the moment. There's a darker/larger icon coming soon.] Click that, to see the 'action menu', which contains permalinks, history, and more (with more to come). The permalinks are full-urls, which is a change from what we're used to, but they won't ever break (even if the topic is moved/archived, or the title changed) which is good. [That's the brief summary. More details available if wanted.]
@Quiddity (WMF): Thanks for taking the time to address my question. I will post to your talkpage when I have had a chance to organize my thoughts -- I am currently overwhelmed with other issues (aren't we all :-)
BTW I did not realize that the dot dot dot icon represented a permalink -- something I deem essential. It's great to see permalinks will survive archiving -- one of my biggest beefs with the current system. There are also other icons, but no legend listing what they mean.
Another point you may to convey better to editors is the fact that Flow was designed with a mobile user in mind. I recently viewed the Flow exchange on wt:Breakfast on a mobile device, and it looks much better than on my regular screen. Another point is the lack of a TOC. XOttawahitech (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
@Quiddity (WMF): Sorry cannot answer this question: I don't have a dedicated device and use whatever is available to me at any moment. No addtional quirks are attached to my user (I think?) XOttawahitech (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, understood (I think I remember the situation now). If you notice this bug occurring again, send me the details of what device/browser you're encountering it on? Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
FATCA
You are welcome to add the gossip (or non-expert opinions) related to the FATCA protocol in Canada that I removed from Findlay's and Flaherty's articles to FATCA agreement between Canada and the United States. "Some" of those might actually lean against a merge to FATCA, although nothing presently in the article would justify not merging the article. — Arthur Rubin(talk)10:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:Women with nautical occupations, sports or hobbies
Ottawa, I just noticed that you created a whole category tree underneath this parent. Please don't do that again - it wastes your time, and it wastes my time, because if consensus is to delete the parents we'll have to speedy all the children. Feel free to add existing cats or articles to a cat at CFD but don't expand out a tree until the discussion is finished. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Ottawa, I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off the snark in your edit comments. It comes off as passive aggressive. First you state that 'you aren't smart enough the participate' or something like that, suggesting indirectly that others have implied that, which I never have at least. Secondly, you post a thank-you at CFD, but indirectly accuse me of pasting a wall of text through your wikilink and suggest that you're still confused, but only for those who read the edit summary (those who read the text think that you got it), and in fact I posted 1088 characters, hardly a wall of text by any measure. If you misunderstand still why creating new categories in a scheme after part of that scheme has been nominated I'd be happy to explain or ask another admin to do so, but your snarky manner in posing questions and subtle links to jabs is not helping things.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carolyn Quattrocki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Temporary foreign worker program in Canada. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Temporary_residency. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Temporary_residency – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Jenny Doan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. TheLongTone (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Generally I assume if people leave edit summaries or notes like that anywhere, it would turn up when I go looking to see what their last contributions were. I don't just check to see when they last contributed, but what specifically they did and where. If they posted a goodbye essay or something, I make sure to include that in my epitaph, but if there were also a note asking not to be included on the list (generally it may not be on their minds, however), I would respect that and not add them.
However, they usually don't make any mention of it and most (if not all) of the Wikipedians I've added to the list generally disappear without a trace or any hint of a reason for doing so. Usually the others who both qualify for the list and say they're leaving for whatever reason are snatched-up by other editors who list them before I do; those that are left leave without warning and without protest of the list, at least for me to find. Cheers! LazyBastardGuy18:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting frustrated with all of these "women in" categories being nominated for deletion. It's like I'm making the same argument over and over again. LizRead!Talk!17:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
@Liz:, Yes it is frustrating! How can editors contribute to building categories when the rules so fickle, and there is no central place to discuss the principles of the system with people who actually have experience building category trees. Right now this sort of discussion is only taking place on talkpages where editors are simply strategizing how to get their own way. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporary foreign worker program in Canada until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Ottawahitech. In answer to your question: no, there's no requirement that all sources be online. I think that the removals were motivated primarily by the link provided in the citation – since Google Groups is user-generated, it is not an ideal source. The article definitely exists, however, as demonstrated by the links above. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 02:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@SuperMarioMan:@TParis: Thanks for respnding. Just wanted to let you know that not only has no one dared correct this reversion on Alasdair Roberts (academic), but that there are now four different wiki-admins (one American and three Canadians) claiming that this information does not belong on Wikipedia and that the admin who removed it initially did it correctly. XOttawahitech (talk)!
You might consider the possibility that you have absolutely no idea what Wikipedia policies are, and should accept others' advice. — Arthur Rubin(talk)22:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
How should I know what it is you know. All I can say is that your statements about Wikipedia policies and their applications bear little resemblance to the actual policies. A logical conclusion would be that one of the following is true:
You don't understand the policies.
You do understand the polices, but refuse to state or apply them correctly.
You understand the policies correctly, but nobody else does.
(1) can possibly be improved. (2) is grounds for an extended block. (3) would be interesting, but WP:CONSENSUS suggests that if you understand the policies differently than everyone else, you're still wrong, even if you were technically correct. — Arthur Rubin(talk)16:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
As for the question of this specific source, it (now) clearly exists, and as I pointed out earlier, if it did exist, it was almost certain a "letter to the editor" or an Op-ed. (Someone who read it in situ said it was clearly an op-ed.) It represent nothing other than the opinion of the author, and it would require an external source that it is an important opinion of the author, worthy of mention in his article. — Arthur Rubin(talk)17:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add WikiProject Mathematics to articles about computing and computer scientists. I don't object to your addition of WikiProject Women scientists, as I don't know much about the project. It's up to the project to object to your clearly inappropriate additions. — Arthur Rubin(talk)18:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ranking Update: I use the tool available at the botom of my contributions page. Clicking Edit count provides (or used to, sigh...) a snapshot breakdown of ones contriutions complete with: #of live/deleted edits, average edits per page, number of edits to the various name spaces, etc. Am I making sense? XOttawahitech (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you stalking my reverts, and reverting those which do not have an edit summary? If so, I will post a request for you to be blocked. — Arthur Rubin(talk)21:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Why do you think I am stalking your reverts? To be honest I am doing everything in my power to avoid running into you. The last thing I need at wikipedia is a hostile admin. I have already been blocked once and would much rather avoid the hassle. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Julie Ireton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reporting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Ottawa - can you please weigh in at CFD on this category - I'm on the fence as I'm not sure of the inclusion criteria or desired contents - could you populate it further and develop a headnote for the category, to explain what is meant to be in or out?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Ottawa, if you can't clearly elaborate inclusion criteria and differentiate it from existing categories and argue persuasively for the navigational value of a category frankly you shouldn't be creating them. The argument you posted simply compared it to race-related cats and didn't argue why this particular cat should exist or how it is separate from others.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind putting the # of deleted edits on a subpage? As I'd like to watch your talk page since I've left messages here, I can't unwatch your homepage (wiki won't let me), but as a result every time you update that number it shows up on my watchlist - if you moved the whole thing to a subpage I think I could unwatch it. Thanks for considering this. Best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you honestly asking Ottawahitech to help accommodate your friendly and long-running policing of them? This is a bit much. Just take their talk page off of your watchlist and you'll probably avoid more drama in the long run. Or you could request Ottawahitech ping you if they want to respond to you. Now in the past I warned you that singling out all of Ottawahitech's contributions gave the appearance of a problem, whatever your intent. You responded that you were using twinkle and had no idea that they were Ottawahitech's contributions. This statement is somewhat undermined by your direct interest in the set-up of their talk page here. __ E L A Q U E A T E17:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Ottawa is a mature adult and I'm quite sure they don't need your protection. I haven't stalked anyone... I regularly troll through categories, especially gendered ones, to look for violations or ghettoizing cats, or to help fix up the tree. I have discussions with Ottawa as a result since Ottawa seems to create a lot of gendered cats, so I watch their talk page. There's no conspiracy here. Ottawa does not need to comply at all,of course, it's a friendly request.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You're free to make friendly requests, and I'm free to make friendly comment. Your request is quite civil, but I believe that asking Ottawahitech to curtail updating their user page is a bit much, even if I can see the benefit that would accrue to you. To Arthur Rubin, Ottawahitech is communicating something about their own edits, on their own user page. I think there are more interpretations of how that could serve a Wikipedia-related purpose than 'none'. And giving someone a personal and in-no-way-pretending-to-be-formal warning about how their edits might appear to others despite their intentions is certainly not against guidelines. I'm sure you comment on the appropriateness or usefulness of others' comments yourself, as you just did, and might do again. __ E L A Q U E A T E19:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
As I said, it's a very minor and trivial request, to ask them to put such details where those who want to follow along can, but those who don't won't have their watchlist hit by it, and I don't think it's a bit much at all, it's really quite small - but more importantly, I'm not sure how it serves the wiki for you to opine on this particular request, again referencing the fact that Ottawa is a highly experienced editor and doesn't need protection. If Ottawa asked me for a similar favor I'd be happy to comply, and whether we've disagreed in the past on certain categories is rather irrelevant to my willingness to accede to such requests...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I can think of one win-win - if Ottawa moved the regularly updated delete-#s to a subpage, and transcluded it on the mainpage, everyone would be able to see it front and center, but we wouldn't be notified of such changes unless we watched the subpage. I'd be happy to set this up, if Ottawa requests it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
riddle me this Ottawa... I have asked you for two favors: 1) to archive your talk page / something several other editors have asked as well- I even volunteered to do the work for you. Refused/ignored. 2) move your 'deleted' count to a subpage. Again, I volunteered to actually do the work/transclusion/etc, nothing required on your end. These are both one-time changes - once archiving is setup you never need to change, the bot handles it/ once transclusion is set up, you never need to change your homepage - transclusion deals with it. You, otoh, ask not only me but Every other editor, in every other discussion, everywhere else on the wiki, to ping you when they respond to a post of yours. I often edit from my iPhone and sometimes want to move fast, and doing a bracket-bracket+spelling your name right + bracket-bracket is frankly rather a pain, especially to do with every single post. I have indeed used echo on occasion to summon you when you had been away from a discussion for a while, so it's not fair to say I have refused, but rather in some occasions I decline to- but comparing the BIG favor you ask of me and everyone else to ping you in every post from relatively SMALL favors of one -time archiving or transclusion is frankly not very fair, and, since you didn't even seem to consider my two simple requests, why should I undertake your much more burdensome ones? Otoh if you had two one-time requests that were reasonable I would be happy to do them fwiw--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
This is not a riddle, but it may be a sign that someone's taking this too seriously. Just unwatch the page if you don't like the occasional notifications. I don't see how discouraging someone from modifying their user page is helpful here in building an encyclopedia. If someone has declined a request characterized as "very minor and trivial", then maybe you should accept it and move on. Pushing this hard makes it look like you are demanding, not politely requesting at this point. If your request is polite, you shouldn't need to browbeat and lecture people into agreeing it's polite, or vilify them if they decline to do as you suggest. Just unwatch the page if it grieves you.__ E L A Q U E A T E16:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It includes edits to a category which I deleted at your request {{db-g7}}, as well as moves you made from article-space to draft-space leaving no redirect. This is misleading. — Arthur Rubin(talk)18:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Re Orange-Canadian not sure where that redlink should go; he was a Presbyterian and of Orange stock but I wouldn't be sure at all that he belonged to the Canadian contingent of the Loyal Orange; I found some good bios last night on a list page at the Anmore Alternative News website which could be used to flesh out/detailed cite the article...I have no backup other than their daughter Georgina's book about two things she says they instigated; the movement to build the Peace Arch at White Rock, and orchestrating a cathedral burial for Joe Fortes......and other things of interest....I was at that site trying to find information about the Chinookand the Evening Journal, their two Vancouver papers.....Ma was apparenetly also a founder or the main instigator of the Women's Institute movement in BC.....fascinating couple, incredible stories from start to finish.Skookum1 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Re: WikiProject African diaspora needs BOT service
Hi. Unfortunately, I'm busy for roughly the next week. If you're okay waiting until this weekend for me to handle it, I'm willing; otherwise you might want to ask someone else.
Regarding the task itself, it would be useful if you could give me a more specific list of subcategories to go through. For example, I notice Category:African diaspora has the subcat Category:LGBT African-American culture, which contains Category:Drag ball culture, which contains Wolfgang Busch, who is certainly not within the scope of the WikiProject. You can see how going through categories recursively can be problematic. Going just one level down will help, but there are likely still going to be some inappropriate articles, and many appropriate ones will be missed. If you want me to run the bot on the weekend, sorting out the details beforehand would be helpful. — Earwigtalk22:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
oy. There are more than 30,000 categories under Category:African diaspora (see This. And that's just cats; articles will be many more, Likely in the hundreds of thousands. Need to generate a much better filtered list before going after bot tagging IMHO. I'd suggest asking the wiki project if they want biographies of every African American in their scope for example - it may well be they don't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I see you are reverting some of the key changes I made to file these Signpost articles within appropriate WikiProject categories. I believe the previous way (under "*" instead of under "Signpost") is a system you set up and is not derived by some kind of common consensus. Since you have a system and I believe in a different system for filing these articles, there isn't a clear rule on which is preferable. That's how I see it. But I also don't edit war and so I'm not going to get into some useless reverting, tit-for-tat war. There is a lot of work to do with Wikipedia categories and I'll chalk this up to a difference of opinion. S'alright with you? LizRead!Talk!19:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Liz: Either way is fine with me as long as it is consistent - no need to edit war. If you feel it makes sense go ahead and change, but change all 200+ entries, not only three. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Even if Wikipedia:WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire in The Signpost should exist, it's sort key in [:Category:WikiProject:A Song of Ice and Fire]] should be "Signpost", or possibly "π Signpost", not "*". This probably could be done by an automated process. [Fixed, using semi-automatic AWB 16:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)]
I will request in WP:ANI, that you be banned from making any edits regarding categories until you fix those errors. The last set probably cannot be fixed by any automated process, so, if you don't fix it, your category-related edits will be doing more harm to Wikipedia than good. I'll give you at most 24 hours before I bring it up in ANI. — Arthur Rubin(talk)15:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed all of those errors. However, if you start making another set of obvious miscategorizations or bad keys, I will bring the matter up at ANI without a further warning (other than the required notification.) If it's particularly bad and difficult to go though, I will block first, and request a review at ANI. — Arthur Rubin(talk)17:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no potential guideline-based reason for your choice of sort key in #2 and #3. If you tell me why you did it, I'll tell you why it was wrong. For #1, there is no written guideline that it be mandatory, but WP:CAT includes
In some categories, sort keys are used to exclude prefixes that are common to all or many of the entries, or are considered unimportant (such as "List of" or "The"). For example, in Category:2004 the page 2004 in film would have the sort key "Film", and in Category:2004 in Canada the page 2004 Canadian federal budget would have the sort key "Federal Budget".
07:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin: Can I suggest a truce? I am no longer interested in continuing to work in these areas, and you are welcome to continue if you feel it has value. I believe User:Liz has an interest, in number 2 above, so maybe the best solution is for the both of you to complete it - I believe there are only about a half year's worth of articles left to categorize. If this is acceptable to you you should probably communicate this to User: Mabeenot - no need to let me know. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I can't think of any area involving categorization where you have followed the guidelines. If you are willing to restrict yourself from adding any categories or changing category sort keys on any page, even if you created the page, we could call it quits. — Arthur Rubin(talk)04:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
kafkaesque
Nationality is a difficult topic. The nationality of PumpkinSky is no secret. Prague was part of the Habsburg monarchy when Kafka was born, and he studied at the German university. It was the capital of Czechia when he died. The other user mentioned has in his edit notice "The only real nation is humanity". In March, I missed GFHandel, victim of the Bach discussion a year ago, - but what are all these compared to death. Sad, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I've responded to your explanation. It turns out that there was quite a mess in the categories, going back to 2008. I don't know how much of it has been cleaned up already. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Ottawa has been asked, nicely, several times to archive their page, and I even volunteered to set it up. Thus far Ottawa has been unresponsive, but continues to make their own requests that people ping them every time they respond anywhere on the wiki. I think if Ottawa complied on this it would be a sign of good faith here, and I remain happy to help set up the archiving if requested.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. This talk page is way too long, Why not archive the stale posts for the convenience of ordinary people with limited time who would like to interact with you? Cullen328Let's discuss it05:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Your extremely bad faith edit
I am not sure why you decided to close that discussion with "why let mrfrobinson have the last word". Discussions aren't arguments nor are they debates, they are a community discussion about a topic, they aren't meant to drag on forever. Your revision of it not only is in bad faith but is borderline disruptive. Honestly take a break and walk away for a bit, no one here is against you, in fact a lot of us have tried to reason and work with you. Your decision to not follow the values of Wikipedia or respect consensus is not welcome. Mrfrobinson (talk)20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 22:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
From the time I've known you, you've typically been pretty on-the-ball. However, I find this to be pretty off-the-wall for anyone, especially anyone who's actually read the multiple threads on Skookum. Suggesting he needs a mentor isn't an attack (see WP:WIAPA), and is probably a reality check (see WP:SPADE). Skookum is author of their own fate - it's their reaction to everything that's the problem. the panda ɛˢˡ”23:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Somatrem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Analogue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.
Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
As Arthur_Rubin has already stated above your activities in the Category section are often troubling. You mistakenly created this category and left it empty with a typo. Either start speedy deleting them, check before you edit or move/rename them in the future. Don't leave your mess for others to clean up. Mrfrobinson (talk)20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 15:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Williamson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mrfrobinson (talk)20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 00:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Category:Women librarians, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I haven't given up patrolling there ... there just hasn't been much that I've needed to work on at that page. Graham8709:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 3
YHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bix (website), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forums (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!
We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)
Thought I'd reply here to your ping with some advice you can do with as you please. First I did look at deletions/merge links and two seemed justifiable, one was in the middle ground and one seem unjustifiable.
Also, I noticed your user page where you talk about "2,106 of Ottawahitech's donated edits to Wikipedia have been deleted. Edits on Wikipedia can only be deleted by an Administrator." It took me a few reads to realize you did not mean that your edits had been reverted but that the whole edit summary and text had been deleted. Is that correct? Since that's usually done only in cases of nasty vandalism, it does give a rather negative impression. So you might want to work on explaining that whole complaint better.
Otherwise, I can see you are a prolific editor, far more than me. But one also has to be careful and pay attention to disagreements since a certain percent of the time they are valid :-) I know I waste far too much time discussing edits with truly recalcitrant reverters, and sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference. Good luck! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)16:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beth Symes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal Court (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works about Julian Assange until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Launchballer22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I see on your user page you say that 2,130 edits have been deleted by admins. Are you saying that because of Copyright violations, spam, OR, and personal attacks have been removed? This does not look go for you at all. I think you mean to say 2,130 have been reverted no? If you really have 2,130 deleted contributions I don't think you would still be here WP:DEL-REASON. Should fix this as people will believe your a problem editor - not that admins are wrong. -- Moxy (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
He's probably not going to answer, but that is the count of his edits to pages which were deleted. I don't have a detailed analysis, but most of those were to categories, including at least 6 edits where he requested the deletion. I suspect that most were to pages he created. I should add that someone active at AfD might very well have more deleted edits, as a successful nomination for deletion would result in at least one deleted edit; if the person also tried to improve the article, there would be many deleted edits for each page deleted. — Arthur Rubin(talk)08:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Why would he not reply? But ok I understand what your saying. I did not realizes he is active with asking for deletions and such...sorry my bad ...but this should be more clear.... just looks odd. -- Moxy (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AfD discussion title until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Ottawahitech. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Julie Ireton".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Julie Ireton}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HealthCare.gov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HHS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hawaii Health Connector, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turning Point. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
@Natural RX: Oh dear, did I unwittingly (again), break one of the rules of Wikipedia? I just thought it makes sense to qualify this article on a website where most users have not even heard of Ontario. If you check the other similar articles in Category:Tourism ministries you will see that most articles specify the country the ministry is in. But, as I said, I am apparently prone to making mistakes, so feel free to revert me. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I undid your revert. If you disagree with the reason I gave in my edit summary then you should explain yourself. Reverting me without an explanation is the same as calling my edit vandalism, which it certainly was not. Per WP:BRD please take this to the article's talk page. The Bay is the department store arm of the HBC. I don't see a problem with that line in the lead, and it has been there for years. Meters (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to EBay may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Ebay was charged]] with Antitrust Employment by the United States Department of Justice (.<ref>http://www.forbes.com/sites/billsinger/2012/11/19/after-apple-google-adobe-pixar-google-and-
10, 2008, eBay said sellers can only accept PayPal as payment for the categories "Computing > Software", "Consumer Electronics > MP3 Players", "Wholesale & Job Lots > Mobile & Home Phones", and "Business, Office & Industrial > Industrial Supply / MRO".<ref name="December 21, 2007 12:10 pm GMT General announcement
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mrfrobinson (talk)20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 21:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Landolina until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mrfrobinson (talk)20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 18:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
If fellow editors continue to post a quote box and leave a message for this editor with friendly advice how to create his/her first article they create the impression that such a quote box was carelessly posted because it is quite obvious that this editor has authored quite a few articles. Content creators should be encouraged and not vaguely insulted. Bfpage |leave a message 00:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Us military command hacker by isis, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Identity theft in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UTube. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Just curious to find out why you saw fit to post this on my user talkpage? Why not on the article's talkpage where others who are interested in the topic would normally opine? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Because you removed it with a strange and perhaps pointed (though I can't really tell) edit summary. That you're asking why I'm asking you on your talk page just makes this all the stranger, but by all means respond at the article talk page if you prefer? --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 05:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Lamothe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey Ottawahitech! Regarding your comment, I'm certainly interested in your perspective. Mine is that people aren't obligated to respond to every comment that comes their way; everyone chooses what they do here, and if they personally find a discussion too boring or time-consuming, they don't need to justify that. But if you're doing something other editors (correctly or not) object to and you continue to do it while ignoring repeated attempts to initiate discussion, that is a problem (I wouldn't call it a crime). This is a collaborative project after all. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
If fellow editors continue to post a quote box and leave a message for this editor with friendly advice how to create his/her first article they create the impression that such a quote box was carelessly posted because it is quite obvious that this editor has authored quite a few articles. Content creators should be encouraged and not vaguely insulted. Bfpage |leave a message 00:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Companies of the United States with untaxed profits until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ottawatech, I've noticed our overlapping in a few AFDs and elsewhere. Hmm I thought more so than I see in wp:EditorInteractionAnalyzer, maybe I've been observing and agreeing with your comments in discussions where i didn't actually post. Anyhow I think we have similar views: we're both inclusionists, we're both being concerned about negative effects of Wikipedia deletion processes, we've both created lots of articles, maybe we both have been criticized for creating lots of articles (i have, and I see on your User page and above that you've had a lot deleted). We're both interested in business topics or at least not afraid of them. And I recently noticed your mentioning (at some "WikiProject X"-related page?) about not really having a home project, and I am pretty much in the same way. I wonder if we could team up usefully somehow. Maybe:
engage in a collaboration to change deletion processes, maybe with a new wp:WER-like WikiProject?
develop the repatriation of profits area? You created Companies of the United States with untaxed profits and I supported keeping at AFD, and it was kept, i think by no consensus. It's incomplete as a list-article and maybe we should make an effort to fill it out: actually identify the firms having more than some level $X of untaxed profits abroad, maybe using some business library resources, maybe easily if companies are required to report this in a footnote in their financial statements. It's within an important topic area which could be in the news prominently. Besides Obama's proposal, maybe U.S. presidential candidates of various parties will make proposals. Yet there's scant development in Wikipedia, nothing that could be updated to support Wikipedia front-page "in the news" linking, if/when the issue area is hot. The Repatriation article is about persons being returned to their home countries, and there's no "Repatriation of profits" article or other main article(s) in the general topic area.
systematically create a lot of business-focused list-articles, that could guide a lot of future development? E.g., we both participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birungyi Barata and it led me to notice that coverage of law firms in Africa is minimal, while there's tons of coverage of firms in U.S. and U.K. There was a List of law firms in Uganda that was deleted, and I asked for a copy and have it at Draft:List of law firms in Uganda, planning to restore it perhaps. I would expect the top law firms in any country should be covered in Wikipedia. And the top firms in any professional services area, e.g. top architectural firms. But it looks like there never was a List of law firms in Africa or lists within individual African countries besides Uganda and South Africa. Use the sources found in the AFD to create them.
If fellow editors continue to post a quote box and leave a message for this editor with friendly advice how to create his/her first article they create the impression that such a quote box was carelessly posted because it is quite obvious that this editor has authored quite a few articles. Content creators should be encouraged and not vaguely insulted. Bfpage |leave a message 00:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Wulf Schiefenhövel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CombieTractortalk16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Invitation to Participate in a WikiProject Study
Hello Ottawahitech,
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Identity theft in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tax returns. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Ottawahitech. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Harold Kahn, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dan Rosensweig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little Theatre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
.
A tag has been placed on Turbotax database knows your secret, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
.A tag has been placed on Aileen Lee requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
But seriously I don’t know what processes Wikipedia has in place to stop User:Mrfrobinson from nipping at my wiki-heels. I don’t believe in wiki capital punishment and really have no desire to go to wp:ANI and start another wp:dramah to try and have him/her blocked (and possibly end up being blocked myself). But it is hard enough to contribute content here without the constant stream of deletion nominations and reversions of legitimate content. I just want to be left alone to contribute content and not be involved in "talk" exclusively.
So... to answer your question: I was just trying to bring this user's behavior to the attention of the community, and your talk page provided me one such opportunity. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Who are you talking too? If you have a problem with an editor bring it up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You just need to show your position that you feel stocked and they are doing wrong..for example this revert that you mention above is not what should have happened as per WP:CONTESTED. You need to make a case that your editing in good faith but some guy is following you not in good faith (with differences). Be aware he has the same right to explain his POV at any investigation. -- Moxy (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Since I have been pinged above, I'll just point out that the revert that Moxy is talking about was entirely appropriate. It was a completely unreferenced BLP, with the tag BLPPROD. Such tags may not be removed unless a source is provided. If they are removed without adding a source, the tag is restored. Ottawahitech, as for your other assertions, I see no evidence that Mrfrobinson is "stalking" you. One only has to look at the multiplicity of notices on this page from many other editors for your inappropriate and/or completely unreferenced articles to see that the problem does not lie with Mrfrobinson, but with your own approach to creating articles here. Voceditenore (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@Voceditenore, Did you just say that even if I am a victim stalking, I brought it on myself and therefore it is my own fault? Just trying to understand. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not what I am saying. I'm saying that:
Your perception that this person is "stalking" you is incorrect and a misinterpretation of WP:HOUND. Incidentally, we don't use "stalk" any more.
The problematic nature of your editing has been observed by many editors. It is not the case that only one editor sees problems with your edits or "has it in for you".
You should think very seriously about why you have so many of these messages on your talk page and do something about it.
Accusations of "hounding" should not be used to deflect attention from problems in one's own editing or to avoid confronting an obvious problem. Ditto describing oneself as a "victim".
It is quite common when an editor finds a problematic article to start also checking the various articles and categories linked from it as well those which link to the article. In my experience, one often finds many more problems. If one editor is connected to all those articles and categories, it can look like "hounding", but in my view it's not. Likewise if an editor finds problematic editing from another editor, checking their other edits can also be permissible and is even advised for new page and recent changes patrollers. I have tracked such editors myself, although not you. I consider repeated creation of unreferenced BLPs, removing BLPPROD from articles without adding a reference, and a tendency to treat Wikipedia like a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia to be quite problematic. This revert of yours was particularly egregious. That completely unreferenced article contained the subject's exact date of birth and alleged partner's name—both serious BLP violations. You obviously don't consider this problematic, and I think that's where the the problem lies. Note also that the person you are objecting to has only dealt with a very small proportion of your edits, and in a particular area. I suggest you re-read WP:HOUND. I also suggest you re-read very carefully the excellent advice DGG gave you in that conversation you linked. So far, you seem to be largely ignoring it. Voceditenore (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The problematic nature of your editing has been observed by many editors Lets agree to disagree on the best way to add content to Wikipedia, at least for the moment.
Accusations of "hounding" should not be used… Please note I have been very careful in my choice of words and have not accused user:mrfrobinson of stalking me, however, I do consider myself a victim.
Your perception that this person is "stalking" you is incorrect Just wondering if you have actually assessed this or whether you just decided that I am simply not worth the effort?
I have tracked such editors myself Tracking is one thing, but going on fishing trips to nominate articles for deletion, for example Aileen Lee, using this type of rationale: a businesswomen who lacks any real n notability. No significant award or achievements may end up hurting Wikipedia's credibility.
a tendency to treat Wikipedia like a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia to be quite problematic I have more to say, if you are interested? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Your contention that you have been "very careful" in your "choice of words" and have not accused Mrfrobinson of hounding you is nonsense and pure Wikilawyering. Below is just a sample of the stuff you have been posting about him on other editors' talk pages (clearly identifying him by linking his name or via a diff). This is in addition to pinging 4 more editors (one of whom is an admin) to this section to continue your assertion that he is "targeting" your edits, and your continued assertions here that you are his "victim":
Repeatedly casting aspersions on another editor is in itself a form of harassment. I strongly suggest you cut it out. And yes, I have examined the editor's contributions and yours very carefully. That is precisely why I said that your perception that the editor is "stalking" you is incorrect. This is my final comment here. I am not interested in discussing your editing philosophy any further. Voceditenore (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
If fellow editors continue to post a quote box and leave a message for this editor with friendly advice how to create his/her first article they create the impression that such a quote box was carelessly posted because it is quite obvious that this editor has authored quite a few articles. Content creators should be encouraged and not vaguely insulted. Bfpage |leave a message 00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Therese Lawless requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. BiH (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Your article has three references now. One primary, two secondary. I certainly consider the person to be notable. I just can't find the place to participate in the deletion discussion. The template was one I wasn't used to seeing for some reason.
@Bfpage: Deletions at Wikipedia are strange rituals: there wp:CSDs. wp:PRODs (at least 2 kinds,apparently), and wp:AFDs. Then there is also other rituals for nuking categories, redirects, templates, wikipedia pages, to name the few I remember of the top, sigh ... Ottawahitech (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
If fellow editors continue to post a quote box and leave a message for this editor with friendly advice how to create his/her first article they create the impression that such a quote box was carelessly posted because it is quite obvious that this editor has authored quite a few articles. Content creators should be encouraged and not vaguely insulted. Bfpage |leave a message 00:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Nitasha Tiku requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wgolf (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aileen Lee until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank you for sending me a 'thank you' for my editing on the Animal attacks article. I often wonder how and why editors like yourself even notice such things and I am flattered.
@Bfpage: The pleasure is all mine - what a great article you have created. How did you find all these bits and pieces and put them together? And, to answer your question, I was notified when you linked an article I created long ago (and forgot all about). This is one of the brownies wiki-editors get for creating articles on Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, thanks for responding back to me. I'd love to chat via email about how I find all that stuff. I have taken a look at your editing history and I believe that I've discovered a kindred spirit-someone who appreciates all that wikimedia has to bring to the world yet at the same time frustrated with the problems inherent in its' operation, Am I right? I love your user page, and how you boldly proclaim how creative you have been and yet how it looks like all you do is get ...ummm well, the opposite of encouraged on your creative endeavors. May I send you an email?
@Bfpage: One thing I noticed from looking at your contribution history is that we both started editing wikipedia in 2007 (The number of active editors on the English-language Wikipedia peaked in 2007 at more than 51,000 and has been declining ever since). I have always wondered if those who started in 2007 simply experienced the wikipedia version of Eternal September. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
There are a lot of things I like about 2007. I almost gave up because I didn't realize how trigger-happy some administrators are and are so quick to NOT assume good faith. I've got your talk page on my watchlist and whenever I see that you have gone and found somebody wanting to delete one of your articles I'll just go right in and find all your references for you. It's quite simple if you ever want to learn I'd love to help you out. Very Best Regards,
Effectively I "nominated" it myself. Admins are allowed to use their own judgement, and directly delete pages that they believe meet the Speedy Deletion criteria. In this case, A7, notability. Please read WP:BIO. To pass A7, an article needs to show that there is at least an indication that the person might be notable by Wikipedia's definition of notability. Just being a "developer", a "lender", or even being sent to prison for tax evasion, none of that shows at all that the person might be notable.
And even if you pass A7, you then have to actually show that they do indeed meet the criteria, or the article is likely to be deleted at AFD fairly swiftly. Independent, reliable, non-trivial sources are needed for that. And if they are notable only for the jailing issue, you need to get past WP:BLP1E. And especially if the article is written mostly as a way to show the negative information, it is going to get extra BLP scrutiny. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Notice is not required. Many, many non-notable people get articles written every day. Most get deleted fairly quickly, as yours was.
As for avoiding it being deleted, one good way is to astart off with one of the article creation systems. Draft article space, WP:AFC, etc. These allow articles to be developed without being under threat of sudden deletion.
That said, you really should be thinking not about how to avoid A7 deletion, but how to avoid deletion at a full deletion debate. Just building in Draft or User space will avoid A7 for now, but the article is still subject to deletion as soon as it moves to article space. If you want your article to stand, aim for avoiding that from the beginning. As for how to avoid that, please do read WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E]]. It's not really a matter of wording, as much as it's a matter of sourcing/references. You need to be able to provide (preferably multiple) sources that are Reliable, Independent, and Non-Trivial. All three of those points are critical in determining if a source is enough to help show notability. As examples, a blog is no Reliable. A press release is not Independent. And a brief mention in a list or article on a tangential subject is a Trival reference. You should be gathering your references now, rather than later. Otherwise, even if you get past A7, you'll just find yourself in the middle of a deletion debate, facing deletion. And full deletion debates carry more precedent, are harder to get past, than simple A7 deletions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@TexasAndroid: One thing that struck me when reading your reply above is your suggestion of using draft-space for article creation, which is something I did a while ago, thinking it would buy me time to collect information, but my article was deleted anyway. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you referring to Draft:Julie Ireton? That one was deleted as "abandoned". It had not been edited in six months or more. Draft space is not free web hosting, it's a place for articles that are being actively worked on. So yeah, it's not the case that articles in Draft will never be deleted, but they generally will not as long as they are actively being worked on. And if one *is* deleted under G13, like the Julie article was, all you have to do is ask, and it can be restored. I could restore that specific one for you if you want. If it sits unedited for another six months, it'll likely again be deleted as "abandoned" again.
There are a lot of different reasons things get deleted. Some are more easily undone than others. G13, G7, and WP:PROD are among the most easily undone. All those really take is a request to have it restored. On the other extreme, copyright violations and attack pages would be reasons for deletion that would IMHO likely be the least likely to be easily restored. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Editing abuse filter
You need to add sources to these new articles because your getting alot of abuse filters the pass few months. This leads to even more people looking at what is going on and thus deleting your work.... because they see no sources. Just have to add sources and a cat to stop this. -- Moxy (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Moxy: Thanks for reminding me of the abuse filter -- I remember seeing it before and not understanding its purpose. I am still confused because it appears that all the recent "abuses" have been triggered by Creation of a new article without any categories (650) which I had no idea was considered abuse. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. --Finngalltalk18:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations and much in encouragement and admiration do you for putting up with all the people who want to delete your work. I am the new president of your fan club. Best Regards, Bfpage |leave a message21:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Missing Wikipedian
Thanks for considering me for the list of missing Wikipedians. Though I can't think of much reason to have such a list at all (feel free to enlighten me if there is some such reason). Actually, per the policy notes, I've just been on a long break. My "day job" has kept me very busy. As an aside, it currently involves the Chapter 9 case of a public hospital district! I'll be back some day. Cheers. --Pechmerle (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pechmerle: Wow, am I glad to hear from you and to know you are considering returning. You are one of the editors I met here for whom I have a great deal of admiration. It is great to know that you will be returning — there are just so many editors who simply vanish.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portia Li until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onorem (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Tina Huang v. Twitter
Hello Ottawahitech,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Tina Huang v. Twitter for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
Happy New Year!
Thanks - I hope I caught them all. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Changed the first to a redlink, no idea how to disambiguate the second Ottawahitech (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New Kingdome Stadium may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
--Stfg (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
.jpg)
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Royal Bank. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
.jpg)
~ Muffin Wizard ;) 20:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
