Open main menu

User talk:Creffett

Disambiguation link notification for October 19Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of regional nicknames, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Autonym (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Danielle Younge-UllmanEdit

I'm curious what I'd need to do to remove the maintaince tag from the article. Everything in the article is currently sourced, and I think that the references are reliable. Is it because it's a stub or something else? Clovermoss (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Clovermoss, I think it's good at this point (now that you've added more sources), it's sufficiently referenced. It could definitely use expansion and more significant external coverage, but I'll remove the template. creffett (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
You might find the recently closed deletion discussion helpful for more about signifigant coverage, Levivich found some other sources that I hope I can use to expand the article from where it currently is. Clovermoss (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Muskowekwan 85-28Edit

why was this unreviewed?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, accident on my part. Re-reviewed. creffett (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
no problem, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-43Edit

14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archivedEdit

 

Hi Creffett! You created a thread called RFC "magic links" at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Croatian Colombians, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 TT me 03:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know, that this was created by a probable sock.Onel5969 TT me 03:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Onel5969, all right, thanks for the heads-up. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 12:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of finding aid links in articlesEdit

Hi Creffett,

Please explain the conflict of interest in linking to research materials from wikipedia. We (archivists and librarians at NYU's Bobst Library) held an editing workshop to provide information for potential researchers and you seem to have removed all links we created. I do not see a conflict of interest in providing more information to people.

Catlactica (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Catlactica

Catlactica, certainly, I'd be happy to explain. The basic problem is that you are adding links to an organization you are affiliated with, which looks to other Wikipedia editors like you all are trying to link to your website without those links necessarily adding value to it and without acknowledging your relationship. First of all, I would recommend taking a look at the "GLAM" getting started page, as it's specifically made for people in the gallery, library, etc. area. As for the links: if you take a look at the policy on external links, you'll see that there's a rule of in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. The rule isn't necessarily as strict in the case of libraries, but if you look at the getting started page I linked earlier, in the section "Make links relevant and unique", you'll see some advice specifically for this situation. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 16:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Creffett, thanks for your reply, and for the link to the GLAM getting started page. At NYU Libraries, we’re just embarking on learning about how we can contribute to Wikipedia and Wikidata, so this information is much appreciated. I’ve created my user page and added a disclaimer about my employment. I also took a look at the “make links relevant and unique” section and the GLAM external links guide, and I believe the links we’ve added are appropriate and in scope. See: Daniel_Leab#External_links. The GLAM external links guide states “Generally, links should only be added to actual online information on the article subject, not to pages saying you have information but not showing it – for example, library or archives catalogues, or a page saying what a fine collection you have, without much illustration of it or discussion of the topic.” The links we’ve added are direct links to archival finding aids about the subjects of the articles, which include historical and biographical information and details about the contents of the archival collection. Again, thank you for helping us better understand the policies so that we can contribute useful resources to Wikipedia. Catlactica (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Catlactica, all right, if you think they're relevant after reading the guidelines and have disclosed your relationship, then go ahead and add them. We're happy to have you here to edit Wikipedia, and if you all have any further questions about the policies around here or aren't sure of the appropriateness of something you want to add, please feel free to post on my talk page and I'll help you as best I can. Happy editing! creffett (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Henk StallingaEdit

Hello Creffett, please note I understand the guidelines of Wikipedia but not so much how it technically works (programming language) therefor I hope this message finds you well.

You reverted my revision because of 'Unexplained removal of COI'. Howeer, I did explain to Mdd under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henk_Stallinga but maybe this was technically not properly placed and signed

please see below the explanation:

Content is key. Could you please advise on what is wrong with the content on current page? this page has not been touched by Silodam for a long time.. You earlier suggestions were answered and acted upon; no more contributions from Silodam. so why this sudden CIO tag?

Please note being close to the subject does not necessarily mean it is not correct or unjust, moreover there is more accurate information available. I do agree however it needs close attention. Therefor we decided not to contribute on the wiki page anymore (other then responding to spelling, language and more formal inaccuracies from others) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silodam (talk • contribs) 13:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Silodam (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Silodam, I wasn't aware of the discussion on the talk page. When you remove certain kinds of warnings (like COI and advertising templates), it gets specially logged, and when someone removes one of those without an explanation it usually means they haven't discussed the issue on the talk page. For next time, please make sure to use an edit summary explaining what you're doing - something like "removing COI notice after discussion on talk page," so that someone like me will know that there actually was discussion and you weren't just removing the message without discussion. creffett (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

My page about deltaco gamingEdit

Hi Creffett,

I come back to you regarding the page you suppressed because it would be advertising.

I discovered the brand in an international fair in Germany and got a free kit from them so I wanted to write something. I got inspiration for my text from razer or corsair pages which are among 2 biggest brands and which to me seem professional contribution if you compare with my 20 lines.

What if I write about rygby, am I goingt o be considered as a ryby player or belonging to a club (I would love it though)

Thank you in advance.

Hobbies list (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hobbies list, when you're writing about anything on Wikipedia, you have to show that it's notable enough for a Wikipedia page by showing that there has been significant coverage in reliable sources. When you don't have that and you're writing about a company, it usually looks like advertising for the company (especially if you have product lists on the page). You're welcome to make a new draft, but I'd advise you to take a look at the notability guidelines for companies before continuing. creffett (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett!

Thank you very much Creffett.

I understand the ambiguity, I though the product list was "clever" as given a lot of info. I will read what you recommended and will redo it without product list if it is sensitive.

Best regards,

HL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbies list (talkcontribs) 09:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Unable to create wikipedia page for Umaria SinhawansaEdit

I want create a wikipedia page for Umaria Sinhawansa, But However it prevents me from creating the page by displaying

"The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism"

Please kindly remove the blacklist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturaroche (talkcontribs) 17:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Chaturaroche, I'm not an administrator, so I can't really do anything to help - I just posted that comment to point out the issue to whichever administrator responds. Please be patient, an administrator should see your message and reply soon. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Balance on Moritz von StuelpnagelEdit

I'm restoring one of the two quotes that you removed from Moritz von Stuelpnagel. Before I accepted the draft, I spent a couple hours searching out reviews of his work to make sure the original author hadn't cherry picked the most favorable ones. Terry Teachout is an important drama critic at a major US newspaper, so his view is relevant. Von Stuelpnagel seems to be something of a darling of Teachout, who has written other glowing reviews of his directing since Hand to God. They verge on sycophancy (unusual for Teachout), basically calling him the greatest living director of theatre comedy. The quote in the article is one of the tamer ones, but conveys Teachout's opinion. Being WP:NPOV doesn't mean making articles devoid of opinion, but fairly and accurately summarizing the views of experts.

It appears that the WP:COI author or their confederates intend to keep editing the page in article space, so it would be helpful if you could join in watching it for bias. The article mentions a number of awards in which the director is not named, and I would be interested in your opinion about their relevance. It felt like an attempt to claim importance by association, but I was undecided about whether to remove them. I'd also be interested to know which of the cited source you feel may be unreliable, since that wasn't a problem I noticed when I reviewed it. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Worldbruce, thanks for the heads-up, no objection to you re-adding the quote, and I'll add the page to my watchlist. As for your other questions: I'm unsure as well about the other awards. My first instinct is to remove the awards that clearly name somebody else, like "best actor," for the reason you suggested. However, I don't feel knowledgeable enough of theatre in general and Tony awards in particular to feel confident doing that, I think I'll go raise it with Wikiproject Theatre and see what their usual rules are. The source I have concerns about is AboutTheArtists, since it appears to be a fellow community-generated site. I was also concerned about IBDb, but that was a mistake on my part - I guess I thought it was like IMDb in terms of reliability, but I'm looking at it now and am realizing I was completely wrong there. I'll just go ahead and remove that tag. creffett (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-44Edit

16:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of an NGO articleEdit

Hello Creffet. Some people we think interesting to create an article of an NGO (as there are many other ones here), because the project is really beautifull and this serves to enlarge the knowledge of it (public knowledge is the aim of wikipedia). What do you think interesting to mark this article Draft:The Bodhi Tree Educational Foundation, still in draft, as Speedy Deletion? Draft version means that many people is still worknig on it. Luis7Arroyo (talkcontribs) 00:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Luis7Arroyo, the tone of the page was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't the place for an "about us" or for the organization to talk about its mission. We need reliable, third-party sources with significant coverage of the organization. Also, if you are affiliated with the organization, it would be best if you just wait for someone unaffiliated to write the article. creffett (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Creffet, please specify where exactly it is said that it is forbidden on wikipedia rules that any organization could be not defined by "its mission", because I think that it is precisely the aim of this site. Moreover, it is known that third party links are needed, and that is why this article it still "Draft". Waiting for third users to link it. Little by little. But if you delete it, there are only roadblocks to the construction of public knowledge. That is why I ask you to please remove the Speedy Deletion tag. Luis7Arroyo (talkcontribs) 00:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Luis7Arroyo, I didn't say an organization isn't defined by its mission, I said that this is not the place for an organization to talk about its mission. While drafts are indeed collaborative, you shouldn't rely on other people to do the work - either the third-party sources exist or they don't. Finally, you say I'm blocking public knowledge; again, if there isn't significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, then the article doesn't belong here. I'm not going to remove the speedy deletion tag, but an administrator will get the final decision about whether or not the page should be speedily deleted. creffett (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019Edit

Hello Creffett,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 726 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.


To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-45Edit

16:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Clutter family murdersEdit

I see that you have put this up for deletion as a copyright violation. When I first created this article, some copyright violations were suspected. However, it turns out that the suspicions were erroneous. I forget the exact details. But, it was something like this. I created the article "Clutter family murders". Some of the material for the new Clutter family murders article was taken directly from the article In Cold Blood. Someone suspected that the material was a copyright violation. (They stated that the material for Clutter family murders and for In Cold Blood was copied from some other website. Some other editor looked into it further. They said that it was "reverse copyright". They said that the website in question -- I forget the actual website name -- actually had copied the material from Wikipedia. I would like someone to please remove the "speedy deletion request". I am placing a "help request" tag on the Talk Page for Clutter family murders. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help desk#Clutter family murders. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Joseph A. Spadaro, replied at the help desk entry. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Article recreatedEdit

Hello,

the headline says all. I recreated the article and I want to know what is wrong with the article. How can I show you the article?

Jicco123 (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jicco123, I have absolutely no idea what article you're talking about or why you're asking me to look at your version. Perhaps you've confused me with somebody else? creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, ViperSnake151 reported me and he said "Their edits to Mixer have been very questionable" Now I want to show my article. And I want to know what's wrong with the article.

Jicco123 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jicco123, that's fine, but I don't really have anything to do with that dispute. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

External links removedEdit

Dear Creffet,

I added a few external links which contained great in-depth interviews of biographical character to different persons. I am sure these interviews would be of great value. However, they got removed due to "inappropriate links" by you. However, under external links it says that "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other article". Would it be better if I chose to use these as references in the Wikipedia article of the persons rather than adding it as a external links? Hope this is the right place to write this.

Methici (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Methici, there's two problems. First, blogs (and other self-published sources) aren't generally considered a reliable source, and in particular, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people. Second, you appear to have a conflict of interest, since every edit you've made has involved adding links to the same organization's webpage, and per the external links policy you linked, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent. The policy also explicitly mentions that non-profit and for-profit organizations are held to the same standard. creffett (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for the welcome! Bobatealee (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Bobatealee: Thank you! Please feel free to leave a note on my talk page (this page) if you have any questions. I hope you enjoy editing here! creffett (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 10Edit

Gregory S. BrownEdit

Hi there, I've declined your A7 of Gregory S. Brown. As someone employed in an academic role by a major university that is, in my thinking, a credible claim of significance. Feel free to ping me or leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I'm not sure I agree with that being a credible claim of significance, but I'll accept your judgment. I feel pretty confident that the subject fails NACADEMIC, so I'll consider taking it to PROD or AfD after I've done a BEFORE search (and double-checked the NACADEMIC rules). creffett (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I do error on the side of keeping for A7. In this case even if the academic piece isn't a CCOS, having at least one book published by an Academic Publisher is definitely a CCOS (and a possible source of notability beyond NACADEMIC). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Renamed user374765hdkfhudjEdit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Renamed user374765hdkfhudj requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-46Edit

22:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

UsernameEdit

Regarding FamedOnes, see the deleted history of their userpage.   Home Lander (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Home Lander, I'll take your word for it. creffett (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


Minicom pageEdit

Hi ! -> one or more external links you added to Minicom have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia :

That's why I did not add the information directly to minicom page but rather to my personal Wiki. but this information is hard to find on the internet, when people do not say that it's not possible to have user level configuration or to run as normal user, so I added it here as external link (there's no official website for this too) And from my point of view, it is as relevant as the other links like "11.7 Using minicom and seyon" or "Pitux Minicom Floppy"

Also, I do not understand why you removed my comment about the outdated man page ?

And why did you add a broken link in place of mine ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathael (talkcontribs) 19:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Nathael, per the external links policy, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent - I'm sure your intentions are good, but links to your "tips" site just aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. We also don't need warnings about the contents of links. As for broken links, I just reverted to the last version, we especially don't like people saying that a link is broken and using that as their excuse to insert a link to their own stuff. Finally, the "using minicom and seyon" link is at least somewhat useful because it's a link to a well-known and respectable publisher, but you're right about the minicom floppy link, that needs to go. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Woo ... First, I did not use the fact that the link is broken as an excuse to add mine. I found a broken link and removed it. You'll notice that I made three different edits, not a single edit. I was working on my wiki and found this broken link while looking for information on the subject while writting my own page.

Then, for the information about outdated information on one link, I thought that the goal was to keep wikipedia accurate. I'll try to get the up-to-date minicom page pushed to a site dedicated to maintaining man pages like http://man7.org/ or The Linux man-pages project (https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/) and update the link once it's done.

And last, as for the link to my own page, OK, I don't know if anyone else will bother to spend time refering to this information, let Google do the job of making it accessible to others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathael (talkcontribs) 11:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Tagging of User:Mirishehu/sandbox/Hooray Health & ProtectionEdit

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on User:Mirishehu/sandbox/Hooray Health & Protection. I do not think that User:Mirishehu/sandbox/Hooray Health & Protection fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because As a plausible draft, this is specifically exempt from WP:CSD#U5. I request that you consider not re-tagging User:Mirishehu/sandbox/Hooray Health & Protection for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Deva Holding A.S.Edit

Just a friendly heads up on Deva Holding A.S.. I declined your speedy deletion request because there are plenty of claims of importance, which is a lower standard than notability. If the page needs to go, try PROD or AfD.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Johns Creek, GeorgiaEdit

Thanks for your edit to Johns Creek, Georgia. I'm not getting much discussion from other editors at Talk:Johns Creek, Georgia#Government section. If you are able to comment I'd appreciate it. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

No editing was performed by meEdit

I'm just replying to a message I found saying information had been deleted by me, which is not correct. I've never deleted anything from Wikipedia. I don't expect I could have done editing unintentionally, so it must be an error, I did not delete any information about Jack Mingo.

Thank-you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

S.B. Ringgold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.213.153 (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It was probably done by somebody else using the same IP, common if you're on a shared IP. Don't worry about it. creffett (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy deletionEdit

Hi Creffett, Honestly I'm an unexperienced new comer here so it will be hard for me to get the point of those rules. I apologize for my fault to bring you unnecessary addtional check and operation, but I wonder whether there to be a safer place to save my articles for future referece or improvement on this website with no regard to so-called Unambiguous advertising or promotion? I didn't expect the articles in my sandbox can easily be deleted with no notification. I mean user sandbox should be personal data, right? I do not refuse the open for admins, but I think users should have more liberty to decide what the content in their sandbox be like. Wish you can understand it's not a easy work for me to retype the article after deletion, leaving me no materials left, twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adachi Sakura (talkcontribs) 14:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Adachi Sakura, advertising isn't appropriate on Wikipedia regardless of where it's posted. You can ask the deleting admin to send you a copy of the article, but the tone of the article is not appropriate and will need a significant rework to not get deleted immediately. creffett (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frank Quitely, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JLA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Creffett".