User talk:Deb/Archive 21

Math Prize Wikipedia Editathon

I'd appreciate it if you'd move "‪Elie Cartan Prize‬" out of my user space. We are having an editathon today (4/20, until 5pm CDT), and this is a way for less experienced editors to add to a stub page that I've created. Wkrif (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)wkrif

Wikipedia Project Germany

Neues vom Suderhof is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. Neues vom Suderhofis classified as a stub article, and thus all material on the page and related to the page is, by definition, under construction. All edits must additive or helpful.

Continuously blanking a page, creating a redirect, and making it difficult for people to navigate the page is neither additive or helpful. Germanhexagon (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

As I have said before, those articles are part of the the Neues vom Suderhof article, and thus are notable. Furthermore, as I have previously discussed, Neues vom Suderhof, itself is a stub article and by definition, lacks many of the features of a good+ classification article, and relies on the Wikipedia community, and in particular, the German-interested community to make improvements. The stub pages are not only noteble in itself, but also so that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany community can make edits on it. By continuously blanking pages, you are disrupting the knowledge process. Germanhexagon (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The article you are discussing is a stub. It is in the nature of stubs to be a starting point for a community of people to work together and improve it.

Thank you for compromising and putting up a template to encourage edits. It is much more helpful than blanking a page and ensuring no one will edit a page. Germanhexagon (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The article is part of the main article, notable, and has already been been classified as a stub by the German Wikiproject, and thus should be left open for community input. Germanhexagon (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Deb (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Saw you twice when NPPing. Got bored, decided to go through your contribs. Amazing. Great Wikignoming as well as content creation. Thank's for your work here :D Vermont | reply here 00:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Access Bars

Hi Deb, May I understand why you deleted the article on Access Bars without giving me a chance to reconsider/reword? It was neither a promotional article nor a point of view. Just like this page here Eckankar that speaks about new age practices, this one was also about alternative medicine and both what it is, and what it has been perceived as, according to various published news artciles. Do share your concerns and help me understand. The Access Consciousness page that you mentioned is right here. Consciousness Moreover, I have presented the article in both the aspects, mentioning that there is no research found except for one. If you see the former page Eckankar, it does say the neutrality if the article is disputed - more so, because new age religions, cults and beliefs can not have verifiable sources, and that's exactly what my article represented. Pristinetulip (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pristinetulip: Your article wasn't really about "Access bars" [sic]; it was about something called Access consciousness, which is at present a redirect. If you want to continue down this line, you are free to create an article on the subject in draft and submit it for review. Deb (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure Deb. Could you please share a draft of my article as I am unable to find it anywhere. Thanks Pristinetulip (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Jason Loscalzo

Dear Deb,

Thank you for reviewing the article for Jason Loscalzo. However, I have a question about the decline of the submission, as I was decline for a reason "A7: No credible indication of importance".

I want to make a point that people who got to this position got articles before, like: Rusty Jones (American football), Garrett Giemont, Barry Rubin (American football), James Hardy (American football coach), Moses Cabrera, Markus Paul, Mike Woicik – just to name a few.

I think Loscalzo does have importance, the same as every other coordinator in the NFL.

Best wishes.

StanleyKey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deb,

First of all, thank you for the quick response (short or long!).

As to the points you were referring to:

1. I see, as you mention, that he's not meeting the criteria of sports notability, but as I mention before the general rule of thumb allow including coordinators in the NFL - as exceptions.

2. I'm not acquainted with Mr. Loscalzo, never met with him, or even living in the same country, so I don’t think there's conflict of interest. I'm only a Football fan.

3. Is it possible to move my article to a draft submission, so I can iron out the creases? If not, there's any possibility to retrieve my original submission?

Again, best wishes for you and your family.

StanleyKey (talk)

Banco Mifel

Hi, it seems that you mistook the Banco Mifel as advertisement because of the source I used for the page. I knew that pages without any sources are almost likely to be considered for deletion since the information could be made up but unfortunately in the case of Banco Mifel that was one of the very few pieces in English that I could find to add information and use as a source. Is there a way to revert the deletion or do I have to re-edit the page again? AquilaXIII (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Friday the 13th: Killer Puzzle

I fail to see why you feel Friday the 13th: Killer Puzzle is not notable. It has the franchise rights and I have provided evidence it is being sold by 3 major video game retailers Apple, Android and Steam, quite frankly less notable titles have not had their Wiki pages challenged. What exactly is the article lacking that doesn't make it notable? Also it's against Wiki policy to just outright delete an article without first putting up a notice that it may not meet Wiki notability guidelines and then start a talk page to discuss the notibility, you're an admin you should know this procedure. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You haven't made any claim of notability. All you've said is that it's a game - that hasn't been published yet - relating to an existing franchise. Lots of things that aren't notable are sold by major retailers. You need to give some evidence that it's been the subject of discussion (not advertising) in multiple sources. Deb (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

"Also it's against Wiki policy to just outright delete an article without first putting up a notice that it may not meet Wiki notability guidelines and then start a talk page to discuss the notibility, you're an admin you should know this procedure." You're completely wrong. Articles that meet the criteria for speedy deletion can be deleted at any time, without any warning. And in any case, it has NEVER been deleted, just redirected.Deb (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Aidon

Hi Deb! Thank you for bringing the issues of the Aidon page I had created to my attention. I have now reviewed all the articles you suggested and tried again - is it ok now? Thank you for your help, I'm still learning! CarletonLiisa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Peter Castellana III for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Castellana III is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Castellana III 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 Mighty Glen (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

About AccuVein Inc

Hi Deb,

I was writing up a WP:AFD submission about this article before you WP:G11'd it.

For future reference, if needed, here's what I drafted.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree, but I've removed the promotional links from this page. I'll check the history if I need to come back on it. Deb (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Averell smith

Hello Deb. Please see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Why_can't_I_contest_a_speedy_deletion?. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

7 March 2018

Deb: I'm not sure who you are, or why you have the power to unilaterally determine what is on Wikipedia. You have a link below where you say people can communicate with you, but it does nothing but route them to policy pages. My page did NOT violate any of the policies cited, and you seem insulated from any feedback about your actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEric Miller (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: The above message was originally added to Deb's user page. I've since moved it here. Mz7 (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

JEric, I don't have a link "below", I have a link at the top of this page which is for you to READ FIRST if you are "Coming here to ask why I deleted your article". It explains to you the possible criteria for deletion. I also have a link on my user page which leads to the talk page, NOT to a policy page as you suggest, so I don't think you could have tried it. It would probably be a good idea for you to read some of the pages about how to use Wikipedia before you start commenting on policy and practice. I specifically informed you that the page, "Averell smith" [sic] had been deleted because it was promotionally worded. I also gave you a warning about possible conflict of interest - if you don't have any connection with the subject of the article outside Wikipedia, it would be a good idea to say so now, because articles that are promotionally worded are typically written by people who know the subject and aren't aware of this guideline. Deb (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

8 March 2018

Hi Deb - re: your comment on the Mista Roe page - I was not aware of the conflict of interest policy. How should I proceed? Mollyhudelson (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The new editor at the Teahouse???

I think you handled the "Averell Smith" issue with grace and forbearance. Don't let the "goats" get you down. Many thanks for all the work you do here at WP. Respectfully,

Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 11:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I have also moved on

D - I look in now and then at Teahouse, to take a break from my day job (consultant) and the Wikipedia areas I am interested in (nutrition, alternative medicine...). I have also dropped Averell from my Watch list as a massive time sinkhole. David notMD (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Why can't I contest a speedy deletion?

No, Hoary, BeckenhamBear, It can be opinion led too. I would agree if its blatant; example an account set up specifically to write an article that bears all the hallmarks of experienced/sophisticated editing. That why I said check the previous edit history of the writer. I wrote an article about a studio and soon began to realize that a large part of it was a list of services and facilities. I knew I was potentially on dangerous ground. So I ensured that I didn't glam it up, however I slipped up because the facility had an Infinity Pool overlooking the Ocean. My slip was to mention the "unobstructed" view provided. Apparently that's real estate speak, I disagree it was blatant fact. One word in 600. The Admin with relish, couldn't type "Speedy" fast enough. (And before you check, there were other problems, but they were not insurmountable and would have been worth the effort.) Again this process is destructively way to fast, and needs curbing. Where is the Common Sense. Even Joe (above) is obviously a fan and not an Advertising Company. BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Joe No sooner had I typed this than I discover that Joe has shut it down. This is just the sort of speedy censorship I'm fed up with. The discussion was not finished. Admins using their knowledge to get their own way, and twist policy as suits. Then some of us are called (insulted) as "Goats". This is supposed to be a democratic forum not a personal fiefdom. BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you want from me? Or did you post this by mistake? Deb (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@BeckenhamBear: "Censorship"? Please spare me the hyperbole. I didn't remove anything. The Teahouse exists to welcome new editors and I can think of few things less welcoming than a lengthy, meandering spat about admin conduct and speedy deletion policy. It was not the right forum for that discussion. Nor is Deb's talk page the right place for a message directed at other users, for that matter (apologies, Deb.) – Joe (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Joe The Irony. Remove? I put it here because that's what Joe suggested;in writing. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I imagine he meant that, if you had a specific issue with me, you should raise it on my talk page - not that you should try to continue a debate about general policy. Deb (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps so, that's what he meant. Clearly two months solid studying policy is not enough, I shall have to study more. I have to say after reading the process of how Chaz Ortiz as an article can get through the system I have lost all faith in it. By the way I belatedly read the top of this page. Thank you for introducing me to David Ricardo, or did you mean Richard III. BeckenhamBear (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Bobby Kalotee

Hello Deb kindly review my sandbox where I've edited my page on Bobby. Let me know if his passes all the Wiki tests and requirements. If possible kindly point what exactly conflicts and what needs to be edited. Your help is highly appreciated and will enable me to launch my first wikipedia page and contribute in a correct way to the world's largest encylopedia. Sagar vaibhav (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Stephanie Arnold page deletion

Hi Deb,

You deleted my page on Stephanie Arnold, which for a class assignment we were assigned to create this wikipedia pages for and I have no outside connections to any organization or the author, and this was researched and writing done on my own. I looked it over and I'm not sure how it seems promotional? Is it the citations that I've added? I have taken the wikipedia course and looked at the NPOV page as well, should I just rewrite it? Any advice would be nice.

Thank you,

Tmontford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmontford (talk • contribs) 16:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we discuss my deleted "Quorum Company" page?

Hi Deb,

I have read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deb thoroughly and I understand that you deleted my page "Quorum (Company") because you determined it was a means of promotion.

I would like to respectfully request that my page, "Quorum (Company)" be reposted. Please consider the context I provide below about myself and my relationship to the topic of the post.

I am indeed related the Quorum company. I volunteered to build our Wikipedia page and prior to doing so, I looked at many other articles about similar companies and matched their structure. I was exceedingly careful to write with a neutral tone and cite many different sources. I believe that the topic "Quorum (Company)," is notable given the media coverage and direct mentions on the record by Members of Congress. I would be grateful if you would point me to the parts of my post that you find problematic or promotional and I would be happy to make the necessary edits.

Thank you in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrosen (talk • contribs) 19:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

-Kit Rosen, username Kitrosen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrosen (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

We are hosting an edit-a-thon and had a page deleted that we were working on. We need to access the draft to continue editing it.The username was marileeit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdylibrariangirl (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Hello, I'm Philroc. I noticed that you recently removed content from January 19 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Philroc^{My contribs} 14:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

move closure

Hi, thanks for supporting the move request and then implementing it. But you weren't aware or forgot you have to close the discussion. Could you do that, please?

FloridaArmy

I do appreciate your giving feedback to another editor who was perhaps doing some new-to-them things at User talk:FloridaArmy#What do you think you're doing?. But hey, no one is perfect, right (and me first in not being that), so I disagree about the harsh tone there. --Doncram (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Don. As admins, our role is mostly educator and facilitator, and only enforcer when absolutely necessary. Your comments to FloridaArmy seem a bit over the top. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't read his whole talk page. Deb (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I've read much of it. I get that he's been creating a lot of low-quality stubs. But, some of the things you're complaining about are kind of silly. Redirects out of article space, sure, that's something we need to control, but redirects in? They don't do any harm, so why should anybody care? Edit summaries are indeed to be encouraged as best practice, but they're not strictly required, so calling a lack of edit summaries, disruptive, seems excessive. And adding categories is also something that's not strictly required. Good to do, sure. But, we've also got people who specialize in categorization and come along and add them to new articles. So, again, nice to have, but not something to get bent out of shape over if it's not done. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

RoySmith, I don't agree with you that the role of the admin is "mostly educator and facilitator". You don't need admin tools for that. This contributor is thumbing his nose at project standards and guidelines because he knows he can get away with it. Just check out what other people have asked him nicely to do, and you'll find he's ignored them all. He really couldn't care less that he's producing substandard "articles" that others then have to clean up. Admin-bashing is easy and I've had enough of it in the past that calling me "silly" is not going to make much difference. Deb (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I know the history. I've been involved with some of it. I showed him how to set up talk page archiving, and he followed my suggestion. And I showed him how some of the referencing tools work, and I've seen at least some effort to use them. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That would explain why you're ignoring all his failings. Thanks for the pointer to the archive; I hadn't realised he'd already been blocked for disruptive editing. I see you are another of the many people who have reminded him about using edit summaries. Do you see any evidence that he took any notice? Deb (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Greetings, all. FloridaArmy comes on as a modern-day John Appleseed of stub articles, created through an explicitly stated, self-admitted process of casual and cavalier indifference to Wikipedia's standards (let alone encyclopaedic standards). The stated intention of such activity is to allow others to build upon the supposed legacy of such stubs, an approach based, of course, on the severe misunderstanding of Wikipedia's communal and collaborative architecture. In reality, Wikipedia promotes collaboration and initiative but does not condone intentional sloppiness. The abundance of rules, guidelines, and essays about rules, as well as the existence of functioning Committees and Arbitrators, are conclusive proof that Wikipedia does not suffer giddy gadflies gladly. Deb's tone could've been more gentle but the observation's made could not have been more accurate. -The Gnome (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Anfernee Simons

Hey, I noticed that someone previously created an article for Anfernee Simons, but got deleted before I had a chance to see what progress was made there and see if I could do anything to fix it up myself. I say that because I actually had a few interesting notes/references to put in mind for talking about this player (who's currently projected to be a first round pick as of the time I'm sending this post out to you). For starters, he's projected to be the first American born high school student to enter an NBA Draft directly out of high school (or as a postgraduate, depending on what sounds better) since the NBA put up the age limit for players to enter the NBA Draft back in 2005. Also, there's the fact that he originally was interested in going to the University of Louisville, but due to the FBI scandal(s) the university was involved with, he wound up withdrawing his intentions of going there soon afterward. Admittedly, I don't know much about his high school stuff, nor do I know where to find his statistics best (seriously, I don't pay that much attention to high school basketball), but I can certainly help find the sources needed to help make sure it doesn't get deleted again, especially in the likely event he gets drafted. I'm also not sure what the previous article had, but again, if it had a good enough structure without the necessary sources included, I'd gladly take care of that part to fix things up there! So what do you say there, Deb? – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Article deletion

Hi Deb You seem to delete a lot here.

My article wasn't a duplicate and I had cited all information from reputable sources . While it was my first article on this account alone I've made several approved edits .

Cheers Min Minnii93 (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deb ,

Thankyou for the response but after reading your feedback . The names were capitilised so Im wondering exactly why this article isnt ready still .

The citations are correct an its more verified than some wikipedia articles which have been approved.

Thankyou

Min

The Splendid

Hi Deb,

you deleted my page "The Splendid". If i am removing the link to facebook, would it be ok?

Greetings, Hansafreak1

April 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's April 2018 worldwide online editathons. Focus on: April+Further with Art+Feminism Archaeology Military history (contest) Geofocus: Indian subcontinent Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred --Rosiestep (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Bill Maynard

Can you please unprotect the article? It has been unjustifiably fully protected to stop people adding correct information by Oshwah. Thanks. Aiken D 12:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC) @Oshwah:, any comment? Deb (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This has now been sorted. Many thanks. Aiken D 12:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Good. One less issue to think about. Deb (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It was protected to stop the addition of more BLP violations to the article and pending the search, gathering, review, and insertion of reliable sources to it. Once this was done, the protection was immediately lowered. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Happy first edit day!

Happy First Edit Day, Deb, I was doin' something else and happened to notice that today was your first edit day. Thanks for staying on board the Goodship Wikipedia. Have a great day! ―Buster7 ☎ 20:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

re: Deb (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

re:

COI? Please be aware of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. Deb (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Deb - I have no affiliation with the Author or the publication in question, beyond having met him at the Sydney launch in April, 2017 and studying the author's book Scoundrel Days in the curriculum subject of Contemporary Experimental Writing at the University of Qld. I also have no affiliation with the Australian artist Anthony Lister whose wiki entry I edited. I will not be making any articles with COI - COI is an ethical component of my honours thesis.

I am an Honours student: Australian literature 1788 - present and I am Particularly interested in contributing to wikipedia knowledge base on the creative works of Generation X (b. 1965-1984) Australian poets, writers and visual artists.

Thanks. Deb (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Dembo M Badjie

I realize the COI nature of the page, however I do believe the subject to be notable. I think I could do a WP:HEY with it, so could you REFUND it to my user space? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

(for convenience: User:Bellezzasolo/Dembo M Badjie) how's it looking now, is it ready to be moved to mainspace and developed further there? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: Looks okay - put it this way, I wouldn't delete it. Deb (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Gabi Insurance

Peter the pink (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

hi Deb,

I saw you deleted my post. I am not affiliated with Gabi. But I will try to create a more objective version. Please can you let me know how to access the deleted page so that I can rework it? Peter the pink (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of User:Webmaster at Kentucky Today/sandbox

You just deleted User:Webmaster at Kentucky Today/sandbox, created by User:Webmaster at Kentucky Today, uder G11 as promotional. Note that the CSD text says This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.

I was just abo9ut to move this to draft space, and start working with the creator to find and cite sources. In my view it was not in any significant degree promotional. I ask that you reconsider and restore this page. It is true that the page creator has a WP:COI, but this has been properly declared. Please see my recent Teahouse exchange with the page creator. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Singular plural in article name

Hello Deb

I am writting you regarding my new wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerogenic_dendritic_cell

I am unhappy about the changes you made.

First change: Name of title should be singular. I understand this but as you read firt line in the article i state there that "Tolerogenic_dendritic_cells" are heterogenous pool, therefore one can´t really describe only one "Tolerogenic_dendritic_cell" because as there is variety of different subtypes in this POOL (which can be consider as singular) this change of plural into singular makes the name of the article illogicall and incorrect.

The same happened on "slovak" version of this my same page https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerog%C3%A9nna_dendritick%C3%A1_bunka where the name also have been changed to singular.

The second change: Restructuring of the article. You fused two sub articles into one, which seem to be directly connected but they are actualy not. I had a paragraph about subpopulation which included also subpopulation of differently induced tolerogenic dendritic cells. You fused these subpopulations with way of induction. It seems to be logical step but it is not and it make the knowledge incorrect. If you paragraph about population only with "natural" and "imature" it is incomplete list and this list of population include population as they were described before even if the name of the population included the way of induction. It might be confusing but that idunction-derived name refers more to the features of population rather then induction intself, because even within the population induced by the same stimuli will be functional diferences but still fall in the same group of population type. It might seem redundant at first but i find it crucial and those changes disrupt the true concept.

Howvever i agree the visual changes and adjustment needs to be made (i relied on you because i am not good editor or anything) but i think you compromised the contet by doing so.

I kindly ask you to return the page to its original name and structure.

Peter Holíček Peter Holíček (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deb

Thank you for the reply. Thank you for clarification.Then I have mis-indetify you as a one who change the structure of the article, i apologize.

Have a good day! Peter Holíček (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Clay Lohmann & Julie L. Green

Hello again,

I understand your stance on deleting the page, Clay Lohmann; however, I am a bit confused for your reasoning for deleting the page Julie L. Green as well. I understand my COI; however, this page was already reviewed by an experienced editor prior. I reverted the changes to the external links section on Julie L. Green because they were inconsistent to other edits you made on Anna Fidler. How is listing the website of an artist an advertisement? You did not remove this on Anna Fidler's page....

If I may add a bit about the notability guideline for Green and Lohmann, The Joan Mitchell Foundation Painters and Sculptors Grant is among the top most prestigious grants for artists in the United States. Julie L. Green and Clay Lohmann have both received this award. In addition, Julie Green's The Last Supper includes over 700 painted plates to date, and has been featured in the New York Times.

Would you be willing to assist me in editing these two articles so they comply with your standards?

Thank you,

KaitlynCK (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No. I already made some improvements to them - removing promotional external links (which did not include the artist's personal website) - which you then restored to the article. This demonstrates that you are here only to promote these artists. I won't do anything to encourage you to continue. Contrary to what you suggest, the page was not reviewed by an "experienced editor" prior to your uploading it; the review took place after I'd warned you not to edit it, and you decided to go back to the older version. I'm in the process of trying to find out why the person who carried it out thought that the article was okay. Please note that it is possible for an inexperienced editor to carry out a review, but only an administrator can delete an article. Deb (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Deb, I apologize for my actions on restoring the promotional links. I honestly did not know this direct edit was against policy. With so many regulations, it's hard for a newbie like me to navigate around here. I want to learn, and appreciate your help. Sorry for the drama. Thanks, KaitlynCK (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Foxache (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Mad Fellows

Hi Deb. Thanks for your reply. I understand and that makes a lot of sense. I'll work on notability and sources and look into someone else posting for me. Thanks again and keep up the great work! :) (User:Foxache)

Fingershopping

Hi Deb. Thanks for your review. Fingershopping.com is a website that I used for getting bargain priced goods. I hope that's neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wongwonwon (talk • contribs) 02:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Deb.

I saw you deleted this, but there are many of the articles he created. Please can you use Special:Nuke?.See this SPI for the remaining accounts and articles. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not around this weekend. Deb (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Anna Fusoni

Hi! I got notified that Anna Fusoni page got deleted allegedly for being promotional, but certainly I can't understand why, it was only a translation of an already existent Wikipedia article.--CardidSansa (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Recreating a G4'ed article

Hi, I think since the deletion discussion, Visopsys has become notable. I note the following references.

References

Do you think the article can be recreated on that set of references? Thanks, ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Kadhja Bonet

Greetings Deb. Could you or one of your talkpage watchers please move this page to my user or draft space so I can work on it? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The basis of notability is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. You've now deleted this article twice despite it being cited to articles entirely about her and her work including one in NPR. Do I need to initiate a Deletion Review? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Deb (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 19. —Cryptic 17:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Notified as per Cryptic. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Preacher and the Bear

Please restore this article. I was working on it when you deleted it. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Why no "Under construction" template? Deb (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you look at the edit history? I will be happy to add one. I disagree that the context was inadequate which was your deletion rationale. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." Please don't abuse your admin privileges. Also, see Wikipedia:Harassment. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What, you seriously think that the two unreferenced sentences you wrote would have a practical chance of surviving a deletion discussion? Try reading Wikipedia:Notability (music). Deb (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I guarantee that article will survive a deletion discussion. A song recorded by multiple notable artists. By all meams initiate one. You will probably be chastized for nominating a subject so obviously notable and for failing to adhere to the basics for deletions sich as WP:BEFORE and : "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." But if you are determined to waste more time by all means. I won't even participate or edit the article further and I absolutely 100% guarantee it survives. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Deb, are ypu refusing to restore an article subject that was very recently created and that I was actively working on when you deleted it? Please advise me what next steps you'd like me to take. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

None. Feel free to create the article afresh, this time ensuring that it meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Deb (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• I went ahead and listed ot at DRV. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Qiuz of kings

Dear Deb,

Why did you delete the article Qiuz of kings under criterion A7, when it is an Android app and not a purely online game? Is this also considered web content? (Note: I did not write the page, but I was about to PROD it with the rationale WP:NSOFT but then saw that it had been deleted).

Thanks, Passengerpigeon (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

There was nothing to say that it was an Android app. Deb (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that an article which says it is about web content is eligible for speedy deletion as such, regardless of whether Google-searching the title turns up results saying it is actually an app? Also, the page creator has created an article about the same topic, in Persian, at کوییز آو کینگز. Passengerpigeon (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because the claim of significance is not credible. I can't see anything in the article or on Google to confirm that these are even the same game. Deb (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• According to this article the game and its creator are somewhat prominent figures. kings shoild be capitalized? Much of the coverage seems to be in Farsi. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Prime evidence of the cavalier and lazy attitude of some Wikipedia contributors when creating articles is in this title. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. They put up articles without so much as a spell check on the title! Qiuz, for christ's sakes. -The Gnome (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

How hard is it fpr you tp fox an obvious spelling error on Wikipedia? I'd say you're pretty cavalier in calling others lazy. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

How hard is it for a contributor to check what they write before posting up? I'd say it's the easiest thing to do, except if they're lazy. And they come on as even more lazy when they complain that other editors do not clean up their lazy mess. Perhaps I'm being too polite with such an attitude: it does harm to Wikipedia. We have better things to do than clean up after the mess of intentional omissions. -The Gnome (talk)

Comment to User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ)

Hi Deb, you move the article User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) to the draft section. I can not see a good reason for this. It is an often used and cited UX questionnaire and an often refered method in UX (User Experience). To confirm this it is enough to go to Google Scholar type User Experience Questionnaire and see the results. So please move it back. I would expect that such decisions to move something to draft are based on a minimal research and are not done 2 Minutes after the article is published with just the feeling "Hey sounds like advertisement, I move it to draft". Authors must respect the guidelines, but a minimal respect of Admins for the Authors would also be a nice thing.

Best regards, Martin

Thank You For Educating

Deb, Thank you for educating me on the matter of objective tone and language. In studying a topic, it can be too easy to become sympathetic or at least to adopt language that is perhaps too enthusiastic. I have stepped back and reviewed my first article (hopefully of many more articles on historical, cultural, sporting, and geographical features, events and institutions that are important to New England and New Hampshire. I believe that the choice of words is more clinical now and befitting an encyclopedic entry. I appreciate your help in getting me there as I learn this new process of creation in Wikipedia. - Alf Alphakilohotel (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018, Talkback

To Deb, I receive your message, well thank you for telling me to help in this actions.Jhoven Sulla (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons. File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg New: "Women of the Sea" New: "Villains" New: "Women in Sports" New: "Central Eastern European women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

May 01 2018 Teknol

Hey, I'm writing to you in regards to the page you deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teknol_Inc&action=edit&redlink=1 I'm associated to the company as mentioned on my talk page. You could make changes to the article or maybe send a warning rather than directly deleting it. Also it is'nt promotional Its just an informative article regarding the company and its products that can help people out in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishweshism (talk • contribs) 07:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vishweshism: You have a conflict of interest. You should not have created an article about the company. You should not have recreated it after it was deleted. You should not try to recreate it. If the company is notable, then someone else will create a suitable article, sooner or later. Deb (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please help me in naming

How do i make an article so that on searching on wikipedia both of them refer to the same article. For example, if I want to link 'ABC corporate Office' and 'ABC Corporation Ltd' to same article, what to do??? Ritesh Chandra Sahu (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in redirecting.. Ritesh Chandra Sahu (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 MILHIST Backlog Drive

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for your efforts during the April 2018 MILHIST Backlog Drive. Thank you for your contributions. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Rosa Honung

Please undelete Rosa Honung as there is credible claim of significance that on top of that is well sourced. // Liftarn (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC) What is the claim to significance and what are the sources? Deb (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

They are notable on their own as one of the major indie labels, but also their business tactics are the subject of much debate as it said in the article before you deleted it. Perhaps you shouldn't be so trigger happy. // Liftarn (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

1. The article did not say this.
2. The article provided no evidence of this.
3. It's not the first time this article was deleted, and on this occasion it was tagged for deletion by another user, whom I happened to agree with. If you cannot provide reliable sources or explain the subject's notability, you cannot expect the article to be restored. Deb (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree with that. I have seen that the article have been deleted before, that's why I put several reliable sources in it. // Liftarn (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

And yet you can't name them here. Every single link in the latest version of the article was already a dead link, apart from the link to youtube, which was not useable as a reference. Deb (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be easier if you could undelete it (and possibly move to user space), but looking at sv:Rosa Honung there is a list of references. // Liftarn (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The article you created did not meet the guidelines. Why not just create a new article with the necessary references? Or even translate the one on Swedish wikipedia? Deb (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I have done both and they were both deleted by you. // Liftarn (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This is simply untrue. Please do not pester me any more; you haven't given me any reason to change my mind. Deb (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The log file disagree. "14:45, 24 April 2018 Deb (talk | contribs) deleted page Rosa Honung" (this was translated from Swedish Wikipedia) and 14:51, 24 April 2018 Deb (talk | contribs) deleted page Rosa Honung (this is the one where you claimed the sources were unuseable because they were dead). // Liftarn (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"I have done both" - this is the part that is false. If you continue to harass me, I will ask for you to be blocked. Deb (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 May 8. —Cryptic 14:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Eye CFoundation

Dear Deb, I add all you wanted :) ... I hope this is what you wanted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 博物館院 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Error in page: Shrinivasa Varakhedi

Hi Deb, you made a revision where you moved "vice chancellor of .." to "formerly vice chancellor of..". But in reality this is not true. Shall I revert this one change?

- Sudarshanhs (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Back

More or less. I have been discouraged by all the noise, and the difficulty of doing anything very useful. But feel free to notify me, if you see anything worth dealing with. I do not promise to be timely, but I do check my messages from time to time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Smart Transaction DELETION

Hi, Deb. Would you be kind enough to present more details about your action? What makes you feel that an innovative technology "Smart Transaction" supported by many bank professionals worldwide is unimportant for you?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMorrise (talk • contribs) 14:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Try reading my deletion message. It says nothing about importance. Deb (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You mean "nothing" in wiki article or "nothing" in context of not-enough-external-references? Please, give us a clear answer so that we can understand whether or not we should post the article in Wiki again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMorrise (talk • contribs) 17:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• "We"? You mean you are editing on behalf of a company? That's not allowed. Deb (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, are you talking with yourself? "WE" is me and my colleague from Boston University. What makes you acting like that? Please, we would still like to get a clear answer from you. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMorrise (talk • contribs) 12:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines on conflicts of interest. What is the wikipedia ID of your colleague? Deb (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

May 11 deletions

Hello,

I noticed your deletion of my two dates of importance pertaining to two different Stanley Cup championships, on the grounds that they were not of international significance, which I beg to differ. Hockey is a sport that has an internationally cultural reach, audience and participation, by virtue of 1) the prevalence of hockey leagues around the world, 2) the international reach of the NHL, despite the NHL's prohibiting their players from playing in the 2018 Winter Olympics, and 3) the diversity of NHL hockey players' origins (e.g. the nationalities of those selected in the 2017 NHL Entry Draft). To argue that hockey milestones have no international significance because the Stanley Cups mostly happen in North America, the milestones regarding someone ascending to the throne of a monarchy or a massacre occurring in a single location should follow the same logic, which is not only insensitive, but also defies the wider purpose of Wikipedia as a written compendium of knowledge.

As an aside, I appeal to the inclusion of more and more milestones that don't entail a disaster or volcano eruption or a massacre. Cultural milestones may not have the same cataclysmic effect of people dying in a man-made or natural disaster, but they nonetheless resonate with the hearts and minds of a grand majority of the world, regardless of that culture. This world is full of the bad, but it is also full of the good.

Thank you, boredwibilly

Deletion of page Amida Care

Hi Deb, I've updated the text of a new page about Amida Care to make sure it does not contain a copyright infringement. I'm making a new post now. Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakira Croce (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Double redirects

There is a bot that fixes double redirects. Please stop deleting useful redirects as you did for Rose Wood Morrison and elsewhere. Deleting useful redirects is not G6 non controversial cleanup. Please restore this useful redirect of take it to a redirects for deletion discussion if you don't think it's useful. If you don't want to wait for a bot to fix a double redirect you can certaibly do it yourself. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Crawford ce

Hi, can you spot a way to improve your changes here so that it doesn't suggest Lucy carried on after Ethan? Aside from writing up Ethan's memoirs (and overegging that pudding somewhat), she doesn't seem to have done anything of note after he died and the couple had lost their property before his death. Yes, she worked with him, and probably more so than sources suggest, but I don't think she really continued anything. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deb, You have deleted my page on TagoreCovers. What is the issue here? If I say something significant you delete it as being promotional. When I removed the promotional words, you deleted it as being of no significance. This is a new music group about which I was writing - every group cannot be Beatles on Day 1.

And for that matter the Beatles page is loaded with unnecessary gibberish with clear promotional indication.

So how do I write about a lesser known group on Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayanmukherjee (talk • contribs) 13:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on "one reference for every single line of DOY"

Dear Deb, I wanted to invite you to see this discussion on removing reference from DOY years. The think is, I'm trying to start a discussion but I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia on how to start a discussion like one that happened here. I saw your name in that discussion and figure out probably you know how to start a discussion like that. Could you guide me please?--Rochelimit (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Dear Deb, I think I just figure it out. I would appreciate if you can give me your point of view on the discussion. Many thanks :) --Rochelimit (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Presenter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Presenter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presenter 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. --woodensuperman 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jan H. Gardner for deletion

As a previous contributor, I thought I'd give you a heads up that a discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jan H. Gardner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jan_H._Gardner 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.Bangabandhu (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Zinc picolinate

I'm not seeing how zinc picolinate is a CSD A1. It opens with "Zinc Picolinate is a type of zinc supplement that supports absorption" which pretty much identifies the subject thus getting past A1. Admittedly, there is precious little encyclopaedic information in it beyond that, but it is undoubtedly a notable topic and there is plenty of material available out there. SpinningSpark 22:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, @Spinningspark: maybe that wasn't a good one. G11 would have been better than A1, although you do need to know what a zinc supplement is before you can follow it. Deb (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not a G11 either, zinc picolinate is a generic chemical name, not a product as such.[1][2][3] Are you going to restore it? SpinningSpark 07:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Zinc picolinate is recommended to be taken..."? I don't mind putting it back if you're willing to make the improvements. Though to be honest, I think it would benefit from being started from scratch. Perhaps I'll just redirect it to Zinc supplements. Deb (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

...where it's not mentiioned at all. The correct redirect would be picolinic acid from a chemistry point of view (picolinate redirects there), but ti's not mentioned there either. I came to this through a G13 of a much more extensive page by the same editor. I don't think the editor is trying to promote a product. He/she is just naive, the G13 draft reads like a school essay. I intended to save the draft but it was hopeless and I gave up. If all the irrelevant or ORish stuff was removed we would have been left with about what was in the mainspace posted article. Ironically, an article that short is much easier to clean up and start an expansion from. I agree it's not very good, but the editor still deserves to get the credit for creating it. SpinningSpark 08:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy for the redirect to be changed. Deb (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies

Helo there. I am sorry for my rude email, and I'm happy to see you have responded on my talk page. I was overwhelmed with the truth that my article did not have any credible sources which are required by the standard guideline. I had to look over and again so that to satisfy myself and not to justify what I did to you. I couldn't handle it. It was too overwhelming.. Now I'm back and I think I'm ready to atone myself and start all over again with what the standard guideline says. Again please forgive me and let the past stays in the past and focus on the future if that works fine for you. By the way, do you really think you can help me to clarify the article which was once deleted? I have it here.

Thanks,

Muddyb (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's okay about the e-mail. Like you, I also edit in a minority language wiki and it's not easy to make a transition to English wikipedia which has lots of complicated guidelines.Deb (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure :-) I can write it on the Swahili Wikipedia and look for more sources. Wait. I will get back to you soon. And please, you can just reply from here, I will come visit the page quite often. Thanks!Muddyb (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, do you mind if I go into your userspace version and improve the English a little? Deb (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. Please carry on. And that would be much, much better, Deb!Muddyb (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Deborah, is it Deb stands for Deborah? I have been confusing your gender on my weblog for quite sometime now. Blogged about the whole deletion incident in my blog. Okay, I've created the article on the Swahili Wikipedia as agreed before. Visit: HERE. Now what?--Muddyb (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Calling Cops

See the AFD comments by me please admin. Thanks a lot --Quek157 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but neither the long version nor the short version is fit for purpose (in my opinion) and I don't believe that procedural considerations should take precedence over that judgement. I also believe that the decision to delete was the correct one. Deb (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

noted, anyway I changed my stance there. IAR and TNT may be the best . just one clarification, then the drv is moot right Quek157 (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

About Saoli De's connection to Sudipto

Hi, you asked if I have any connection to Sudipto. No, I have no connection with either Das or any of his business interests. I happened to attend one of his book launches in 2013 and got attracted to his literary works and I felt he and his works need wiki pages. I took it up. Being a linguist by profession, I also contributed to few pages related to linguistics, like linguistic paleontology and others. saolide —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red June Editathons

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Karakalpaks tribes

Hello! Why did you delete this article? I is not duplicates an existing topic. It is a list of Karakalpaks tribes. Please Restore it.--Kaiyr (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaiyr

Badger

So, I was doing some research on airbrushing and decided to create a page for the company because it did not exist.

So, are these these pages advertising too and why did they not break the rules? I modeled the page off of Paasche's.

• Paasche Airbrush Company
• DeVilbiss Automotive Refinishing

— Rmkane (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) Thanks for drawing the former to broader attention Rmkane, spammyness has been airbrushed  :) The second one is OK. This leads me to suspect that you based your article slightly more on the former than the latter  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Rmkane, you used the words "has been a leading name for airbush manufacturers for over 50 years". That's straight out of an advertising brochure, isn't it? Deb (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I kind of see that now, but I was just regurgitating the information found on various merchant sites that offer Badger products. Looks like the same PR message on each of them—my bad... I am not trying to praise anyone I just wanted to create a page for the company because I could not find one here on Wikipedia, that is all. — Rmkane (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Omar Momani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonfelle (talk • contribs) 12:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

bonfelle I'm still editing the page of Omar Momani, and was in the process of adding resourcces.

Thank you message

@CaroleHenson:@The Gnome:@Sitush:@Domdeparis:@Exemplo347:, and apologies if I've left anyone out. This is just to say that if one good thing has come out of the FloridaArmy fiasco, it's that I have come into contact with some really good collaborative editors and I look forward to working with you all again in the future. Deb (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: Likewise. I can be a bit short with people who I think are gaming the system, and I know I'm not a huge content creator (only 3 proper articles!) but I do enjoy collaborating with skilled editors like the people you've listed (and yourself of course). All the best! Exemplo347 (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Same here, for all concerned. -The Gnome (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Deb, I feel the same way.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A Boy from Tandale

Hello there! Would you please be so kind to help me out fixing the grammar and everything else from the article which I'm about to upload? Proof-reading and stuff like that. See it HERE. Thanks!--Muddyb (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have done some changes to the wording for grammar and NPOV, and tidied up some of the formatting and categories. Deb (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Seen it. Now should I move it to the draft page for further review? Wondering if you could help with the album cover. One of the site from the references has the original cover.--Muddyb (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this yesterday. Yes, move to draft would be a good idea. Deb (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sunrisers Hyderabad in 2019

Hi. I only created article because there is already 2019 Indian Premier League page created. So just want to know on out of curiosity on how that page is still present but not the above mentioned page? Thanks. Sagavaj (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Deb (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hello Deb, can you please take a look at user CastingMD who just recreated Italia kash (you moved to draftspace) under Italia Kash (model) (unnecessary disambiguation). The article was earlier created by Minnii93. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 15:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've proposed for deletion, and I agree this is a probable COI. We'll see if the creator contests; if they do, and in so doing give further grounds to suspect malpractice, they can be blocked. Deb (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, also please take a look at user Araymic the creator of Debbie Sutcliffe and user Teoin27 who voted keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Sutcliffe. The first keep !vote was made by CastingMD and their style of citing source is exactly same please see this and this. This looks like a UPE ring which worth investigation. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• I agree, and I've now raised this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CastingMD and would expect you to comment. Deb (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Mejial17

Hello Deb, User Mejial17 has re-created and article you A7'd, Valerie Hird. They have ignored messages on their talk page, including a uw-paid1, and show significant overlap in their editing with blocked editor NohraHaime. Not sure if its worth looking into possible sockpuppetry. I suspect they may have an undisclosed relationship with Nohra Haime Gallery who represent all the subjects Mejial17 has been editing. Vexations (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Links to other language Wikipedias

Hi, please clarify your reasons for this edit to Dilys Cadwaladr:

• {{ill|Dewi Emrys|cy}} Dewi Emrys

to

• [[:cy:Dewi Emrys|Dewi Emrys]] Dewi Emrys

I think this change is undesirable because your version does not indicate that the link is to an article in Welsh. This is an example of an Easter-egg link, in that it appears to offer an English language article, but does not deliver it. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Interwiki links says:

• To avoid reader confusion, inline interlanguage, or interwiki, linking within an article's body text is generally discouraged. Exceptions: [...], and {{Interlanguage link}} template may be helpful to show a red link accompanied by an interlanguage link if no article exists in English Wikipedia.

A possible alternative is to leave the language prefix visible:

• [[:cy:Dewi Emrys]] cy:Dewi Emrys

However, I think it is better to use the {{ill}} template. Do you have a different opinion?

Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this on the MOS talk page. As well as wanting to challenge your edit I wanted to check that I was doing it the right way, as I use {{ill}} fairly frequently. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Rakem Balogun Facebook incident

If you move an article without leaving a redirect, you really ought to fix the incoming links. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not seen them. Deb (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Barnabas

Hello back! Sure, will look into it.--Muddyb (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Flensburg

You might want to self-correct, i.e., strike, the inaccuracies of your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flensburg stabbing incident. I have also added an eyewitness report of the order of the events in the attack. Self-correcting reflects better on your editing than failing to correct a misapprehension of which you have been made aware.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Explaining changes and adding correct references reflects better on your editing than reverting. Deb (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Micallef on the February 7 article

You reverted my edit on the February 7 page that added Andrew Micallef to the "Births" section. You stated that the revert is because he is "not internationally known and no references provided". I did provide references - his date of birth is cited in Schiavone, Michael J. (2009). Dictionary of Maltese Biographies Vol. II G-Z. Pietà: Pubblikazzjonijiet Indipendenza. pp. 1126–1127. ISBN 9789993291329. Now I added this reference just after the sentence containing his birth date in the article (not just after the paragraph) for clarification purposes.

He is notable in the local contemporary art scene (evidenced by the sources in the article), and while he may not be that well-known internationally I don't see why he should not be included, since there is no mention regarding local/international notability in the note regarding births/deaths:

The births and deaths listed on this page are only for people for whom there is a Wikipedia article (no red links and no redirects). Please do not add yourself (unless there is a Wikipedia article about you), or anyone without a Wikipedia article. Any entry added for anyone without an article will be deleted.

The article fits the criteria given above, so I think he should be included on the page. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You didn't add the reference when you included him in the date article and you have to do that now (see Wikipedia:Days of the year).

OK, thank you - I didn't know that references were necessary in date articles since very few entries are referenced. I added it again with a reference this time. In the future I'll include references when adding any entries in date/year articles. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

migration related articles

Hi Deb, First of all thank you so much for the initiative you have taken on some of the topics. Further to my comments on the NPOV board and the deletion discussion about the Ellwangen incident, I do believe that we probably need a much broader, high level discussion about WP:NEVENT. I firmly believe that a) revenue driven reporting and b) media responses to "fake news" accusations do result in some kind of warped reporting which as a result also affects certain inclusion criteria on WP. I haven't quite got my head around to proposing specific changes to NEVENT that are suitable to address this while at the same time avoiding the introduction of arbitrary censorship elements. This is a fine line. I would like to see a WP that can stand the test of time without being dragged into politicised tendencies, across all divisive topics._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I do agree. Like you, I'm just not sure what to do about it. Deb (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Krippendorff

Hi Deb,

I am new to wikipedia and this is the first page I am looking to create (I was inspired by Kaihan's book that I just finished reading). I would appreciate any help and guidance you may give me to set it up.

1. I do not expect to be compensated from Mr. Krippendorff for creating this page. I have met him before, but would classify myself as a follower of his work and books.

2. The content I pulled was from a 3rd party source – I agree that it was written with bias and have gone through to rewrite this material.

3. Kaihan's work is important and merits a wikipedia page. His ideas and comparable contemporaries include Rita McGrath, George S. Day, and Josh Linkner. After some quick research I also just found that his father, Klaus Krippendorff, is a notable academic and thought leader from Wharton.

I tried making updates to what I had - please let me know if this is enough.

Warm regards,

Slot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slotmachiner (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Updates and all outside sources!

I completely reworked the Kaihan Krippendorff page I wanted to create using a CV that I found on the FIU faculty page and from a number of 3rd party sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slotmachiner/sandbox

Are you able to take a look at my sandbox page to let me know what you think before I post it?

Best,

Slot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slotmachiner (talk • contribs) 17:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

City Hall, Bristol

Very intrigued by your 'clarification' of the location of City Hall, Bristol. Plainly Bristol is in the United Kingdom, but it is also very much in England and changing this as you did is hardly a clarification. Is it your intention to change all instances of 'England', 'Scotland' and 'Wales' (excepting Jimmy) to read 'United Kingdom'? You could start here: City Hall, Cardiff. RedSquirrel (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I only went in there to fix the punctuation, but it seemed worth making it clear what country Bristol is in. As you suggested, I've done the same for Cardiff's City Hall. Deb (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I wasn't really suggesting that you did that (not that you did what you said; you added ', UK' and left 'Wales') - I was hoping that you would see that it is a little eccentric to change it at all. Almost all (I'm tempted to say all but one) articles on Bristol that specify a country, specify 'England', just as most articles on Cardiff specify 'Wales' - do a search on either term and check for yourself. It is bizarre to suggest that by changing the country from 'England' to 'United Kingdom' you have made it clearer which country Bristol is in.RedSquirrel (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so, because I think there are many readers of Wikipedia who are under the impression that England is a synonym for "UK", whereas I doubt that anyone thinks that about Wales. There are also many who assume that everything that's in Britain is in England - so it almost goes without saying. I didn't delete "Wales" purely because it was linked, which "England" in the other article wasn't, and I don't like deleting links. I do, however, feel that every article about a location should make it clear what country (i.e. sovereign state) it is in, rather than assume that everyone knows - but not everyone agrees with me on this. Articles about US locations tend to be the worst offenders in this respect. Deb (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I am quite sure that you are right when you say that 'not everyone agrees with me on this'. That would explain why of the first 100 articles in Wikipedia about Liverpool, every one that states a country gives it as 'England' unless they are referring to a Liverpool outside the UK. Unless you intend to edit every instance of 'England' to 'UK' or 'United Kingdom', which I suggest will soon bring into sharp focus just how many people do disagree with your view, then all you are doing is to create inconsistency.RedSquirrel (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

There is plenty of that around already, thanks. Deb (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

So why add to it? To be clear, England is a country just as Wales (not Jimmy) is. If you think (you give no evidence for this) that many readers of Wikipedia are unable to discern the difference between England and the UK, then it doesn't matter which term you use. But it is clear that you are in a small minority in thinking that the term 'England' should be substituted for 'UK' or 'United Kingdom'.RedSquirrel (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think that 'England' should be substituted for 'UK'. Quite the opposite, I think that 'UK' should be substituted for 'England', where appropriate, i.e. where we are referring to the sovereign state. Nor do I agree that I'm in a "small minority". Deb (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I used 'substituted for' when 'substituted with' would have been clearer.RedSquirrel (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you define where appropriate? Just City Halls? Or one in a hundred or so pages, at random?RedSquirrel (talk)

Where I notice that a place doesn't have anything identifying the country it's in. Of course, other people do sometimes change them back. But that's what Wikipedia is all about - "there are no rules". You'll get used to it. Deb (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Prior to your edit, the article read Bristol, England. After your edit, it read Bristol, United Kingdom. I claim, therefore, that it did have something identifying which country it is in. Your rather patronising comment notwithstanding, I am fairly accustomed to the ways of Wikipedia. We all have our personal rules and one of mine is that I don't revert good faith edits - but I will argue against them if I think they are wrong.RedSquirrel (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to interpret it as patronising, that's up to you. All I'm saying is that it takes a while to get used to this place. Nothing is as clear-cut as you expect it to be. I told you that I was talking about the sovereign state, and I think that's as explicit as I need to be. Deb (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You will be pleased to hear that I can't be bothered to argue this any further. I'm just off to find a sponge; there's blood and hair all over my wall.RedSquirrel (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in study

Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

About Speedy Deletion of Contentstack

Hi, Deb. It's been a while since I logged in and wanted to talk about Contentstack. I noticed you asked for deletion and protected the site. I understand what you're doing it and the reasons behind it. The thing here is that I believe the platform is pretty notorious and there are several similar articles here in the Wiki space

Here are some references I used to write about Contentstack

Cloud CMS Zesty.io

I believe Contentstack to be pretty similar to the wikis I'm mentioning and I think it'd be a great addition to the wiki.

Could we please talk about adding the article to the article space?

Here's this version I'm editing in my draft space:

User:Dsalinasgardon/sandbox

--Dsalinasgardon (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you!

Dsalinasgardon (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a thought.

Just a thought. When Charles, Prince of Wales ascends to the British throne (and the 15 other Commonwealth thrones) - Will many of those page move opposers at Meghan Markle & Prince Harry, fight against a move to Charles III or Charles III of the United Kingdom based on WP:COMMONNAME? My guess is 'no'. Notice, they ain't pushing 'right now' for that page to be at Prince Charles? GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative reality in user space

Hi Deb, I was wondering what you make of User:ZacharyPK. He seems to be creating alternative reality articles in user space, taking real people such as Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump and turning them into Governors or whatever of a fictional British Empire that never saw the US and Canada become independent. This does seem to sit at the border line of hoax and Wikipedia as webhost. I doubt there's a constructive reason for those articles._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've tagged all people as G5. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit: OK. Now he has blanked all the pages. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: User:RHaworth has deleted all the sub pages. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Jake Brockman: --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018 at Women in Red

		Hello again from Women in Red! July 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: Sub-Saharan Africa Film + stage 20th-century Women Rock Continuing: Notable women, broadly-construed! Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Are we losing momentum? London calling (the Mayor of London!) Publication about Wikipedia's coverage of women mathematicians Women in Red is featured in Toolhub
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

1707 in Wales moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 1707 in Wales, does not have enough sources and citations and content as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you not see the {{underconstruction}} template? Deb (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Sakura Guardian in the North

Thanks for that Deb, I have added more detail and moved the article back into the mainspace Sakura Guardian in the North- the detail now satisfies it as a stub. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Rakem Balogun

Another editor has nominated Rakem Balogun for deletion. You may want to visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rakem Balogun Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wimbledon draw page

So it's up to you above all people to decide what's relevant now? What makes your opinion more important than mine. I find it borderline rude dismissing one's editing without justification and accusing one of vandalizing when I've clearly given my reasons. Undergroundtennis123 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

To expand:

1. The draw page introduction should only include results, new records/statistics and information on the defending champion.
2. Andy Murray is not the defending champion, the information is more related to the player personally and should not be on the draw page.
3. There have been no precedents for this type of information: Nadal's withdrawal at the 2016 French was not mentioned, neither would you see a mention of Federer not playing at the French on the draw page.
4. You added this 2 days after Murray's announcement of withdrawal. If there were any consensus on this being relevant to the draw page we would have seen entries much earlier.

You've been insisting on re-adding the content, despite multiple users deeming it irrelevant and removing it. Yet you've accused us of being sock puppets and now of vandalism. You are the one making the disruptive editing and unwarranted accusations.

Undergroundtennis123 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect on all counts. If you persist in removing sourced content, I'll have no hesitation in blocking you. Deb (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Next thing you will be saying that you are not the same person as User:Underground123. Deb (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, you keep saying incorrect but not providing a valid reason. It's not about whether the content is sourced or not, it's about whether the information is relevant to the page concerned.

Account name was a typo during editing. Fixed. I do not have multiple accounts and I am sure there are ways to check this if you don't believe me. The other reverts on the draw page were done by independent accounts.

I'm more than happy to raise a dispute/ find a third-party to resolve this situation. But please refrain from this dismissive and self-righteous language that you're using.

Undergroundtennis123 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is about whether the content is sourced. An examination of the sources shows that Murray's withdrawal was huge news. The lead paragraph of an article should provide a full summary of the topic, not a couple of sentences that you choose to think are "relevant". Anything that affects the outcome of the Men's Singles championship is relevant. I would be very pleased if you raise a "dispute" because your editing patterns and those of other vandals like User:Arbeit10 - who has multiple warnings on his talk page for removing sourced information - won't bear close scrutiny. Deb (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Tennis draw pages has always had concise summaries up until the last couple of years when people start bombarding them with statistics. There have been multiple high profile withdrawals before, arguably a bigger shock than Murray's this year (which has been foreshadowed if you read his comments in pressers), none of these have been included in the draw page.
See for example: 2013 Australian Open – Men's Singles, and also 2016 French Open – Men's Singles, where the then 9-time champion's withdrawal was not mentioned in the summary, Federer's withdrawal was only mentioned because it was linked to a statistic of a historical nature, likewise other significant withdrawals like 2009 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles was only mentioned because of Nadal's defending champion status.

Your source links to BBC, which is a credible source, but then it's obviously biased towards Murray and so they will make it a big deal. His withdrawal was not a big shock at all, it was somewhat surprising but many expected it happening.

Undergroundtennis123 (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"Many expected it" is not a reason not to report something that is clearly highly relevant, nor is the fact that similar events may not have been included in other articles. 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles is not an article about a "tennis draw". The clue is in the name of the article; it is about the Men's Singles competition at the 2018 Wimbledon Championships and the lead paragraph needs to summarize that content. For someone who has only been on the project a year and has made a total of 274 edits, it is odd that you seem to consider yourself an expert on what should and shouldn't be in articles.Deb (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

PS You may as well call off your anonymous friends. It's not going to work. Deb (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

All you have done on these pages are just to add unnotable information. For example, in the page 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles history, you added Čilić, Shapovalov and Dzumhur. None of them are notable -- Neither broke all-time/their records nor won the title...... In short, they failed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW, your warning on my page is just a copy, please write some specific reasons, THX -- Unnamelessness (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the guideline of WikiProject Tennis, I think it will help you to edit tennis page. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I see that you have raised the issue on the edit warring page (even though ironically, you are the one violating the 3RR rule and not me). You asked for more experienced contributors for their opinion, and I think you’ll notice users with 5+ years of editing tennis articles are also deeming your additions unnecessary and removed them consequently (or do you want to start accusing them of sock puppeting too?). You’re right when you say it’s not up to me determining what is relevant, it’s up to the Wiki community and clearly so far you are the only one insisting on adding the material but more than 5 users are opposing to the idea. I hope you realise this isn’t some conspiracy theory with me being some mastermind controlling 10 accounts behind the screen, there is evidently issues with what you have added. But seeing that you’ve been dismissive about any viewpoints different to yours and resulting to name calling/unwarranted accusations, we’re hitting a dead end here and I’m not discussing on this anymore.

A side point: you say I’m unexperienced but I’m failing to see your edit on tennis articles prior to this fortnight. I suggest you have a look at previous editions of the Grand Slam pages to understand the style taken.

Undergroundtennis123 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"It's interesting that you have chosen not to join WikiProject Tennis, to which you turn so freely (and erroneously) to justify yourself. I'm cutting you a lot of slack at the moment because of your poor English, but I won't do so indefinitely."

@Deb Cutting me a lot of slack? Forget it! I know you are an admin and admit you are an exiperienced editor, but that's not the reason for you to make modifictions arbitrarily!!! Look at what you have done in tennis pages, all of them proved that you are an exclusive, selfish, arbitrary "administor" -- completely ingore other editors' opinions and persist in wilfully and arbitrarily. Some other experienced editors have already made the same modification as us, which also proved you are WRONG!!! You wanted us to stop vandalism, but it seems, obviously, that the person who MUST stop vandalism is you!!! -- Unnamelessness (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

BTW, A person who did not join WikiProject Tennis DOES NOT mean that he/she has no editorial experience in tennis. An administrator DOES NOT mean that any of his/her edits is 100% right including tennis articles. -- Unnamelessness (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Live Love Laugh Foundation

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Live Love Laugh Foundation. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your report at WP:AN3

• 2601:140:8001:8BE4:5870:54C:EC05:ECC8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:140:8001:8BE4:E04A:1721:37E6:EF8C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see my closure of your report. I recommend you ask another admin to review the two IP blocks you issued, due to a possible concern about WP:INVOLVED. Note that one of your two blocks, 2601:140:8001:8BE4:E04A:1721:37E6:EF8C (talk · contribs), was indefinite, which is hardly ever done for IPs. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Next thing you'll be telling me that these two anons are different people... Deb (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

question?

I noticed you blocked 119.56.49.212 and 2601:140:8001:8be4:e04a:1721:37e6:ef8c indefinitely as vandal-only accounts, but 1) they should not be indefinitely blocked and 2) they cannot be considered vandal-only accounts... Thanks! --24.180.87.149 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I notice you're an SPA. Any reason you have suddenly come here to discuss this? Deb (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Why the song was redirected?

Hi, I'm the one who created "When we're together", which is a song from Olaf's frozen adventure.Why was the page redirected? I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so sorry if I violated any regulations. Thank you!!! --Mitochondrions (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Question

Greetings. I'm close to a non-admin closure of a long and winding and contentious RfC but I'd like some input on it from experienced, uninvolved admins. I'd like to send you the text of the decision in a confidential way. How do we go about this? -The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I don't think Deb would really know; she hasn't made a non-admin closure in over a decade  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}

Oi! :-) Deb (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of BiggerPockets

Hi Deb, I am a new user on Wikipedia. BiggerPockets is the first page I have created. You have probably seen many new users creating pages without complying with Wikipedia policy. I know I did not do it correctly in my page. However, I would like to seek some guidance as how to do it right. I received another comment saying my page looks like a Promo and there is undisclosed conflict of interest. The wording in my page needs improvement, which I understand. Regarding the comment about "conflict of interest", how can I handle it? I am not employed by this company nor have any personal & business interaction with them. I do listen to their weekly podcast and have registered on their forum. Both of these resources have helped me learn a great amount about real estate investing. The forum is a community like Wikipedia in which lots of members provide useful information to explore the ins & outs of real estate investing. That's why I created BiggerPockets as my first page. I do wish to re-create a page for BiggerPockets. But I would need your guidance to properly create it and comply with Wikipedia policy. Your advice will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, TobyYKenobi (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: there was a typo. I meant that I am not employed by this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TobyYKenobi (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 at Women in Red

		An exciting new month for Women in Red! August 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: Indigenous women Women of marginalized populations Women writers Geofocus: Bottom 10 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Notable women, broadly-construed! For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Deletion of Devonte Small

Please re-instate page as this player clearly passes WP:FOOTY. Requesting a deletion review. @GiantSnowman: @JTtheOG: Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deb - this was definitely not a G2 deletion, please can you explain? GiantSnowman 07:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies. There was no explanation in the text that the player was actually born in the US and played for an Icelandic club so it appeared to me that this was a test page using a template with the details of other players left in. I've just restored it. Deb (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Please Review

Hi,

Hope you are doing great..

I have created few more pages :-

Madan Bhaiya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madan_Bhaiya

Nand Kishor Gurjar https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nand_Kishor_Gurjar

Rana Ali Hasan Chauhan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rana_Ali_Hasan_Chauhan

Ram Pyari Gurjar (The Lady Chieftain) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Pyari_Gurjar_(The_Lady_Chieftain)

Gabbar Singh Gujjar ( Indian Dacoit ) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabbar_Singh_Gujjar_(_Indian_Dacoit_)

Requesting you to kindly review.

Thanks.

Gewin007 13:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

John Rhys Evans

Hi, I have raised the issue of notability at Talk:John Rhys Evans. I noticed that you worked on the article in 2014, what is your view? Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary reminder

Thank you for letting me know. I was not aware that I had to briefly describe my changes. I will look into it. Thanks. (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC

Jörg Kastendiek

Could you please explain this [4] edit? And obviously you still can't stop wikihounding me with strange edits... Try to find a more satisfying addiction, please.--Greywin (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't explain why you created it, but I'm glad to see you have improved it in response to the tag. To see why I tagged it, read Wikipedia:Notability. Deb (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't create the page. But it's kind of obvious that you are frequently scanning my user contributions and edit where I have edited, sometimes in a dubious way. Please stop that behaviour. I already reminded you to do so on my user talk. And I improved the article not in response to the tag, but because I think it should contain basic information for the reader. I think improving is always better than tagging, but I will never work because of a "tag threat". And better read and understand WP:NPOL before editing in articles about politicians. Thank you.--Greywin (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

So you didn't create it but you don't like the fact that I've tagged it for improvement. And you haven't read the Notability guidelines thoroughly enough to understand what was wrong with it. No, I won't stop checking on you until I'm satisfied that you have stopped using the encyclopedia to promote your political views.Deb (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I have read and understood WP:NPOL very well. And as I don't promote anything, you are obliged to stop now.--Greywin (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

And one addition: maybe you are confusing something here. I am adding sourced facts sometimes that you want to deny because of your political views. But this is not "promoting". If I would confuse and muddle up the same things as you, I could say that you are acting to promote your political views. But I don't do it because of WP:AGF.--Greywin (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No point in arguing with someone who cannot recognise their own bias. I'll just have to continue keeping an eye on you.Deb (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and you have no bias? Really? :) Seems I would have to have an eye on you, because you feel yourself free from any bias, which is certainly not the case! But I'm not the kind of guy hounding and observing others because of their personal opinion (remember: opinions are like ***holes...). I leave that policeman attitude to you (nothing against policemen, but in this context some may find that ridiculous ;)). But if you continue to violate WP:HOUND - as you announce it here -, I will think about further measures. Thank you and goodbye.--Greywin (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Admins are appointed not just as clerical workers but to make sure people like you keep to the guidelines, particularly the NPOV rule, which is a pillar of wikipedia. I take this responsibility seriously. Deb (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Start with the Man in the Mirror.--Greywin (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't help to cite one of my first LPs back in the 80s, which I still like... though switching to metal music at some point...;)--Greywin (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Aditya Singh

Hi Deb. You deleted the page Draft:Aditya Singh as a G11. Would the sandbox page at User:Sunofglory/sandbox/Aditya Singh, created by the same editor, also qualify for (speedy) deletion? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That one hadn't been tagged, but was identical. Deb (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Cookme

Hi Deb you have deleted page Cookme accusing promotion. Can you please indicate where was the promotional sentences. This company is more than 150 years old. And every thing in this wiki were written in wikipedia style (atleast try to be in wiki style). If some sentences are incorrectly written, then erase them. But why the entire page?? শক্তিশেল (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Porter Press International

Dear Deb,

Sorry to hear that you thought this article was promotional. Please, could you inform me why you think so? I have asked multiple people at Wikipedia and followed your guidelines so was very upset and annoyed to see this.

Kind regards Albert — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWall1998 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

B. Anand

Hi Deb, can you please remove the redirection of the B. Anand page to Nayara Energy? I had just started the page and forgot to add the "under construction" tag. Thanks! Csgir (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you @Deb: for your very prompt review of Jakob Tuggener...much appreciated. Jamesmcardle^(talk) 12:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't often find myself being able to do that without noting any issues! Deb (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Amit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit Srivastava (talk • contribs) 13:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC) ___ So, you are here to delete pages if the writer has not pleaded you to approve? My page World Hindu Congress was deleted even if it didn't violate any of the terms. Are you here to help wiki or create monopoly?

I think there is already a page on Monopoly. Deb (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Was that warning intended for me?

It was an IP account that had one edit total to their record - obvious vandalism of the page I cited. I prefer to lay a warning before reporting vandals where no warning has previously been issued. I'd hardly call a message that boils down to "cut that out please" as creating a page to attack somebody. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Simonm223: No, I think User:Deb was warning the IP not to go around calling the subjects of BLPs "thick"  :) which seems fair enough, if very generous. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: - If I had a message for you, I would put it on your talk page, not someone else's. :-) Deb (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"You'd send him a message, Godmother?! Sweet tomatoes!" :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. As I'd technically created that page by being the first person to go to the IP user's talk I just wanted to be sure. Have a great day. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:JRFC Databook

This is notable. Tax dollars have paid for this databook. Have you read the government website, https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/jrfcdb/asp/aboutJRFC.asp? Why would this be a draft?--Wyn.junior (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

For the reasons I explained on your talk page. Deb (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

What should I do with the claim of notability? Should I email this to you?--Wyn.junior (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 at Women in Red

		September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons! New: Women currently in academics Women + Law Geofocus: Hispanic countries Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Check it out: Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#The Endless Night of Wikipedia’s Notable Woman Problem (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Meggle AG

Hi Deb,

in 2017 Meggle had a revenue of 958 Million €. This was officially published in a consolidated financial statement in the Bundesanzeiger. There is no direct link available - how can I reference it? Then there's this article on bloomberg.com that lists Meggle as one of the 10 largest butter retailers. Is this enough for notability?

I have additional independent references but they are all in german - would that be sufficient or do I have to dig deeper until I find something in English?

Thanks! Kvaloya (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

G12 in draft space

Hi, Deb. I saw where someone tagged a draft for G12 and then untag saying they did not see it was a draft. Did something change? Are we not deleting copyvios in draft space?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Skipper Limited

Thanks for the suggestions. I tried my level best to adhere by the Wikipedia policies while removing promotional content and improving the encyclopedic content from a neutral point of view. I did modify the content from an encyclopedic point of view before removing the maintenance tag. Kindly highlight some points that needs to be further improved on, to make it fit for maintenance tag removal.

Thanks Udaysm (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I included a reference yet my update was removed

Revision 857876412. I included a link to an article in the Irish Times reporting the death of Ronnie Drew on 16 August 2008. Coylemj (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Him doing The Old Orange Flute is a classic, totally definitive. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Coylemj: You didn't include the link in the article, only in your edit summary. Deb (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The article I updated consists of a list of people who died on August 16, there is no scope to add a link to anything. Coylemj (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The article you updated consists of a list of events that occurred on August 16, including births and deaths. Add the reference directly after the new entry. Deb (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Requesting assistance

Hi Deb, Would you do the honors on this? I'm at 2R and my attempts to resolve this here and here are going nowhere. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

See here

Please see this edit, and read the entire article to find the information regarding my edit on June 10. (I posted that edit before the dispute) –UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. Deb (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

SigSpoof

I am sure that your intentions are noble, but I believe that your edit here was unjustified. Specifically, WP:GNG states that,

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

SigSpoof meets those criteria. As such, it meets WP:GNG and is therefore not deserving of a {{notability}} tag. (Moreover, it meets those criteria verifiably, because several such sources are cited within the article.) I have therefore removed your {{notability}} tag again, and I ask you kindly not to replace it.

If you think I am mistaken about any of this, please WP:PING me so that we can discuss it further. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The article makes no claim of notability. It was also tagged for a number of other problems, none of which you have addressed. The alternative is for me to redirect it, which I will be doing if you haven't fixed the problems in the next few hours. Deb (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deb,

I am not sure what you mean by a "claim of notability". Please can you point to Wikipedia policy or guidelines that explain what this is and how its absence justifies a {{notability}} template?

As for your other points, I would ask you to please be a little more considerate. You can see at the top of my talk page why I have not expanded the stub. Moreover, there is WP:NOHURRY. Also, I strongly oppose a redirect; as such, you do not have WP:CONSENSUS to replace the article with one.

Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Considerate? You've had 2 days to fix the issues and you've done nothing in that time. The fact that an article has references does not make the content notable if there is no claim of notability, i.e. if the article does not say what the subject is notable for - which you haven't, yet. At the moment you've got more material in the references section than in the actual article. But what is it that you are trying to verify? Deb (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, considerate. I refer you again to the notice at the top of my talk page, to WP:NOHURRY, to WP:GNG, and to my request for you to point to policies or guidelines to justify your insistence that I provide a "claim of notability". Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I recommend you stop pointing me to guidelines you don't understand, and just get on and fix the article. Deb (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. This kind of reply is disheartening to say the least. Please remember that being WP:NICE is one of the five pillars. As an admin, you have a particular responsibility to uphold all of those pillars. I have been courteous in my interactions with you, but I do not feel this has been reciprocated. Thank you. Zazpot (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Good to see that my words finally had an effect. Deb (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Their effect was entirely negative, unfortunately. The approach you took with me is likely to cause an editor retention problem if continued. Zazpot (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it was extremely positive - it spurred you on to do what you should have done in the first place. Editor retention is only an issue when the editors who leave are those who respect the purpose of the encyclopedia. Deb (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It did nothing of the sort; I found it discouraging and disheartening. And please be clear about your last point: are you assuming that I edit in bad faith (that I am WP:NOTHERE, or suchlike)? Zazpot (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)