User talk:Deb/Archive 10

Speedy deletion nomination of Peter quanz

A tag has been placed on Peter quanz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Orashmatash (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article "Christopher Marson - Northlew Broadband and K6 Telephone Boxes"

Deb - You managed to delete just about everything on Northlew Community Broadband and Christopher Marson, while I appretiate you are rather busy and didn't bother to read the article(s), Northlew broadband is not a business and never has been, which was stated, it is a community broadband project built by founder Christopher Marson the first in the UK to do so, to answer the last mile solution to lack of connectivity for rural england, it is heavily featured in the media and is known right accross the UK both by the public and central government for the experimental nature of it's design, he is a prolific figure in this field and is note worthy within wiki based purely on the work done in Northlew/Belstone and current campaigns. Not just broadband but Christopher has branched out into saving the old K6 historic phone boxes on a community basis, he is unpaid and volunteers for the role so hardly advertising given the very sensitive nature of UK rural broadband issues. He was mentioned in the daily mail and telegraph amongst other media as the cheapest phone box on the planet! this again is not advertising, this is a fact as they do not make any money ... it's a community operation and the only village to do so. You subjected this article(s) to speedy deletion when in fact it should of been a proposed deletion, giving 7 days to discuss /or object. I would ask you to reconsider or at least re-post it and mark it as a proposed deletion which will give time to re-phrase some of the paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aufo8mycow (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated article "Pioneers For A Cure"

Hi Deb - I updated Pioneers For A Cure, which you tagged as being written like an ad. Thanks for your feedback; as I re-read through what I wrote, I did see that it didn't come across as objective enough. Hope my edits bring it up to wiki standards! Jonmadof (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future Young Producers

Hi Deb, My article Future Young Producers was taken down by you (06:48, 28 August 2010 Deb deleted "Future Young Producers" ‎(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Can you please explain what about the article was 'unambiguous advertising or promotion?'. I checked the wiki rules under G11 and is says that, and I quote: "simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." The page was supposed to be informative of the company status and origin, and as far as I am aware contained no promotional material other than a link to the web site. Please quote from my original article and let me know how I broke this rule so I can fix it. Could the article not have been edited instead? Could you also send me a copy of the article as it took me three days to perfect the written flow and I have no other copies. Thanks Ccdebris (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Showzey,
Was wondering why article was removed due to "No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content". The Showzey site is interesting and unique service which catalogs all photos from Gmail, Flickr, Picasa, and Facebook. The article is written in similar style and content as the following articles: Atpic BlueMelon Imgur
Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senad.dizdar (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Got the answer - new site and not established. All true and resonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senad.dizdar (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

Was wondering if you can please let me know what is it within the article that makes it written like an advertisement?

Is there any links you can send me that I can use to ensure this does not happen again.

Thanks

Moved listings of Burns poems to "1786 in poetry"

Hi Deb, thanks for the additions to 1785 in poetry. I moved the Burns poems you added to the 1786 in poetry page because we list these in the year published (although I suppose if the poems are important enough they can be mentioned in the "Events" section). It's easier just to list them in the year they're published because we don't know the year of composition for many poems. I also removed the date links. There was a big RfC a while back where date links were declared forbidden. Personally, I don't care either way, but bots have slowly been removing them across the encyclopedia. Thanks again for the additions (and finding the birthdates for Peacock and Lady Caroline Lamb). If you have any interest in it, feel free to add passages or very short poems (such as the Burns poems) to the top of any year-in-poetry page when it was first published. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Llewellyn

Hi Deb, Apologies for my lack of politeness earlier at WP:NCROY. I've been doing some work over at Richard Llewellyn and I've just realised that you created the article. Can you remember how you knew that his real name was Richard Herbert Vivian Lloyd? It was challenged and taken out for lack of a source, but you presumably had one. Since there's a matching entry in the Index of Births you're definitely right, but how did you know? Thanks. AJRG (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never got used to holding a conversation on two different pages. Busy lady! AJRG (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember what the documentary was called? AJRG (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Rosato

I was developing this. Will it be possible to load it back so that it can be modified. Also I could not understand the reasons for deleting it completely. Thanks.--ouieak (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pl. check it out and suggest. thx.--ouieak (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the same lines, the existing Jeanne Sahadi is failing to establish. I thought the amount of news they generate cause notability. Being a journalist and a contributor to network news, one might be notbale. Thx. --ouieak (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fyi… I was the original writer for Jeanne Sahadi with a different name. If I fail to establish notability, I may have to initiate (afd or prod) for deletion. I have spent enough time on these and unfortunately I don’t feel like spending additional time on these. Someone asked me to write these. Thx. I would not feel sad if they are deleted for a valid reason.--ouieak (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer you afding Donna Rosato. If that works, I would later submit Jeanne Sahadi for afd. Let consesus decide. thx.

Appreciateed your concerns about notability. --ouieak (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings & taking a liberty...

Greetings Deb - hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty of moving the welcome template you slapped on User talk:Cfs198. I'm hoping that by putting it at the top of the page - above a couple of speedy delete templates - the editor in question may actually notice it/take heed and my new page patrolling and subsequent wikifying efforts will be made somewhat easier. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. --Technopat (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are important

		The Wales Barnstar
		For your constant and unbelievable contributions to all things Welsh, may I award you the Wales Barnstar. You inspire others to think smarter. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Jenkins

Greetings, Deb. Good work on the 1818 in Wales, etc. I'm the editor who provided the genealogical citation which you have 'fixed'. I habitually use the ref name system and Template:Rp/doc when there are likely to be multiple references from a book. Cerddi Cerngoch is quite a rare book and 90% printed in Welsh, so there probably won't be many more refs in English WP, so I agree with your fix. I have, however, replaced a missing wordspace, and changed (the non-existent section) 'Historical studies' to Bucheddau. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related? Yup, he's my first cousin, 4 removes. However, my grandfather left Aberaeron, Ceredigion to work in the Rhondda pits around 1900. Then my Dad took his family to Australia. Since I eventually married a Mumbles gal (in Perth, Australia), we do quite a bit of driving when we revisit Wales! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also first cousin (one remove) to the late David Jenkins CBE of the NLW, so I get member access and extra privileges (for a 'foreigner') at the library. I've met Andrew Green who, like myself, was actually born in Yorkshire! I have a long-term personal project of making Joseph's Australian diaries available digitally. If the State Library of Victoria won't do it, I may be able to swing them into Project Gutenberg. I've been to Cowbridge--a very special place. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in seeing those diaries on-line. Deb (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CitizenKid

Hi Deb, When you have a minute could you please clarify why you deleted the entry CitizenKid? It was listed as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Is there any parts that I can remove so that the entry can remain on wikipedia? Thanks! Ewinzer (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Solo

Hi, why did you delete the United Solo page? It is a theater festival in New York City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyakhodosh (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Ann Suizdak

Hello Deb, my name is Kimberly Ann Suizdak, and today I began creating a page about myself. I am indeed a real person, and the page was created to simply contain information about myself. I saved it with some minor info, and then a few minutes later found that you had deleted it due to "No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)". I know that you meant no harm and were only trying to keep the internet free of useless pages about people who don't exist. However, this may sound silly, but upon discovering the deletion, I felt a bit insulted because I do in fact exist. I would like to continue the creation of a page about myself, and would greatly appreciate it if you would kindly refrain from deleting it. Thank you very much, Sincerely, Kimberly Ann Suizdak Kimtastic93 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Kimtastic93[reply]

Hello

Hello, Deb. I noticed the templates you added to Cliché Magazine, an article which I have been working on. While I fully agree that more sources would be beneficial, I am unsure as to why you feel it reads as an advertisement - I started the article myself and am in no way connected with the magazine, aside from being an avid reader. What changes do you recommend? Thanks,

Feather Jonah (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphans

Thank for spoting this. Rich Farmbrough 23:56 26 April 2010 (UTC).

"This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it." – If an article has like only one real article linking to it, placing an orphaned tag would still be appropriate. Sorafune +1 03:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles will, by their nature, not have many articles linking to them, and who is to decide what "few" means? I don't think it's advisable for a bot to make that decision. Deb (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised you decided to make the argument over what the definition of few is. "Few" is a very common word in English that in all definitions means a number of one or more. "One" is a number of one or more. You can't get a number fewer than one without getting zero. Sorafune +1 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a very peculiar comment! I have no idea what you are talking about. What I said was that a bot should not decide what constitutes too small a number of (i.e. too "few") references to an article. One can be quite enough for some subjects and not enough for others. Zero is the only number that is definitely too few, and is therefore the only number for which a bot should automatically tag an article. "Few" does not mean "one or more". Is a hundred "few"? Is a thousand "few"? It could be, in some contexts, but not in the context of the number of references to an article. Two or three might be "few", depending on what the article is. Deb (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Semantico

Hello Deb, I was writing to ask you why you felt that the Semantico page should be deleted. You cited 'Unambiguous advertising or promotion', however, I based my piece very closely on other sites such as that of eMeta, CrossRef and Oxford University Press and felt that I had removed any promotional and biased language. This has been my first ever contribution and I would be grateful if you could let me know how I could edit this company entity entry so that it might remain permanently on Wikipedia and not be deleted in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Blackman (talk • contribs) 13:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Deb, since last posting I have now found supporting evidence for my wikipedia entry from an external source and have removed and revised much of the language from the previous entry to ensure that it is in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. Could you please reinstate my page so that I can edit it please. Alex Blackman (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments. The Semantico page has been edited and improved in response to your comments with new links added. I hope this is alright now and I will endeavour to make sure this page meets Wikipedia's strict user guidelines.Alex Blackman (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agarwal packers and movers

Hi Deb, you moved the above mentioned page, which in the the course of things, had got deleted twice by two other admins. I re-created the above page as a redirect. Do contact me if you feel the recreation is erroneous. Just leaving a note. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 05:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OneAPI deletion

Hi Deb,

I mentioned several companies and gave a balanced point of view, how could it be advertizing? And GSMA is a nonprofit organization but a standardization body: They don't sell the specifications! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPLeRouzic (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Moreover that's not the first page I create even if I am not a prolific creator and they encompass several domains.[reply]

Let me know your opinion, if there is no new until tomorrow I will recreate the page.

Thanks!

Jean-Pierre —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPLeRouzic (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Russom

hi, I was just wondering: why did you merge my Gavin Russom page with the Delia Gonzalez & Gavin Russom page? I don't think it makes much sense to merge a well known musician's page with that of one of his former projects, of which he has many. If anything the latter page should be integrated into his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiptok (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, please advise in these regards. if the two pages must be merged (and i don't see why they should), then it should definitely be 'delia gonzalez & gavin russom' merged into 'gavin russom' and not vice versa as was done. fix it. fjd11 talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.12.80 (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered this. Deb (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Yuri Kuznetsov (ice hockey, 1965)

Hello! You deleted the page "Yuri Kuznetsov (ice hockey, 1965), which was a redirect left by a renaming only 11 days before your deletion. Hence it had a number of links pointing to it. I agree with your comment saying that the redirect is implausible, hence the renaming, however WP:CSD#R3 clearly states that the implausible redirect criteria "does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects". Can you please restore the page? Place Clichy (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No citations on 'Isabella I of Castile' page

Hello Deb, I was reading the 'Isabella I of Castile' page, saw your name in the edit history and couldn't help but notice that there was not one single citation on the entire page... Not even a 'references/' tag in markup! Nice article but it needs citations, throughout. Regards, GWillHickers (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must be going back a bit - I don't remember contributing, but I'd guess it was in the days before we included footnotes, or even references, in most articles. Deb (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input

I'll look into it. What didn't you like about the structure? Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volleyball players

I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 22:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Wednesday, June 23

Re: Rick Springfield

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Rick Springfield. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rick Springfield , without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - not from my point of view. I thought it best to try and nip it in the bud though and get specifics so that these could be addressed and so the huge great banner could be removed as it was there since Feb 2009 I think.

I added some refs and hopefully the situation is resolved as per talk page :¬)

I will be removing the page from my watch list though at the end of todays session so hopefully things will continue in balance (although having seen that section after linking to it it leaves me thinking that also needs some attention lol)

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this message reaches you. Perhaps you would like to give me a good reason why you deleted the article written on 'Cy Town' a name well known to fans of Dr Who. Have you read the guidelines on overzealous deletions? I take it you're not a fan of Dr Who? I thought not!! Perhaps, if a copy still exists you would like to put it back and stop meddling! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpretty010 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ship lauching

Hi there. Just to let you know that ship launching refers to the ship being launchned (or these days usually floated out) of drydock. Usually this is done before the ship's construction is fully completed, with the final fitting out sometimes continuing for several years after the launch. Therefore a ship can and usually is launched before she is (fully) built. Cheers — Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I suspected this, but I think the article was still wrongly phrased the way it was.

The wording as it was in the article was pretty much standard to all articles about ships. Plus the current wording is problematic as there's no source indicating when the building process begun. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 19:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly agree it's problematic!Deb (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless madam you consider yourself and your 'no' comment extremely clever! It happens that there is a Dr Who wiki page on Mr Town. A fact that you could easily have checked on my behalf since I was clearly upset with your prior action in deleting the article. I am furious. Johnpretty010 (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gib Arnold

Head basketball coaches at Division I schools in the United States are inherently notable. Blueboy 96 21:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ATH#College athletes, head coaches are considered notable. Blueboy 96 23:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Festival of Murals writer

{{Help}}Festival of Murals writer--- Please explain what I need to change so it does not sound like an advertisment, I'm new at this---this is required for a class I am taking---here is my email---(email address removed Chzz ► 15:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC))---I'm not sure this you will get this message —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnaWood (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 July 2010[reply]

I moved this message from the top of this talk page to the end of it.

Because the user used a {{helpme}} template, I will copy if over to their own talk page, and try to answer it there. Chzz ► 15:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dematic Page Removed

Deb,

Could you please tell me what about the Dematic page that I created led you to determine that it was unambiguously advertising? That was not my intent when I created the page. I would like to avoid that impression in future pages I create and your help would be appreciated. --Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithGR (talk • contribs) 11:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russell T Davies

Wrong and wrong. There was no evidence of move-warring, and under WP:ENGVAR, WP:RETAIN, and WP:V, the article should be at "Russell T Davies", without the period, for two reasons: 1) the T doesn't stand for anything; and 2) even if it did, British English typically leaves out the period after an abbreviation. It's worth noting that neither Davies himself and Aldridge/Murray use the period when writing his full name. See also Talk:Russell T Davies/Archive 1#Middle Initial. Also, the act of protecting a page to your preferred version and in contravention of the protection policy is abuse of administrator tools, and if it isn't moved back, I will go to ANI about this. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what move war? Last time it was moved was a year ago. And since we have probably-reliable sourcing saying that the T isn't an abbreviation, it doesn't need a period.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except, you know, the last time it was moved, as Sarek pointed out, was a year ago. That's not "move-warring" under any definition of the term. And there is no rule that all moves must go through RM; that's stupid and too bureaucratic. And even LarRan, who moved the article last time, admitted that it could be at Russell T Davies, without the period, is if that could be verified, and it has been done. In any case, I'm raising this in a discussion at ANI; consider this your notification. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deb, there is a discussion about this issue involving you at WP:AIN. Regards, Skomorokh 19:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking

In the article 1974 in music, you edited some of the items in the Births list by Wikilinking the birth date. I reverted the date linking with the edit summary, "see WP:Linking#Chronological_items - birth dates have no relevant connection to other events on that date". You reverted my edit with the edit summary, "does not apply to Year in Topic". Can you please elaborate on that, because I don't understand what you mean. Also, could you please cite the Wikipedia guideline that substantiates your position and overrides WP:Linking#Chronological_items? Thanks, hulmem (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you plan to respond to my comments above? If not I will go ahead and revert your date linking edits in the 1974 in music article. Thanks, hulmem (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Goals Club

The article Goals Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No refs, nothing I can find referring to this term; appears to have been a spam link article. Was also deleted at Goals club

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kourosh Zolani

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kourosh Zolani, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kourosh Zolani. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IC Manage

Deb, can you please take a look at a page I worked on that has been noted for deletion?

You reviewed another page of mine and found it met Wikipedia standards for notability based on citing sources in secondary publications. I used the same process for this new page and now someone proposed it for deletion. Wikipedia's notability criteria says you need multiple citations from independent secondary sources - which I did. Yet the admin requesting deletion is holding it to a standard of "will it be in the history books' in 200 years.

Can you take an independent look and post your feedback on the page? I spent a lot of time on the page and cited every comment from an outside source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IC_Manage

This seems to boil down to the whole argument of is Wikipedia inclusionary or exclusionary.

This process seems to be so subjective - no one is finding me a guideline I didn't meet, just subjective opinions when I believe I followed the stated rules.

Plus if you could help me understand how to help my case. Am I supposed to get people from my industry to read the page, create a Wikipedia account and comment?

I was planning on working on a lot more EDA pages (technology and companies), little by little over time, but want to feel that it's more stable before I do so!

Plus this same argument affects over 100 pages Electronic Design Automation (EDA) industry and the revision control that is relevant to semiconductor designers. With this argument, they would all be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukis (talk • contribs) 23:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your input Deb. If you have suggestions on anything that I should remove from the IC Manage page to make it less advertising-like, I will do so immediately. It's tough to show noteability without also sounding like you are promoting it, which is why I initially just put the facts up. I am trying to do this properly. Mukis (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb

Does this help? --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least. I looked at that first, naturally. Deb (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry if you felt patronised. I have to say I'm surprised - yup, he's not into making huge content contributions, but he sure does help others tighten up the quality of their work. On a complete aside, my goodness me, you're a long-standing editor. It's not often I see someone still active whose earliest edits were swallowed up in the great data cockup in 2002. --Dweller (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I've been here quite that long, but certainly not far off it. Yes, the lack of content is my main issue with that contributor, I'm afraid. Deb (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello miss deb

Hello miss deb Why You have deleted my info. It took me 2 days to collect the info and you deleted it very easily. I don't understand why u deleted my info (sBoost). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishsns (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

any one answer my question

any one answer my question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.71.178 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What to do

I want to add a info name sboost.

sBoost is a software which restores the system setting modified by the malwares to normal . A very needed info for all. This software is created by a guys who lives in dharavi(worlds second largest slam area in asia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishsns (talk • contribs) 19:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of nicknames for sports clubs and stadiums

I have nominated List of nicknames for sports clubs and stadiums, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nicknames for sports clubs and stadiums. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Falcadore (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wales

I have put the Wales article forward for GA status. It just needs tweaking, and maybe a heavy-handed swipe from outside to get it in place. I am writing to those who are constant contributors and defenders of Wales and Welsh articles, to not scream at me for doing this, but to help get the article through. If we fail, we fail, there is nothing wrong with that; but Wales should be a Good Article at least and if it takes good intentioned amateurs to reach that then so be it. FruitMonkey (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rover 16 article deleted 2005

Dear Deb

I see you deleted an entry on the Rover 16 (it's a car) in 2005 , but I am not sufficiently wiki-literate to have found an archive covering the reason why. Unless you have a much better memory than I do, I appreciate that you may not instantly have the faintest idea what I am writing about.

Anyhow, the car did exist and it does not have an entry of its own in English wiki. Today I photographed one, and having looked it up in a reputable (for car nuts) english language source, I am proposing to reinstate it, based on a translation from the German wiki (albeit leaving out a bit I am not sure I believe/correctly understand). The hope, naturally, is that the thing will wiki evolve into something bigger and better and more informative and I will end up learning something new and interesting about the car I just photographed.

Are you aware of any reason - presumably touching on whatever it was that motivated the deletion in 2005 - why I should not start a(nother) article on the Rover 16?

Plus thank you "im Voraus" for any further insights you can offer on whatever it was that happened in 2005.

Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

天竺鼠

Dear Deb,

Please restore the Article Cai Pei which you have deleted. In my discussion page (User talk:天竺鼠), I'm pointed I infringed the Copyright. But that website completely unrelated. Please check my article and that website, you can also easily find this. Tank you. --天竺鼠 (cavy) (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deb,

Thank you very much for your quickly correspondence! --天竺鼠 (cavy) (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Smith

Hi Deb, I was editing Booby Smith's article at the same time as you. According to THFC website here and other sources he passed away on 18th September while in Hospital in Enfield, London. Do you have a citation that he passed away on 19th September in Lingdale North Yorkshire? Tmol42 (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference etc and moved the text up so it is not left on its own after the quotation, cheers. Tmol42 (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gurnz

Hey Deb, You just deleted the article i spent a while on about Peter Gurnz. I was planning on continuing improving it, but you deleted it five minutes after I made it, and now I can't get it back. Do you know where and how I can get it back so I can work on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vader117 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, but you never answered my question. Can i get back the work i put into that page? I understand why you removed it, and i'm not contesting that. But I spent about an hour on it and I don't want to do all of that work again. Vader117 —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Question Regarding The Children of Barbara Sidney, Countess of Leicester

Hi Deb,

I am interested in learning of the source of the information regarding Barbara Sidney's children. I am conducting some family research and Philip may be one of my ancestors. It has been said that he had a daughter named Alice. Can you please point me in the right direction? Thanks!

Adrlite (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article you deleted

It says you have 10 days to add a source before an article is deleted and mine was deleted within a matter of seconds. I was adding a source as soon as it was deleted. I want to add the article again and I have the source but it was deleted so fast I could not even add it. As soon as I added the article I got a deletion message within seconds. It said to add a source so I did, and it was already deleted within a few seconds.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Vardhan Jain

Thanks for your contribution in redirection of Article, ThanksHARRYMAGIC (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Jones

Hi Deb,

I understand your concern about the hatnotes I removed. You may want to check out the guideline I cited to see why I removed them. No user who is looking for one John Jones would end up at an article about another. When a user types "John Jones" into the search bar, the user is provided immediately with a disambiguation page that lists all the people named "John Jones" about whom we have aritcles. No one looking for John Jones (Talysarn) would end up at John Jones (Tegid) because they would have been provided with the option of choosing between the two before arriving at the article. Even if they accidently chose the wrong one on the disambiguation page, they would know about the disambiguation page because they were just at it and they could easily just go back. If they arrived at the article via an internal link, they would have been directed to the correct article because that would have had to have been specified on the preceding article or else it would have directed them to the disambiguation page. Not disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous is an established editing guideline on Wikipedia. I hope I have explained the reasoning behind it clearly enough. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Neelix (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb,

After a second look, I think I see the problem. The three "John Jones" articles you pointed out are all named in opposition to Wikipedia's naming conventions. According to the appropriate guidelines, the portion at the end of an article's title that is surrounded by parentheses should either consist of "the generic class" or "the subject or context", not an alternate title for the article. As such, I have renamed the three articles. I hope that you will find this solution adequate. If you do not, please do not hesitate to leave another note on my talk page.

Neelix (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb,

It would appear that we disagree on several points relating to these articles. Let's deal with them one at a time. I notice that you re-added the hatnote to the Talhaiarn article. I have started a discussion on the talk page of that article here in order to get input from other editors. It would be greatly appreciated if you would state your position and rationale there in order to facilitate further discussion.

Neelix (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Vardhan Jain

Done major corrections in Article accordingly, and cleaned up. Thanks HARRYMAGIC (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of word "Hemorrhage"

I don't understand why you reverted my edit of the word "hemorrhage." There is no such word as "haemorrhage." I am very careful in my spelling and grammar edits.

I suggest that you check the spelling of words before you revert edits.

Anthony22 (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Harsh Vardhan Jain

Kindly see that the major corrections are been done accordingly. It will be highly appreciated if you kindly give instructions for TAG Removal. Thanks for your contribution, Regards HARRYMAGIC (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name : Harsh Vardhan Jain

Kindly see that the major corrections are been done accordingly. Kindly review, RegardsHARRYMAGIC (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: John Morton (bishop)

It's because "archbishop" is not an order like "bishop", "priest" or "deacon". We disambiguate people on those terms first, then, if there is more than one bishop called John Smith, we dab by their highest title, so (Bishop of St Albans), (Bishop of Sodor) and (Archbishop of York) for instance. Vicar, chaplain, curate, bishop, archbishop, archdeacon, dean etc etc are all titles/positions, whereas there are only three clerical orders (at least in the Church of England) D B D 16:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review Article - Jagmandar Dass Jain

It will be highly appreciated if you kindly review the article please, as some corrections are been done accordingly. RegardsHARRYMAGIC (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review Article Jagmandar Dass Jain

Kindly if possible please review the Article Jagmandar Dass Jain as major corrections are been made accordingly. Thanks for your regular support & guidance.

RegardsHARRYMAGIC (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Jagmandar Dass Jain

Finally all mistakes are been removed as per your guidance and as per your instructions the TAG is removed as English language is been corrected in the article and also done accordingly. Thanks for your continuous help and support. RegardsHARRYMAGIC (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review Harsh Vardhan Jain Article

Kindly once review Article (Harsh Vardhan Jain) also, it will be highly appreciated, and please remove the TAG if possible from the Article if the article seems to be correct according to the standards. RegardsHARRYMAGIC (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support & guidanceHARRYMAGIC (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanking You

Thanks for your regular guidance, how to thank you ? As you have been like a helping hand in guiding and teaching new comers so that they can to follow your steps to contribute in here for good & great articles. Once again thanking you for your support.HARRYMAGIC (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Artcle after all corrections Harsh Vardhan Jain HARRYMAGIC (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally all mistakes are been removed as per your guidance and as per your instructions the TAG is removed as English language is been corrected in the article and also done accordingly. Thanks for your continuous help and support. RegardsHARRYMAGIC (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: deleted subpage on my userpage

Hi, I was only following the instruction in User:Ais523/editcount, so I'm going to recreate the page again. Please contact me first before deleting my subpage, maybe I haven't finished tweaking it yet. Appreciate it. Bennylin (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my fault... so that's why you deleted it..... Please delete the page I just recreated... Bennylin (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Practiced/Practised

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that "practiced" is the U.S. variation of "practised" and is appropriate under WP:ENGVAR. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Heitz deleted

Hi. I just went to the Markus Heitz article and saw that you had deleted it. You marked it as A7, but I fail to see how an author with multiple books published in multiple languages is not notable. I really think it should be put back. He has tonnes of google results, so there are obvious sources about him. He has a page on the German Wikipedia as well, and his books have been translated into English, so I think he should have an article here too. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Harsh Vardhan Jain

It is kindly requested to see in the matter of Article Harsh Vardhan Jain, as according to wiki guidance the Article was corrected and each & every small errors were too corrected by your help & support.

Kindly see that after all mistakes were corrected and a number of visiters were viewing the article, why is Harsh Vardhan Jain Article deleted, as it will be highly appreciated if you kindly do the needful in the matter please.

RegardsHARRYMAGIC (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HELP for Article Harsh Vardhan Jain

A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

17:42, October 19, 2010 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "Harsh Vardhan Jain" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)) 01:12, October 4, 2010 Deb (talk | contribs) deleted "Harsh Vardhan Jain" ‎ (G6: Deleted to make way for move)

KINDLY SEE THAT THE ARTICLE IS DELETED BY GIVING THE CAUSE THAT YOU DELETED THE ARTICLE ON 04 OCT 2010, BUT AS A MATTER OF FACT THE ARTICLE WAS REDIRECTED.

KINDLY SEE IN THE MATTER PLEASE.

ThanksHARRYMAGIC (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small complaint

Deb,

I have just been going through the articles created by HarryMagic, who seems to be hogging an awful lot of your talk page above. I just want to register my disappointment that a sysop with 70,000+ edits didn't first check to ensure the articles were notable before expending effort on trying to improve them. I expect they will be deleted as none of the sources provide independent verification that these two people even exist, let alone providing in-depth coverage. For info:

Best, Bigger digger (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Bigger digger#HarryMagic,etc's talk page.

Bigger digger (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ping! Bigger digger (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noël Coward

Noël Coward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, as the original creator of this article, you may be interested in the discussion about a lack of consensus for citation style. As the guidelines refer to the person that started the article as setting the local convention, your opinion may help establish what the consensus should be. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Smith (novelist)

You created this article about 4 years ago. The banner says it's an orphan. Can you (1) confirm there really is such an author; and (2) figure out at least one article from which to link the Smith article? Presumably a genre article of some kind. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matriarchal social organization in non-human animals

What this editor has done is just a copy and paste from Matriarchy, which as it isn't attributed is copyvio. He/she also left behind the information about the references, so as it stands they can't be verified. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, shall I delete it as a test page (which is presumably what he was trying to do? Deb (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but see WP:SPI#Jackiestud. I think it's a competence issue as well as probably a sock. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why my article "THE TRUE SPIRIT OF ISLAM" has been deleted ?

any reason for deletion ? let me know asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiderzaman (talk • contribs) 12:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK Community Notice - IRC meeting

Dear Wikipedian,

This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved.

For information on the community IRC meeting please go here

More to come about:

Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 05:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rawle D. Lewis

Deb, could you userfy the Rawle D. Lewis article for me? I'd like to look into addressing the issues for the deleted article. Lewis was a primary castmember in the movie Cool Runnings, and as such I believe notability can be asserted. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK IRC community meeting

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tony Curtis (Irish poet)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tony Curtis (Irish poet) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Australasian Institute of Policing article entry

Hi Deb,

could you please advise why you deleted the Australasian Institute of Policing article - I saw the reference to rule A7 - about importance - but I don't know what is required - do I need to claim that the organisation is important to the professionalisation of policing - the objective it promotes? The organisation has existed for several years and has board members and fellows including Commissioners of Police and Senior Academics here in Australia. I think that it is important and worthwhile for police to strive to pursue the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct in the discharge of their duties to the benefit of the communities that they serve. I think it is important for members of the community, and police officers themselves, to know that this organisation exists.

thank you for your assistance.

Nivastoic (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Mark[reply]

nivastoic nivastoic@hotmail.com

About Sulaiman Taha and so many other things

User:Shirt58 ♥♥♥ your contributions--Shirt58 (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trnava

No, Deb! Near Trnava was few battle in 1705 and 1848. Doncsecz^talk 12:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gracious K

Would you please undo the deletion of Gracious K. First of all you didn't give me a chance to say why it shouldnt be deleted. Secondly, it takes several edits to make a good article. 'Don't bite the newcomers'. Thanks, RichardOwen97 talk 18:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK to restart talkpage for Tony Curtis (Irish poet)?

I wrote:

Hi GraemeL! You G8-ed Talk:Tony Curtis (Irish poet), 15:41, 11 December 2010. Your fellow Admin Deb has also been working on the now re-started article. Should the talkpage possibly now also be re-started? xxx --Shirt58 (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that GraemeL (or some other admin) had G7-ed the page. No reply from GraemeL as yet. He may be busy (... or perhaps still wondering why I pecked him on the cheek before four tilde-ing... )
OK to restart the talkpage? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've restored it now. Deb (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (from this slick, dandified cake eater--Shirt58 (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive untimely delete of a page

Hello, you deleted a page I am writing about a chinese organization. You gave NO warning. I didn't have time to enter all the info or correct any errors. I have had articles deleted before but at least I was given a warning. You are familiar with Don't Bite The Newbies? I could use some help on what term to use to state that an article is a work in progress. Now I am wasting time doing this unproductive writing. Would you please help me help make wiki a better site? Thanks, I sense you mean well.Bgordski (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page (is there a place I can find the draft I was writing?)

Hi there. Speedy deletion is fair game although I never thought I would take a G11 for a FOSS project. I'm willing to make the necessary changes for it not to show as if it's an advertisement. I'm NOT affiliated with the project. I'm just an interested user who wants to write about it. Please tell me where can I find the Wikipedia code you deleted to make it better and less unambiguous. --Kensai (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pym

Thanks. I think I tend to over-quote in my edits but I tried to keep the Larkin quotes to the point. I noticed a couple of Pym titles still don't have articles so I might have a go at them , I liked 'Quartet in Autumn', she's a good writer and attractive literary personality I think. Sayerslle (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would like Dorothy L Sayers but in fact I've never got round to reading her books - Sayers, my mother's maiden name - but maybe I will read some Sayers, also I've long meant to read some P G Wodehouse. New years resolutions!Sayerslle (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not a member of the Barbara Pym Society - I've only read 'Quartet in Autumn' and parts of 'A Very Private Eye'. I got to know her through liking Larkin, and I remember I listened to a radio programme on Rd 4 with John Moffatt about the letters Larkin and Pym wrote each other and I liked her 'voice' as it came across in letters, and being glad her problems with finding a publisher didn't last right up to the end, that she got appreciated again - - (I wonder if thats available on a BBC Tape - must check amazon) - but I want to read more of her novels - I've got my eye on starting articles in the New Year for A Few Green Leaves' and 'An Academic Question' as I have copies of both. Sayerslle (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe thats why there aren't articles on them then. I have a copy of Excellent Women. Larkin liked 'A Glass of Blessings', said it was his favourite BP and Wilmet his favourite BP heroine (letter to Maeve Brennan 10/4/61). I'll read 'Excellent Women' next then, and order Glass of B's . Thanks. Sayerslle (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion of Catch the beat

Out of curiosity, what made you decide to delete this redirect under R3? I don't see it as an implausible typo. Yoenit (talk)

Thank you

Thank you for this. I will assume he is taking your advice and I will "back off" and remain backed off as long as he does. By the way, I don't mind at all if PMA engages in discussions with me or disagrees with me, as long as he keeps the discussion civil, respectful and about content rather than persons or behaviors (editor behavior can be a reasonable topic on user talk pages and certain appropriate pages where assistance is sought, but not on article/guideline pages). Anyway, I just want you to know that I do appreciate your efforts to resolve as much of this as possible without formal sanctions. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Not sure if I deserve it, but I'll eat it now. Deb (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Deb. You have new messages at Lear's Fool's talk page.
Message added 23:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- Lear's Fool 23:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last proposal

I doubt either of us needs to stay away from WP:RM. As a minor matter, it contains many naming issues on which we agree, or are not both interested. More importantly, it is the proper source - not any of these pages in Wikipedia talk space - of what current consensus and practice is - and thus the proper supply of evidence by which we can persuade each other.

Aside from that, I agree - with one minor exception. WP:NCGN is protected due to a recent war. Somebody should put an {{editprotected}} proposing to restore it to its last uncontested edit, of 6 December last; if you will do that, I don't have to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the request in detail on my talk page, along with a counter-proposal. If PMA wishes to agree to these contrived restrictions, he's free to do so of course, but I don't see how it's good for him or Wikipedia to agree. And like I explained on my page, I don't understand why I'm being included at all.

Anyway, I do agree with PMA's first paragraph above about WP:RM.

But the 6 December version of WP:NCGN is not undisputed. In fact, the Dec 6 version is the very version that was marked first "under discussion" (due to the RFC) [1], and then disputed [2] (the RFC discussion shows that consensus support for the status quo wording no longer exists), and remains in dispute. Of course, PMA would rather not see the status quo wording which he supports be marked disputed, but he apparently knew he couldn't argue that so, like others, acquiesced to it remaining there. But today he took this opportunity to trick an admin into reverting to the version right before those tags were added. This is exactly the kind of disruptive edit which often gets PMA in hot water, which is presumably why he had the sense to avoid doing it himself (the page was only locked a day or two ago - he was free to remove the tags prior to that), only this time he got someone else to do it for him.

The section tagged from Dec 20 until today should remain so tagged at least while the RFC discussion remains open, and removed only when there is some kind of wording supported by consensus is developed. That's the point of these tags - to encourage everyone involved to find wording for which there is consensus support so the disputed tag can be removed.

With today's revert[3], you've essentially removed the disputed tag from the version that was disputed, when nothing was yet resolved, and the discussion is still in progress. Please restore it by either reverting your own revert, or reverting back to the Dec 30 version which restores the appropriate disputed tags and a few unrelated edits that occurred between Dec 6 and Dec 30 apparently with consensus support (at least no one objected in comments or by reverting). The reason for the protection were the changes made after Dec 30, not anything that that was there prior to Dec 31. Besides, the action taken by User:SarekOfVulcan [4], to stop an edit war by freezing the current version, was standard and appropriate. I don't understand why you felt the need to intervene in a situation already handled by another admin, so I would recommend reverting to the version he froze, but will not object to reverting to the stable Dec 30 version. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a protected page without consensus

I noticed that you edited a fuly protected page without consensus. Although I see that you were only trying to be nuetral and not take sides, you must remember that any editing on a fully protected page should be made with consensus only. I would ask then, for the sake of user harmony, not to mention wikipedia policy on editing protected pages, to revert your edit and let the discussion on the talk page run its course. Thank you.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Jojhutton. On my talk page, you (Deb) justify reverting to the Dec 6 version by claiming that edit-warring began "in earnest" on Dec 6 [5].

If you're going to maintain the untenable position that there was even any edit warring going on on that page in December prior to Dec 31, much less "edit-warring in earnest", I'm baffled as to how to precede. I don't know how you're defining "edit-warring" to justify your disruptive revert, but I suggest we just use the definition from WP:WAR:

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.

Please check the history again. There was absolutely no "editors ... overriding each other's contributions" going on in December on that page prior to Dec 31. The first and only "undo" in all of December is this one:

# (cur | prev) 16:13, December 31, 2010 Doncram (talk | contribs) (51,929 bytes) (Undid revision 405240647 by Polaron (talk) Undo change to guideline, undiscussed, and relating to disagreement at a current RM.)

Let's look at the entire history after the edit in November, in reverse chronological order. First, of course, is your inexplicable revert to the Dec 6 version. As this is overriding not only the Dec 31/Jan 3 edit war between Polaron and Doncram, but also the reverting of unchallenged edits of three editors without any attempt whatsoever to discuss any of it with those involved, this is "edit warring" (and very typical of the behavior in which User:Pmanderson often engages - see his block log -, and who not coincidentally tricked you into doing it for him this time): # (cur | prev) 10:43, January 4, 2011 Deb (talk | contribs) (51,264 bytes) (restoring last undisputed version (as at 6 December))

Next is the protection setting by Sarek to end the edit war (that was actually already over by the time this edit occurred, but it was not unreasonable for him to assume it might flare up again):

# (cur | prev) 21:25, January 2, 2011 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) m (52,231 bytes) (Protected Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 05:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 05:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC))))

Just prior to the protection-setting are the edits that I made regarding the military base CDP issues after discussion commenced with everyone involved, and after the edit warring ended. Note the absence of "editors ... overriding each other's contributions" among these edits:

# (cur | prev) 21:17, January 2, 2011 Born2cycle (talk | contribs) m (52,231 bytes) (→United States: remove errant dash) # (cur | prev) 21:03, January 2, 2011 Born2cycle (talk | contribs) (52,231 bytes) (→United States: give the CDP military base exception wording another shot, this time boldly incorporating a general statement about military base naming, as they are U.S. places anyway)

Now, note the time gap, 16:58 to 21:03, to the next edit, because the edit warring ended hours prior to my edits above, at 16:58. During that time there was discussion on the talk page that I participated in specifically to end the edit war between Polaron and Doncram (see the section Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#edit_warring_on_this_guideline.2C_regarding_CDPs_having_any_military_association starting with my first comment at 16:31, 2 January 2011. Note that I entered the conversation, at 16:31, 27 minutes before the edit warring finally ended, at 16:58, here:

# (cur | prev) 16:58, January 2, 2011 Polaron (talk | contribs) (52,009 bytes) # (cur | prev) 16:47, January 2, 2011 Polaron (talk | contribs) (52,008 bytes) (as I said, this is just current practice / reworded for clarity) # (cur | prev) 16:41, January 2, 2011 Doncram (talk | contribs) (51,953 bytes) (Undid revision 405453021 by Polaron (talk). Remove disputed change, per Talk. Talk dont edit war to force ur way.)

Those three edits comprise the end of the edit war. Note the Undo by Doncram at 16:41, and the overriding by Polaron at 16:47 and 16:58. That is an edit war.

Before that is a totally unrelated edit that was reverted by your disruptive revert:

# (cur | prev) 01:10, January 2, 2011 JinJian (talk | contribs) m (51,980 bytes) (→Philippines: add shortcut link box)

I mean, here is the edit you reverted. Why? The rest of the actual edit war was prior to that edit:

# (cur | prev) 22:20, January 1, 2011 Polaron (talk | contribs) (51,956 bytes) (this is a description of current practice and not controversial at all) # (cur | prev) 22:16, January 1, 2011 Doncram (talk | contribs) (51,929 bytes) (Undid revision 405249260 by Polaron (talk) 2nd undo of change not discussed here & contrary to Talk elsewhere. Make a proper proposal, Polaron.) # (cur | prev) 16:44, December 31, 2010 Polaron (talk | contribs) (51,956 bytes) (this is a description of current practice) # (cur | prev) 16:13, December 31, 2010 Doncram (talk | contribs) (51,929 bytes) (Undid revision 405240647 by Polaron (talk) Undo change to guideline, undiscussed, and relating to disagreement at a current RM.)}} # (cur | prev) 15:35, December 31, 2010 Polaron (talk | contribs) (51,956 bytes) (→United States: military base cdps do not appear to fall under this rule)

All of those edits were explicitly about the military base CDP issue, and the repeated Undos make the edit-warring obvious. I'm not providing all the diffs, but feel free look at the history yourself. Before that, was a series of edits between Jan 6 and Dec 30, like the one above by User:JinJian, which were not part of any kind of edit-warring whatsoever. None of these edits reversed the work of anyone else. There were no disputes. That you continue to justify reverting all this as being edit-warring is bizarre, and, I suggest, an abuse of admin power.

# (cur | prev) 14:26, December 30, 2010 Born2cycle (talk | contribs) (51,929 bytes) (→United States: be more specific about what is in dispute in the current wording; also Australia is not longer another exception, as places there are starting to drop redundant disambiguation too) # (cur | prev) 02:06, December 28, 2010 Ben MacDui (talk | contribs) (51,922 bytes) (→Scotland: Use a more typical example - Uig, Skye) # (cur | prev) 17:46, December 27, 2010 Finell (talk | contribs) (51,936 bytes) (Conform scope in lead to actual scope of this project page) # (cur | prev) 14:04, December 22, 2010 Born2cycle (talk | contribs) (51,884 bytes) (→United States: Discussion indicates no consensus for current wording, so this section is officially disputed) # (cur | prev) 21:45, December 20, 2010 Born2cycle (talk | contribs) (51,884 bytes) (→United States: +underdiscussion tag) # (cur | prev) 23:10, December 6, 2010 Born2cycle (talk | contribs) (51,785 bytes) (→Philippines: reflect current actual convention) # (cur | prev) 12:33, December 6, 2010 Pmanderson (talk | contribs) (51,722 bytes) (→Multiple local names: Biel/Bienne (draft), please amend.) # (cur | prev) 01:45, November 21, 2010 Graham87 (talk | contribs) (51,264 bytes) (move see also section per layout guide)

It's one thing to be duped into doing PMA's disruptive work for him, but when it's pointed out to you and you continue to defend it as a revert of an edit war, even though they were clearly edits that were clearly not part of an edit war, that's an act of complicity.

If, after this detailed explanation, you continue to maintain the untenable position that there was an edit war on that page prior to Dec 31, I have no idea how to work cooperatively with you, and have to wonder about how genuine your efforts are here.

So, I will end by asking you to please recognize that you were tricked by PMA into making this disruptive edit, and to reverse it. I'd rather not have to ask someone else, but if you remain obstinate here, I will. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardOwen97 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Public Relations Consultants Association

Hello. Could you please explain why you believed this article to not explain the significance of the PRCA? It was quite clear that it is a long established trade organisation which works on a national and international level, and has been cited in multiple national newspapers and event as part of Government consultation on the lobbying industry. It would be helpful if you could guide me on what additional information could be included (there is plenty of verifiable material from reputable sources) rather than simply deleting the article outright. The organisation, in my view, meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. I'd welcome a discussion on how I can help make this article better rather than just deletion. 195.191.107.77 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the person who created the article asks me, we can discuss it further. Deb (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the creator have to ask? Was it listed at WP:AfD? If not, why not? I see "A7" referenced in the summary comment, but did somebody else tag it that way? Who? Besides, A7 sets a pretty high bar, requiring there to be absolutely no indication of importance. I didn't see the article, but a few seconds on google[6] and google books [7] shows that it's so obviously a legitimate and notable topic that it would be reasonable for someone to assume it's obvious and to omit making any explicit indications of importance. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering to make the necessary improvements to the article? Deb (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Need to see it first. Right now I'm just wondering why it got deleted without going through AfD. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to go on wondering. Deb (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]