User talk:Deb/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Mary Seymour, Duchess of Somerset/Mary Webb, her descendants and her ancestors

While I was linking pages to your article about Mary Seymour, Duchess of Somerset, I discovered somehing interesting. In the family trees of the sons of duchess, her paternal grand-parents are listed as "Sir Francis Popham" and "Helena/Eleanor Rogers." This is strange, given the difference in surnames. Meanwhile, her mother in law is listed as "Laetitia Popham." Meanwhile, the family tree of her grandson Edward St Maur, 11th Duke of Somerset lists Francis Popham and Helena Rogers as the parents of Laetitia. I believe that this last one is the correct one. Is it all right with you if I edit the family trees of the duchess's sons, even if I don't have the evidence ready to back up the changes? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse discussion

FYI: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Disruptive administrator - what to do?. – Joe (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it. Deb (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Continuing problems

Hi, I don't know if you are still involved with the problematic contributor but the discussions at Talk:Julian_F._Everett suggest that things are not improving. - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

symphonova - speedy deletion

Hi Deb, I created a post for a system that I felt warranted information - this was flagged as advertising and a conflict of interest. I admit that I saw a performance of this device, although I am not affiliated with it. I looked online for more information, couldn't find a Wikipedia page and felt that it warranted inclusion on Wikipedia, but this was deemed a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. I'm not entirely sure what constitutes 'notable' rather than 'advertising' and still feel that the system warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm presuming that the biggest concern was linking to the system's company web page itself, which can be seen as promotion? I was padding the article, as I wasn't sure how long a new entry should be - and so was adding information about the developer (taken from the website) and as much information / as many citations as possible. Would a shorter entry, that doesn't link to the company website itself be a possibility? thanks robert Hylandrobert (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply! That makes me feel better - I hate the idea of 'doing something wrong,' and tend to get anxious. Thanks for moving to the sandbox, and I'll write a shorter entry. Hylandrobert (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Page review request

Hello, would you please review a recently created page Dallara Stradale? Thank you.U1Quattro (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 at Women in Red

		Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October! New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean 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) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Aija Nagle-Izaks

Hello Deb, would it be possible to switch the article of Aija Nagle-Izaks to draft? I really do not know her and I would do all to change it so, that it will be ok. I am waiting for a positive answer, Lulanep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulanep (talk • contribs) 16:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued violation of WP:HOUND/inappropriate deletion of Born Park

You are continuing to edit and tag nearly every article I'm working on. You obviously want to drive me out of the project with all possible methods. Stop that NOW.--Greywin (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. I check your edits every so often because I know that you have made unreliable edits in the past. You should be thanking me for fixing your errors. Deb (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I never made unreliable edits, but you did, or did you forget your "small mistake" ;))) at Talk:Jörg Kastendiek. --Greywin (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You mean the one where two experienced users corrected you and you continued to claim that you understand English better than either of us?

Everybody sees who is right there and how the discussion with you and your buddy ended. Stop twisting clear facts.--Greywin (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Now you deleted Born Park, a reputably sourced article about a public park, that was in NO WAY advertising anything! It just described the non-commercial, state-owned facilities of the park. Above that, your behaviour is a blatant violation of WP:HOUND, which is also valid for you.--Greywin (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You mean the article with a single minor reference to a tourist website, advertising the state-owned facilities? Oh, nearly forgot, you added a broken link after I tagged it.

I recommend that you restore the reputably sourced article immediately or at least restore it and start a regular AfD discussion. Please also note and act according to WP:ATD in the future, which belongs to the basic rules of the project.--Greywin (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Your peremptory manner will not help you get your own way.Deb (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The guidelines of this project are not "my own way"! You think you are above the law? Why? You are obviously misusing admin rights here, deleting a reputably sourced article just to hit me. Everybody can see that this is either because of your personal revenge campaign against me or to push through your political agenda (or both). Where are your arguments, why did you delete the article against the guidelines? The factual reasons for a speedy deletion are exactly zero.--Greywin (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - everyone reading this will recognise the facts of the matter. Deb (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they will see that you are discussing without any arguments. Again, why did you speedy delete? Because a public children's playground and a public swimming pool were mentioned in an article about a public park? I am urgently waiting for an answer which includes facts.--Greywin (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

(stalking) It can't be that urgent; you've been banging this drum for nearly 72 hours now. ——SerialNumber54129 18:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact, Greywin, while I'm here, allow me to expand upon my remark. In that 72-hour period, you have accused User:Deb of WP:HOUNDING, WP:ADMINABUSE, and a failure of WP:ADMINCOND. Now, these are all egregious digressions from expected admin behaviours on Wikipedia, so I suggest you start a thread at a relevant noticeboard to resolve the issues you have raised. Alternatively, you could cease the accusations and do something else. ——SerialNumber54129 18:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I have the right to get an answer which includes facts and arguments rather than philosophies about someone's "behaviour". A reputably sourced article was deleted without any reason. By the way, do you have facts and arguments to add to the discussion? No? Well, good bye then. Oh,and please read the page that you linked closely and recognize that I'm NOT a "talk page stalker". But are you? The page says that a talk page stalker "answers or adds input to threads in which the stalker is not directly involved". That's exactly what you are doing here. And be calm, I'm thinking about some of the measures that you suggested.--Greywin (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Err, yes, that's exactly what I am, and exactly what I am doing; well done. The point is is that you have asked your questions, and Deb, per WP:ADMINACCT has answered them. She is under an obligation to respond to your queries; she is not under an obligation to do whatever you want, or to agree with you. So, having asked your questions, and, as you see it, not received a satisfactory response, you must now take this elsewhere. PS: as far as further reading goes, this might also be profitable. ——SerialNumber54129 19:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The point is that Deb did clearly NOT act according to WP:ADMINACCT. This admin is hounding me for months, attacking me, bullying me, editing every article and talk page, making strange edits in my articles, adding false tags. Now even deleting a properly sourced article! And maybe WP:BOOMERANG could help this administrator more than me. Regarding your input here: it's really strange that people defend "authorities" misusing their power and twisting facts and guidelines. But who cares about guidelines when it's for a certain "good cause"?! Or why are you here? Defending a buddy?--Greywin (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Fraudulent sources / WP:SNEAKY vandalism

Mill 1 (talk · contribs) is a fairly prolific contributor to both DOY pages and year pages. It looks like he's been adding quite a few bogus sources that don't support the material he's been adding. I could use your help in dealing with this WP:SNEAKY vandalism and tracking down all the BS he/she has added. See User_talk:Mill_1#Info_not_found and the following section. Toddst1 (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Now being discussed at WP:ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Truly stupid person

Every so often, some truly stupid person tries to get into my Wikipedia account by sending a "forgot password" message. What these dumbos seem not to realise is that the new password will be sent to me, at my own e-mail address, not to them. So it doesn't work. If you are one of these idiots, don't waste your time. Deb (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Scottish viscountesses

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Born Park

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Born Park. 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.

edit war

Please read wp:consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read it and then tell me where the consensus for your edits is coming from. Deb (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You are trying to push material into the article Immigration and crime in Germany which is not connected to the subject for political reasons. And then nominate the article, a clear revenge action to my edit and again part of your WP:HOUND campaign...--Greywin (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, give it a rest. Deb (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You should. Stop your campaign against sourced information you just don't like. Stop using the banner of "neutrality" to push unconnected material into articles. And stop your personal revenge actions like the deletion of Born Park, weird tagging, editing and so on.--Greywin (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

He is not alone in seeing your AFD as wp:forumshopping, this will not go well for you, please stop. Here is some help for you, search in goggle for "links between the immigration crisis and Germans racist past" and see if it brings up any hits. That is how you should be improving the article, finding RS that actually say what you want to say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

"This will not go well for you" sounds like a threat. If you check out my history you will find that things seldom do "go well" for me in deletion debates. Administrators with actual experience of deleting articles rarely join these discussions (I rarely do myself) and the empty vessels usually make the most noise. Your mistake is in thinking that I am going to stop doing the right thing just because I've been accused of doing the wrong thing.Deb (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not a threat it is a warning, you are making PA's and casting aspersions, you have been accused by an ed not involved in this dispute of forum shopping on an AFD. If this kind of behavior continues you will end up with someone reporting you, and your attitudes and actions are not going to go down well. You need to stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with someone of your edits is a racist who wants to whitewash racists actions. All you have done is antagonize at least one ed who actually thought you had a valid point, but is now very dubious as to your real motives.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You're mistaken in thinking that the ed who made the accusation is not involved - he's up to his eyeballs. I've been reported before, for many many reasons. After all the years I've been here making useful contributions, I'm really not troubled by that possibility. Deb (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You as an admin are constantly violating WP:ADMINACCT and WP:HOUND. This not only the wrong thing and unuseful, it is a problem for the project.--Greywin (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Deb, Thank you for defending me during the ANI discussion last week. I'd like to apologize to you personally for any errors in DOY that may have been the result of my practice. Again, in all we're only talking about 34 entries but it was sloppy on my part nonetheless. Cheers, Mill 1 (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Get ready for November with Women in Red!

		Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives New: Religion Deceased politicians Asia Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): WikiProject AfroCine launches (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Page review request

Hello, can you please review a recently created page Ligier JS2 R? Thank you. U1Quattro (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I think someone did it while I was off-line. Deb (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The page has not been reviewed yet. U1Quattro (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It has - there's no tag on it to give me the option. Deb (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Precious

"I have enough boring bits of my own to work on, thank you."

Thank you for starting articles on women before Women in Red was invented, such as Anne Neville in 2002, leading to Adelina Zandrino in 2018, for the foundation of Gothic architecture and Suffragette, for dealing with drafts and deletions, for COI and advert awareness, - Deb, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Page review request

Hello, can you please review a recently created page Dodge Viper (ZB II)? Thank you. U1Quattro (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of BCN Drone Center

Hi, You recently flagged a page for BCN Drone center for speedy deletion. My business has a page in Catalan already existing in Wikipedia. (Link: https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_Drone_Center) All i want is to add an English translation for the same so that the English speaking audience will be able to view it easily. Could you suggest me how to do this by putting it on my talk page?Bold — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakharkamal (talk • contribs) 19:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Paint chat

You might want to take a look at the isketch article as well. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Page review request

Hello, can you please review a recently created page Alpina B4? Thank you. U1Quattro (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

it's not unsourced its on the wikipage if you just look... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shallow Lord (talk • contribs) 15:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Minnow

I threatened to trout you, and here it goes with a minnow.

Plip!

I once gave someone a whale for creative shouting in a way that was even more disruptive than block capitals, which was using 24-point type.

By the way, at the top of your page, you have stupid arguments against deletion, and I agree with you, but will note that one of the hostile questions amounts to point 5. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Page review request

Hi there, can you please review the page Wasabi Technologies, Inc. once more? I'm curious what specifically would make it a COI or an advertisement. Thanks! Roger Bevins The 3rd (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Roger Bevins The 3rd: When you answer the direct question you were asked, about whether you have a connection with this company, I will tell you whether you have a COI or not. Deb (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: Apologies, I didn't recognize the notes on the page as questions, let alone direct ones! I was asked by my employer to make an assessment on the viability of multiple cloud storage platforms. Backblaze, Google, AWS, Wasabi, Microsoft were the main ones we looked at. I had been looking at Wikipedia for a while and wanted to start contributing, noticed that the other platforms had pages but Wasabi did not and decided to add it since I had a lot of fresh knowledge in my head. In my opinion, they're a notable company, but that may just be my opinion! If this warrants a COI tag in your opininon I'm happy to add it. Just hoping to learn the ins and outs a bit better. I also noticed you cleaned up the article, which I appreciate -- I'm going to look into the comparisons to see what I can learn :). Roger Bevins The 3rd (talk)

Swift Sensors -- need your help, Deb

Hi Deb,

You helped me out > 8 years ago, and this is my first time needing it since then.

You are the only Wikipedia admin I "know", so I hope it's okay that I ask you ...?

I just had another Wikipedia editor flag the new Swift Sensors page I created 'for speedy deletion' (it's still up).

He said two problems, which I believe I’ve fixed

1) copyright infringement from a particular publication. <--I didn't think I did so, but do be conservative, I removed all but one minor reference from that publication. 2) self-promoting. I originally had 800 words, did a close review and removed 300 words to remove anything that I felt could possibly be interpreted as self-promoting (it's my first time someone has said that, but I take it seriously, as self-promotion is a pet peeve of mine also).

I've sent a note to the user User_talk:Praxidicae, and put my comments on the talk page for Swift Sensor.

Can you help me out? This is my first time I was ever created marked for 'speedy deletion'. (the last time we connected 8 years ago was for an existing page I didn't create that someone else flagged, and I fixed it).

Are you able to review the page and participate? You were very helpful the last time…

Mukis Mukis (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Deb.

Can you give me a link to where the draft page is, so that I may submit it for review? I couldn't find it ( I actually started to do a draft page, but was using the new visual editor and just too much to learn at once).

Mukis (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It's on your Talk page: Draft:Swift Sensors.Deb (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I've just submitted it for review (I'd already spent almost 3 hours carefully editing the original page this morning following the flag. I will keep you posted. Mukis (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

wikipedia edits

thanks for the message i have little or no interest in becoming an editor on the web site wikipedia. thanks in advance please use your experience and make the articles based on the 120 references and news line available on the topic. --Sunlinestar (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that's just as well. Deb (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Bankset

do you oppose the bankset article, please confirm here on my talk page if you oppose de facto ? or shall i proceed and start the article again.? please restaure the draft page and the 40+ references listed there to avoid a rewrite. thanks for you understanding i confirm am not related to this team only an engineer at the engineering institute and want to disscuss the topic with the scientific community --Sunlinestar (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's very clear that you don't understand the basics of Wikipedia and it would be better if you don't attempt it. Deb (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 12 and November 13

I'm not sure why you put indefinite protections on these articles. I think a shorter protection would be sufficient because it won't attract as much traffic after today. I'm not sure if it was a mistake or not. — MRD2014 ^Talk 14:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@MRD2014: I'll review that later. Deb (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi Deb, I was wondering if I could ask you for a second opinion about this. The other editor and I have a bit of a history about the article as documented on the talk page. I suspect there may be vested interests at play, too. Apparent WP:SPA. Cheers! _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Why not say that blogs are not considered reliable sources...

and let me try again with one of the MANY other reference pages I found, instead of just blocking the page down so I can no longer include my event? Is the Wikipedia link for PhONEday not reliable either? It was also previously approved by someone else - is this some sort of crusade against events you don't believe in? Ridiculous.

http://www.telephonesuk.co.uk/history.htm

http://www.rod.sladen.org.uk/renumber.htm

https://www.numbersupermarket.co.uk/history-01-numbers/

http://www.lightstraw.co.uk/ate/tao/traffic/phoneday1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.134.190 (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

When you say "my" event, do you mean you have some kind of vested interest? Because that would be a conflict of interest. Deb (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No - that wasn't great wording. The PhONEday event. The event I wanted to add to the page. Why lock down the page now so I cannot add it? What do you have against the PhONEday event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.134.190 (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The page is not locked to everyone. Get yourself an account and you'll be able to edit it. Deb (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Dauntless23

Would you give Dauntless23 a WP:NOTHERE block? Over a period of years, their sole contributions have been promoting Randy Bean, and NewVantage Partners, despite numerous warnings about promotion and disclosing WP:COI.  Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Have given a final warning. Deb (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Deb. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Deb. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion: Al Haramain Perfumes

Hi Deb! First off, thank you for being an active editor on Wikipedia. Your job must be pretty hard!

That said, I'd like to better understand why my page for Al Haramain Perfumes was deleted, and what can I do to make it better? This isn't an advertisement and I do not represent the company or any of its members. I do believe that the company and its founder deserve a place on Wikipedia however, since they've made significant contributions to Bangladesh and the UAE.

--GavrilMankoo (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)GavrilMankoo

Kerala scool.delhi listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kerala scool.delhi. Since you had some involvement with the Kerala scool.delhi redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Reyk _YO! 08:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted page (notability issue resolved)

Hi Deb. In August 2017 you marked the page Jim C. Beck for deletion for what I assume was an issue of lack of notability. At the time the subject, a politician, was running for the state-wide office of Insurance Commissioner in Georgia. In November 2018 he won that election and will assume office in January 2019. The previous two individuals to hold this office (John Oxendine and Ralph Hudgens do meet Wikipedia standards for notability. For this reason I thought that the Jim C. Beck page may be reconsidered. Please let me know what you think.

Best regards, Zach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach191944 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 at Women in Red

		The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone. New: Photography Laureates Countries beginning with 'I' Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): BBC 100 Women 2018 (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Regarding my recent revision on the article June 5

Hello Deb. I noticed that you recently undid my revision to the article June 5 regarding a ship accident because it was unsourced, despite linking to an article on Wikipedia describing the disaster. If I cite an external source outside of Wikipedia (such as an archived article from the New York Times or Moscow Times) am I allowed to add it (my revision) back in? Please get back to me at your earliest convenience.

Best regards, TheRMSTitanic (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Salt request

SALT Draft:Pooldax after 4th recreation in the last couple months? Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Michael (disambiguation)

Hi Deb, about the disambiguation link in Michael Stone, my reverting of your edit was based on MOS:DABSEEALSO,

"In the "See also" section of a disambiguation page, an intentional link to another disambiguation page that does not contain "(disambiguation)" in the title should be written as Foo (disambiguation)"

It's standard procedure for disambiguation pages. Leschnei (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's clearly wrong as you should never link to a redirect. Deb (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

BTW, when I say "wrong", I don't mean that you are wrong, just that the guideline that says that is a particularly stupid one. Deb (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's an exception used in disambiguation pages - it's listed several places in the MOS. Since most links to DAB pages are errors, the intentionally ambiguous links are pointed out in an obvious way. Leschnei (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red

	Long Service Award
	Thanks for your support Deb. I saw that you had created the article on Edith Cavell in 2002! Keep up the good work. Victuallers (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

January 29

Please include this edit. It is important. You will do it better. Lets see how you do it and I will learn.

Alabama Bunker Kidnapper Is ‘Taking Care’ Of His Five-Year-Old Hostage Posted on Feb 2, 2013 @ 16:56PM

https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/02/alabama-bunker-kidnapper-taking-care-of-five-year-old-hostage/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Alabama_bunker_hostage_crisis

18:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk)

I don't see why it is more important than any other entry or how it merits inclusion in a list of events of international significance. I also don't see why I should be making edits on your behalf - I've already advised you on following the guidelines. Deb (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Please do not take offence. Whats the harm in making an edit. It is not on my behalf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Record_(Bergen_County) 69 is the record number of children born to a Russian woman—she had 27 pregnancies all of which produced more than one baby: 16 pairs of twins (32), 7 sets of triplets (21), and 4 sets of quadruplets (16). Where do I add this ? Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have not understood my last statement. When you ask someone else to make an edit that you want to make but don't know how to, that is asking them to make an edit on your behalf. If you have further questions, please use Wikipedia:Teahouse. Deb (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Cooperstown Beverage Trail

Instead of deleting the page without a discussion, you should have fixed it to make it encyclopedic like the tag said. The Cooperstown beverage trail doesnt sell anything it just promotes tourism to different breweries. There should be a way to readd it amd take out the part that was "bad". Thank You much, please let me know. Bacardi379 (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all i didnt realize it was against those guidelines, if you could put it as a draft I could work on it over time to fix it. Thanks for doing that for me. Bacardi379 (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion: Apros (software)

Hello Deb, the article on Apros (Software) was deleted recently (G11: Criteria for speedy deletion). I understand that the article has needs for improvement. I would be willing to suggest improvements, add independent references and remove non-independent references from the article. Would it be possible to return the article as a draft so that it could be improved, or alternatively emailed to me so that it could be revised and improved? There is a brief discussion regarding the subject on my Talk page ("Response to the deletion of page Apros (Software)"). I would appreciate it if you could have a look at this and reply. Thank you! Matti2 at Fortum (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Intro

Hello Deb, did you know I worked on that article for 3 months and finnaly got a Wiki account. I had brilint comments from some admins and they were just a bout to accept that article but why did you do that. I research Wikipedias guidelines for so long and i come to the most trusted wikipedia page and this is what I get? how could you do that it made me sad. Please have mercy and let me in give me the motivation to help wikipedia. Please let me with my article. God bless you. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theamazinnghelloworld (talk • contribs) 09:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Please follow the advice I gave you on your talk page. It is not true that you had "brilint comments" from some admins - that is simply a lie. It is also not true that "they were just a bout to accept that article" - it had been rejected. You also told lies about another admin on Galobtter's talk page. If you want to create an article, please take the trouble to read the guidelines and familiarise yourself with how wikipedia works. Deb (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding my recent revision on the article August 16

I have noticed that you have reverted my recent edit even though I have attached my reference from another Wiki article on my edit comment.

Besides, aside from wiki page reference, the birthday of Eri Kitamura is also listed at Early Wing official page, as August 16: http://earlywing.co.jp/talent_w/kitamuraeri.php

Could you please tell me how I did the referencing part wrong previously, or how I should add references correctly next time?

Thanks. Mhazard (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

German crime topics

You state that there is a "tightly-knit group of users" who prevented the German criminal articles from being deleted. Who are these users? Am I one of them because I voted keep but I have never interacted with any of other people? Please see WP:NOTFACTIONS and accept the result of the AfD votes. Refusal to get the point is disruptive. In the same message, you also say that tagging these articles is the only way because they are not deleted at AfD. Tagging for this reason is clearly disruptive.

On 11 November 2018, you said that your issue with these articles is that their mere existence is "political stirring"[1]. So you apparently even yourself admit that your position is not completely backed up by policy but rather by politics. You also criticize[2] the German media for not covering the crimes committed by ethnic Germans.

I was also troubled by your intolerant remark at ANI[3] that a German Wikipedian should stay in the German Wikipedia and another edit summary in which you patronize someone for their non-native English[4]. The English Wikipedia's global userbase is an advantage, and that's why we have copy editors.

You are probably right about that we should avoid using Bild so I won't revert you there, but otherwise you are on very thin ice if you refuse to get the point of the AfD results. --Pudeo (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you're not one of them; I don't recall ever coming into contact with you previously. And I know I'm right about Bild, thanks, because I raised the issue with German editors beforehand, in order to gain agreement. I'm more than happy for editors whose first language is not English to edit here, and have given considerable assistance to such users over the years. However, when a German Wikipedian chooses not to edit in his native language and instead berates those whose native language is English for "not understanding English", there is definitely something wrong somewhere. Deb (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I think also that you are missing the point. These articles have been created with a political motive, which the article creator has admitted. The reason they fail at AfD is because these incidents are "notable" in the sense that they fulfil Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The fact that Greywin's articles are mostly unbalanced and in conflict with the NPOV guidelines is not relevant to their notability, therefore they have to stay. That doesn't mean they are good articles. Part of my role as an administrator is to try to limit the damage done by biased reporting of the known facts, and the best way of doing this is to add a warning to readers to ensure that they don't take the current slant of the article at face value. Deb (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion serves whom? There is a global community who would like to get information about the Buy Nothing Project. If you think the bulk of the article was promotional, that does not mean it was actually. It does not serve the global community to simply delete things without giving authors a fair chance to edit and remove whatever you may feel is not in line with the guidelines for contributions here. I know there has been a lot of cleanup done lately but Wikipedia still has a way to go to become a reliable source and chasing away would-be contributors who have reliable information to contribute is not the way to do it. No one even responded to my contesting of the speedy deletion or actually said "what" was particularly promotional about the piece. That is unprofessional and really smacks of dictatorial behaviour. This is a wiki, it's not Encyclopedia Brittanica - and it could be something amazing with the help of global contributors, but will never get there if you don't change the highhanded manner in which you approach and deal with new submissions. MissParker (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Having looked at your draft article, I'm astonished that someone in your position should have such an apparent inability to comprehend the basic guidelines of this project. We are not here to advertise Buy Nothing, and speedy deletion serves, as you put it, the majority of users of the encyclopedia, who don't want your personal opinion of how good your project is shoved down their throat. If you are capable of being involved in the running of such a major project, you should be capable of writing about it in a neutral fashion. If you can't, I'm afraid you will have to find some other way of attracting attention. Deb (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

So, if they were inspired, I have to find a neutral way to say it...what would you say?

I don't get what the fuss is about - I don't have to "create" a positive image - the positive image is there but for your sensitivity's sake I will attempt to neutral all the positivity and sound more dreary. I hope you have a blessed and beautiful evening and learn to embrace positivity when it's real. Cynicism never helps anyone. MissParker (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Your arrogance overwhelms me. Deb (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Fyi

["Victory"] has nothing to do with it, and it is actually painful to have to suggest someone not edit an area they care about. Have a nice day. --Calthinus (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"Victory" was not my word. One has to try to appeal to people in the kind of language they best understand. Deb (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I give up, why did you delete the following entry from January 19:

• 1951 – Martha Davis, American singer of The Motels

It seems like it follows the rules. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Maxx Force

So I see that you've denied two separate attempts at creating an independent Wikipedia article for Maxx Force, and I wanted to ask why it's not being deemed as notable? When it was first announced on August 30, many local and international media outlets covered it, and it'll garner even more attention when it opens next spring. It's easily one of the most anticipated roller coasters in the world in 2019. If you would like me to provide any kind of proof of notability other than a simple Google search, I'd be happy to do so. ChrisGraslie (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisGraslie: So you see wrong. I redirected the article once because it didn't have adequate references demonstrating notability. You then made a second attempt to create it, again without adequate references, and again it was redirected - by another contributor - without me even knowing anything about it. Feel free to improve it by adding content and some evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: Okay, will do. And yes, I see what happened now. Sorry about that. ChrisGraslie (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

No probs. Deb (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019 at Women in Red

January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108 Happy New Year from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. January events: Women of War and Peace Play! January geofocus: Caucasus New, year-long initiative: Suffrage Continuing global initiative: #1day1woman2019 Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list Image attribution: Nevit Dilmen (CC BY-SA 3.0) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Merry Christmas

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2019!
	Hi Deb! Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Dead man walking

I don't see what your beef is with Findagrave. I've seen it used as a source elsewhere, so evidently not copied from WP. As for the "photo", IDK what you mean. When I looked at the linked page, I saw text with place & date of birth & death, clear as day. What else is necessary? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic (season 10)

Hello,

I would like to personally reach out to you to announce that I have gathered references and other important information for Draft:Nostalgia Critic (season 10). I am here to ask a couple of general questions. I would like to bring the draft to an official page. I know how to do this, but I would like your opinion on what else I should do for the draft, to perfect it before this inevitable move to an official page. Come by, check it out, I would like to know what else is needed for the draft. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Cardei012597 Cardei012597 (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I added a reliable source not owned by Channel Awesome or NC that talked about a 2017 NC review of Norm of the North. There are only a handful of major news sources that talk about NC, outside of the controversy a few months ago. There just isn't a major new article for each NC episode, just for a couple. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I just find it contradicting when the draft for NC 2017 has more reliable sources than List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes. Every source on that page is created by James Rolfe / AVGN, and not from The Hollywood Reporter or a major news source. Their both Online/YouTube shows where they don't get much attention from major news sources. I just want to know why did List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes pass, but not the draft page for NC 2017? Cardei012597 (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I nominated List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/82.132.228.74

Hello. Are you sure this is a vandalism-only account? ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 08:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure they've never made any non-abusive contributions. Deb (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think what Abelmoschus means is that that is an IP and so shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I get that, but it's fairly obvious it's someone we know, logging in anonymously just to post abuse. I don't mind if you want to shorten it. Deb (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Gwin poeth sbeislyd i chi ...

... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi! That is Welsh and translates to: Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019! Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia. Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Church of God, a Worldwide Association

I just ran into the editor who created this article as he was spamming a couple of articles on my watchlist. On of the articles was the one he created and I noticed that it was all based on primary sources. I did some pruning and then noticed that you'd warned him about needing secondary sources when it was created.[5] Even with all the self-publicity it only has 34 results.[6] I hate these Google searches, the 1st page of the source said about 24,300 but as you click further they vanish. I'm thinking AfD. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that's awful. I'm thinking speedy. Deb (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Explanation

Hi Deb. I closed the ANI discussion because it’s become very long. We don’t need anybody voting on blocks especially when they are unlikely to be fully familiar with the facts of the case. I’ve advised the user to request unblock. That’s a necessary first step.

An administrator will review the request and if there’s a plausible unblock scenario, they will secure Guys agreement or else go back to ANI and start a fresh discussion with a concise summary of the salient facts. When a user politely asks to be unblocked, they are usually successful.

The problem with a long discussion is that it’s very hard for uninvolved editors to wade through all the text and get a full understanding of the relevant facts. Jehochman ^Talk 22:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Non sequitur

And "baloney" is not an argument

"Is too!" isn't an argument, and yet that's what you went with.

This is bordering on a personal attack.

It's an observation of a pattern. Perhaps you should reflect on that, and maybe why you chose this particular hill to die on. --Calton | Talk 09:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

If you had enough sense to format your message properly and refrain from further personal attacks, I might take this seriously. As it is, I couldn't care less what you think. Deb (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Concerning Wikipedia February 1st Page Edit

Greetings ...

In kind reply of your notice to me in my TALK section about editing the February 1st date page, as well as the mention of recently revised Wikipedia rules concerning backing sources for entries (events, births, deaths) on date pages ...

You may reverse my edit-entry as you wish, and I do understand the overall need for proper sourcing. However, I have the following observations ....

(1) If you have a Wikipedia article page of an event with dates of occurrence shown within the particular article, plus proper backing sources, or if you have a Wikipedia article page of a person with birth and death dates shown, plus proper backing sources, then it should not be necessary to re-list such sources on a date page (like February 1st), unless special circumstances demand it. (I confess it is possible that I have not observed this condition a time or two).

(2) Should it be determined that the Wikipedia article page of the event or person does not have sufficient or satisfactory backing sources, then that particular event or person can not be listed on a date page until sufficient sources are found for the particular article page in question.

(3) Re-listing the same source(s) on Wikipedia article pages other than that of the specific subject can often be a repetitive and tedious exercise. Given this, perhaps Wikipedia should explore the creation of a coding/parameter scheme where the name of a person, animal, object, event, etc. on -ANY- Wikipedia page can have an instant link to the sources section of the specific wikipedia article page of said person, animal, object, event, etc. Example -- you may mention the name Albert Einstein on several different Wikipedia article pages. Immediately following Einstein's name could be a unique code mark or short abbreviation, and when you click-on the mark or letters, you are then instantly taken to the sources section on Mr. Einstein's Wikipedia article page.

Thank You, Fgf2007 (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Deb (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you ideologically biased?

My article on World Hindu Congress included several external links and sources. Yet you deleted the page and wasted my hours of work. You are not only depriving Hindu organization but also reprieving Wikipedia.org from information about a Global organization. Hope, you would see it in unbiased context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit Srivastava (talk • contribs) 08:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't respond to personal attacks, and you would be well advised not to make them - unless you want to be blocked. Deb (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Journal access?

Hope you are well Deb. Just wondering if you happened to have access to Trans. Hist. Soc. Caernavon, by any chance...? I can't find anything myself. Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 13:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

About your draft article

Nice draft - it's a bit inaccurate but I can work with it I suppose because (despite what you think) my aim is to have an article - not an advertisement - for the BN Project and no one has actually given me constructive details about the draft I created so I am happy to work with the one you have and move mine to my sandbox as a historical record of my failed attempt as you so lovingly referred to it. I wonder if the term "Assume good faith" is only for lowly phlebs to adhere to at all times? Thanks for actually showing good faith this time around - had this been done in the beginning so much time and anguish could have been spared. MissParker (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

What's phleb short for? Phlebotomist?Deb (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia or Wiktionary?

Hi Deb. I had a question and picked you as a random veteran to ask, I hope you don't mind :-) I'm wondering why WP has articles about "words" (as I see them) like buzzword, synergy, hyperlocal. It seems to me these articles are the definitions of words, and belong in a dictionary, like Wiktionary, but they are not like a specific "thing" in a specific "field" (do you know what I mean?). They strike me as too generic or cross-disciplinary, almost like, a "bland" noun or adjective. I've heard the argument "belongs in Wiktionary" used, e.g., at AfDs. Where is the line or how is it drawn? I imagine this is one of those perennial discussions, which is why I'm asking you as a veteran: do you happen to know of an essay, or RfC, or something else you can point me to that would "get me up to speed" on the difference between what should be in WP and what should be in Wiktionary? Thank you! Levivich (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, actually the template is helpful and I didn't know about it before, but I think that'll give me some breadcrumbs to follow. Thanks again and hope you have a good weekend! Levivich (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thonburi University F.C. is professional team now

Do you see Thonburi University F.C. references ? Could you please see its link before you do something. Aquaelfin (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Why you delete this page again ? The Club is update from old Articles for deletion Aquaelfin (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you read Thai language ? https://www.thaileague.co.th/official/t4/?r=News/ScoopRead&id=328. (Thai รายการไทยลีก 4 โซนกรุงเทพฯ และปริมณฑล : มหาวิทยาลัยธนบุรี). This link annouce teams which Thaileague 4 (T4) pass club-licencing. Teams don't have club-licencing can't play this league and Thaileague 4 is lowest professional team. If you can't read Thai language, You would not be choas. Aquaelfin (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)I'm glad to hear it! Deb, not being choas? ...chaos, maybe; but we can put up with that!  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 15:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I do my best not to be either. But maybe I don't always succeed. :-) Deb (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

My dad used to say, just before knocking our heads together, if we do not have order, we will have chaos. Ahhh, god times.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Bella Disu

Please opine. Not convinced better than deleted iterations.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced post

Hello there Im sorry you didnt like my page on intracapsular tonsillectomy. It is an article that I wrote and then cut and pasted into wikipedia - is that the problem - i didnt type it out by hand into wikipedia? There is no copyright problem that I can see? Advertising - is that my website you are alluding to - I can take that off, but it is a source of good info about this procedure. Apologies.

Mike Dilkes Mikedilkes (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(Above post moved from the top of the page when I spotted it today. Deb (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC))

A7 deletion of Pualand F.C.

Hi. On 14 January, you deleted Pualand F.C. under CSD#A7, although the article had already survived AfD three months prior. Since AfD deemed the subject notable, and A7 is a lower requirement than notability, maybe the article should not have been deleted under said criterion? --Paul_012 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point. However, both of those who voted Keep (and two votes to one doesn't really constitute consensus) commented that the article needed improvement, yet there has been no subsequent attempt to improve it. Meanwhile, the article creator has churned out articles at an alarming rate for football teams he claims are professional but it's obvious from this discussion that his English is so rudimentary he does not really understand our notability and verifiability guidelines. He himself raised the question of why Pualand F.C. had not been deleted when he presumably felt it was of a similar standard, which is what brought it to my attention. Deb (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't feel strongly about the article, and won't contest the decision. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

They have played in the FA-cup (2018 Thai FA Cup), so you had no valid reason at all to delete the page, Deb! The same with Ubon Kids City F.C. I demand that you get both pages back ASAP! What you are doing is vandalising! I`m sure these 2 are not the only pages you have deleted without any valid reason! Paul_012 User:Aquaelfin SveinFalk (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not even considering responding to this until I know who it's really from. Impersonating another editor is quite enough to get you blocked. Deb (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think what SveinFalk meant to do was to add a ping for Aquaelfin and me. It didn't work, though. SveinFalk, for a ping to work it must be part of a new line, with your signature added in the same edit. Please also avoid placing pings right before your signature, as it's confusing, as demonstrated above. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The peremptory tone of his comment made me think that his account had been compromised. Deb (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

William Jackson Harper

What qualifies as a reliable source specifically for these "Births" sections? Sorry, first time attempting to add someone to one of these pages. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

List of GRC Software

Hi Deb! Thanks for your review of this article. I was appalled to see how the article has evolved. I do agree that the current state of the article is just a bunch of links for advertising. This article is supposed to list both open source and closed source (proprietary) software in the GRC domain. I think there was a user User:Grayfell who was trying to clean the article from links that were not part of Wikipedia and he changed the entire format of the article. See Revision as of 05:26, 13 March 2018. After this revision, the article went down the drain. This article is supposed to look like List of ERP software packages. I'm not sure if you'd get time to review the article history to see the format that was before the above mentioned revision.

I'm going to take the liberty to remove the deletion tags and also revert the article back to the format that was present before 13 March 2018. I shall monitor this page more closely so that all software mentioned on this list refers to another wikipedia page. If this is not OK with you, please let me know

Thanks

Mathayi2000 (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 at Women in Red

February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111 Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. February events: Social Workers Black Women February geofocus: Ancient World Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman2019 Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage: Socialites Twitter - Forgotten African American Suffragists Women in Red image uploads to Commons Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0) Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Elizabeth II accession, Feb 8 article

Thanks for double-checking my PC review on a small edit of the above - I was probably too quick in my check, as on further review, depending on where you look, one finds different dates, from 6th (death of pred., declaration in some countries) to 8th (final Acc. Council, Oath, etc.). It might be a case for omitting the item from any one date, or, as you suggest, we use the first date on which the legal change took effect somewhere. Still learning...SeoR (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Eurosearch & Associés

Hello, I would like to knwo why you did erase the page. Is is different from the other executive firms that have pages on wikipedia (Korn Ferry Spencer Stuart Heidrick & Struggles Egon Zehnder Russell Reynolds Associates Challenger, Gray & Christmas Eclaro International HigdonBraddockMatthews Howard-Sloan Professional Search Neumann International PageGroup R. William Funk & Associates Randstad India Reed Hamilton Rosenzweig & Company Stanton Chase Stellar Search Transearch International Whitehead Mann ) ? Best regards ---Themed (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it is different - very different. Read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and see your talk page for the explanation of why it was deleted. Both I and the nominator gave our reasons. Deb (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

A Couple of Queries

Hi Deb,

Since you are one of the oldest Wikipedians I have come across, I had a couple of queries which I wanted to ask. Please assist.

1) Is there any official way with which I can initiate my students into Wikipedia? Their subjects are literature, politics, and history - and Wikipedia will be a valuable place for them.

2) Is there any place here where one can discuss India-based projects in detail? As in find what pages / topics need to be covered. Personally, I am creating pages for the Padma Shri award recipients, and created a few more such the the Public Credit Registry and Digital India Land Record Modernization Programme.

3) When I check my edit counter on xtools, I see that a certain % of my edits have been deleted..while I never received any notification of my edits being deleted or undone. Is this a glitch?

Csgir (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Username Violation

Hi Deb, have a look - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RAEMarketing Seems to be an agency - https://www.manta.com/c/mb8z34l/rae-marketing Csgir (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

AIV

Hello. WP:AIV is a little overloaded. Could you come and handle some reports? Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Will check back again later. Deb (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Deaths in Latin music

Hi Deb! Let me just say thank you for creating the 2019 in Latin music! I've been busy in real life so I hadn't gotten the chance to edit Wikipedia lately. Anyways, I've noticed you've added some notable deaths to earlier in Latin music and I wanted to share a resource with you. Every year since 2005, The Latin Recording Academy has a "in memorial" section dedicated to mostly Latin musicians who passed year away. Some artists are just mentioned for having performed at the Latin Grammy Awards even if they aren't Latin artists (like Ben E. King being mentioned in 2015 because he performed in 2010). You can find them at their online and the easiest way to access them is through this page and clicking the Person of the Year artist name. Anything before 2005, they didn't have a "in memoriam" section.

I was going to add the Latin artists who passed away from each year since 2005 from these "in memoriam" sections eventually in my free time but I figured you might be interested in helping as well. Cheers! Erick (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Reporting Vandalism

Hi Deb, please take a look at this new user - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ravitaak011

The user tried to create an autobiographical page (have CSD'ed it) and it seems like, as a personal grudge, he went about moving notable pages of other YouTube personalities to Drafts. I found these from the person's contribution history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhuvan_Bam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gaurav_Chaudhary

I tried to undo the page moves but couldn't.

Csgir (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Not really sure what's been going on here, but he'll definitely be blocked at the end of this and his page is likely to be deleted. Deb (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Advice please

Hi Deb, I think it was you with whom I've had previous discussions on talk pages about similar topics... Would you please have a look at this discussion and recent changes to the article page, sometime? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sayed Abutalib Mozaffari

Hello Deb, please shed light on this subject, Sayed Abutalib Mozaffari. I had a couple of questions:

1. I had PROD'ed it but the page creator removed it without any reason. Can this be done?

2. All the references in the page is in Arabic language. Google Translate is there to check but can an English page have all references in another language?

3. If not, (point 2), should this be tagged with A2 criteria?

Thank you. Csgir (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Access consciousness

Hello, Deb. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Access consciousness".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No idea where this came from. Deb (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 at Women in Red

		March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113 Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: March: Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen Geofocus: Francophone Women Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman
		Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

November 12

Just out of curiosity, why was I reverted here? He wasn't famous as a singer, although he made an album which is considered a novelty, and I felt that "best-selling" is a weasel word in this context. I'm not in any way trying to be antagonistic, but I want to be sure you didn't do this by mistake, and if not I'd truly like to discuss why my edit wasn't an improvement. Thanks, and all the best! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @78.26: It would have been an improvement, but the entry was unreferenced and should not have been added in the first place. I could not undo it without first reverting your change. Deb (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Got it. I don't spend a lot of time on "Days of Year" pages, so didn't know this had become a requirement if date is verified in the target article. Makes sense, though. I just saw it on my watchlist as a "Pending change" and checked it out for accuracy, which it passed, so I "approved" it by editing it. Your revert didn't remove the entry entirely though. I could understand that as well, because editorial decisions regarding importance of topic to the date must be made, and I'm not sure Ruff qualifies. It was explained in Worldbruce's edit summary, for which I thank him, because if someone of my experience missed the requirement, how much easier for an anon like 136... Anyway, many thanks, and also thanks for all the volunteer effort you provide around here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, if I confused you. I wanted to check the new entry had really gone before I got back to you. Deb (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Deb

Hi, Deb. Are you an administrator? How long have you been editing Wikipedia? Angela Maureen (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Korean presidential inaugurations

Please explain in detail what guidelines you were referring to when you deleted the entries for South Korean presidential inaugurations. The dates of their inaugurations and the presidential terms that they filled are available on their respective pages in Wikipedia. Please see the articles for Roh Tae-woo, Kim Young-sam, Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, Lee Myung-bak, and Park Geun-hye for the information. This isn't new or unsourced information. -- BlueResistance (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

On occasion, edits that I rightfully made in the past have been reverted in the name of unfamiliar and unexplained guidelines, only to be proven appropriate and restored later on, so you'll forgive me if I am skeptical if something is deleted with nothing more than "the guidelines changed" to justify it. Not everyone who contributes to Wikipedia is as active or as familiar with everything on the site as you appear to be. The link to the specific guidelines that you eventually provided was helpful, but I wish that you had shared it the first time.

As a matter of fact, the Lee Myung-bak article has a specific reference for his inauguration date (reference #38), so it should be restored to the 25 February page. For the other presidents, since there are no references right now for their inaugurations, the dates should be probably removed from their respective pages. -- BlueResistance (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The guidelines to which I referred you say that the reference should be in the entry on the DOTY page, and that a reference in the article itself is not adequate. I can only point you to the guidelines; I can't read them for you, nor can I do it for all the other people who post unreferenced entries. Nor am I "familiar with everything on the site"; it's hard work trying to keep up. Deb (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Ummm…

I noticed you blocked an IP address indefinitely, but according to this, it states that IPs should not be indefinitely blocked, and this, IP's cannot be considered Vandal-only accounts… -216.25.187.5 (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I've amended the duration. Deb (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Richard III of England, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ——SerialNumber54129 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Deepak.lmp2012

Hi, you speedy deleted an article by this user earlier today, Ostron_Electronics and the editor recreated it, but it still doesn't seem at the level where it should be kept. The original editor pulled off the speedy delete template I added as well. What can I do about it? Psu256 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Buy Nothing Project (March 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hell in a Bucket was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Buy Nothing Project and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Buy Nothing Project, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Deb! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Vigo Industries for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vigo Industries 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/Vigo Industries until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Werner Schneyder

What are you talking about? I never did any editing on Werner Schneyder, and I don't recall doing any disruptive editing. I think you you message the wrong person. Matt Campbell (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

unreferenced content to Days of the Year articles

Alright I get it. You can stop now! Matt Campbell (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

For February 3 one of them was in the wrong date so that's why I moved it to the correct date in the first place! Matt Campbell (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

American bias

You said to add references/sources, so that's what I did. So I don't understand what the problem is. Matt Campbell (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What does the article about systemic bias have to do with anything, and yes I did read it. Matt Campbell (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

What difference does it make? Matt Campbell (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing you don't understand that Wikipedia is meant to be as unbiased as possible. Not much I can do about that except keep an eye on you. Deb (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not necessary. Matt Campbell (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Elephants Delicatessen

Can you please restore the Elephants Delicatessen article? I submitted a talk page request (Talk:Elephants Delicatessen). The page should not have been deleted, and I'd appreciate a restoration and move to draft space if required. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Another editor has restored the draft. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That's his prerogative. Deb (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Deb, Right, just sharing an update. Happy editing, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I've shared a handful of sources on the draft's talk page for future expansion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Turf War (Banksy)

I've scrambled to expand Turf War (Banksy) a bit, if you don't mind taking another look. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Advice

Can you please stop badgering Another Believer? It seems like you have it in for him - there are plenty of other admins who can deal with this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You're joking, right? I have been trying to get rid of him for most of the day. Every time I answer one of his questions, he asks another one. I go off-line for three hours and he's waiting for me as soon as I come back. It's one massive waste of time as far as I'm concerned. Deb (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"I have been trying to get rid of him for most of the day." Well, I find an easy way to do that is to close the browser, shutting the computer down and going down the pub for a pint of Shepherd Neame Master Brew before closing time. Actually, I'm going to do that right now. WP:ADMINACCT doesn't mean you have to answer every single question ad naseum and doing so can sometimes be counter-productive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Well, I find an easy way to do that is to close the browser, shutting the computer down and going down the pub" - where do you think I was for the three hours I mentioned above? Deb (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please Review my Draft on "Kannad Gothilla"

Could you please review my draft? I have completed it for now and would like to publish it. It's movie article so will evolve with time. Thanks BhargavaAnirudh7 (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC) Thank you for your feedback. I'll look for some more references and add them. Also look into categories. I hope that makes it complete as an article. Thanks again for your time. BhargavaAnirudh7 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As you had mentioned, I have added more references and also the categories for the article. BhargavaAnirudh7 (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Question:

Am I allowed to move this draft to mainspace now that the author has improved it? Awesome Aasim 22:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, there is no improvement since you last moved it back to draft space. Didn't see that :-) Awesome Aasim 22:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For Deb's tireless defense of the DOTY pages, meticulously adding sources and culling bogus entries after many years of neglect and accumulation of unsourced and often incorrect info. An amazing defense of the wiki deserves recognition! Toddst1 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a relief. When I saw the alert, I thought it was someone else coming to tell me off! Deb (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

June 6

"No new entries without reference". That sounds like some sort of policy specific to the Date pages. Can you point me to it? Just wondering how my entry for Josie Lawrence, which inked to an established article, differs from, for example, this edit of yours: [7]. Thanks, Silas Stoat (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you're going to be removing one hell of a lot of entries then - like 90% of all of them across the Date pages. Of course you could have tagged it for a citation, in which case I would have gone and found one. Silas Stoat (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I see what you're doing and it's excellent. However, as you (and hopefully others) work through the Dates pages you would eventually come across the new entries, at which point they could be addressed. The danger with removing them 'on the spot' is that they could be lost for ever from the listings. While that might not be a problem for Josie Lawrence, it may well be a problem for more notable people and events. Often, the linked article of these new entries will have adequate references, so it might be more appropriate in these cases to transfer the ref. to the Dates page if and when you come across such new entries. At WP:CHALLENGE it states In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. I think this makes sense, and could avoid conflict situations. Anyway, just a few thoughts, and keep up the good work. Thanks. Silas Stoat (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I did include the example of Josie Lawrence in the above; an instance where it might not matter too much if you deleted the entry. However, if you just delete all unreferenced new entries, there is a danger that good ones will be lost. I think you are deleting all unreferenced new entries regardless of notability, but correct me if I'm wrong. Again, I would suggest tagging new entries, unless they are obviously not notable. It's actually quite difficult in the final analysis - if a person has a Wikipedia article, who's going to decide whether or not that person should be included in the list? Maybe there are guidelines on this - I don't know. Silas Stoat (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

December 12 DOTY and referencing

Hi. When you delete a new event entry on a DOTY page as lacking a reference, are you checking the page that has been linked to in the new entry?

I’m seeking clarification on this as the page I linked to had sources - and I have additional sources I can add to that page.

If you are expecting people to also add the references on the DOTY pages then the guidelines for the pages need to be explicit in that. It seems to be creating a lot more work though when linking to a topic page that is well-referenced has the same effect of validating the entry. Moira Paul (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The delete for the reference to the last Studebaker highlights the Studebaker page which has the same information, so separate sources should not be necessary. And I was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotspur (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I can only give you the same response as I've given the other people who have also not read the guidelines, which say: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". This requirement was introduced in July last year for DOTY.Deb (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March 16th

Thank you, but I believe you are incorrect in removing Dick Dale from the March 16th page as an unreferenced addition. His birth/death dates were both sourced at the time of my edit, and were still sourced on his page (though not in an obvious place) in the section with his death at the time of your edit. This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dick_Dale&oldid=888335632 was how I saw it, this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dick_Dale&direction=next&oldid=888349988 removed them after my edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_16&oldid=888279801 to March 16. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

??? Deb (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

AFD you might be interested in

You previously participated in an AFD in Star Air but it seem someone pulled a sneaky and re-made the article by moving it from another page. Re-nominated it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Air (India) (2nd nomination) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019 at Women in Red

April 2019, Volume 5, Issue 4, Numbers 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117 Hello and welcome to the April events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: Gender studies / United Nations / Dance Geofocus: Portuguese-speakers Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

2019

Hi, I saw your comment earlier on the yearly page, There was only a discussion on the talk page a while back, and the decision was made by the admins alone, and the choice was to restore it. Also will you please stop telling what I should be editing, and saying that I only focus on US entries? Thanks. Matt Campbell (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't why you are so concerned on what other editors do on here, and I do focus on Non-Us entries. And you don't have the authority to tell me what to do, only the admins do. Matt Campbell (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

What He said. Matt Campbell (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Also can you please stop erasing images. If there's enough on the article page, then everyone is allowed to add another image. Thanks! Matt Campbell (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

the only person that needs to stop is you! There was plenty of space for images to be added and of there is enough space then we are allowed to add them. Matt Campbell (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that exactly. If there is enough space available then everyone is allowed to add an extra image. Don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that. Matt Campbell (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Clearly there isn't enough space for all the images you are adding. You are just adding them for the sake of it, not to improve the articles. Deb (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Forget about the images. Not really a priority right now. Matt Campbell (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your an edit you removed a few names earlier, and neither of them were mentioned on the 2019 talk page. I know that there have been some recent conflicts on the page. Did you have permission from an admin to remove them? Matt Campbell (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't say that your an admin on your profile page, Usually it says it on the categories section of the profile page. And I don't need you telling me how Wikipedia works either. Matt Campbell (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

So you don't know how to recognise an admin and you have full knowledge of the project. Deb (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Lifelong Learning Platform

Hallo Deb, After stub-sorting, and moving, this newly-created article I discovered that you'd deleted a previous one at this title - you might like to see whether this is the same stuff again. There has been sockpuppetry in the area. PamD 16:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

User Dreekie

Hi Deb! I hope you're having a great day and that life is going well for you! I'm just messaging you to let you know that I noticed you set a one-week block on Dreekie and as a vandalism-only account. I figured that you meant to set an indefinite block instead, so I went ahead and updated it and fixed everything for you. If my assumptions are not correct, please let me know and I'll be happy to fix the block to the duration that you believe is justified. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going a bit easy on him as I could see he'd had a few warnings but I wasn't 100% sure he wasn't just thick. Only after I'd checked all his contributions was I sure. Deb (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a copy

Hi Deb, today you had deleted the article I wrote titled Colette Pervette. I read your reasons why, and though I don't agree entirely, I will give it another thorough revision. Unfortunately, I completely forgot to create a backup of the article, and my browser crashed so I can't retrieve it from cache. May you please allow me to view the article temporarily so that I can make a copy? I want to continue working on it and seek feedback on the areas that need improvement. Standing by Olivettilly (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a restore

Hi Deb, you deleted the article Wolfgang Büchele for the reason of advertising. This was a almost identical translation from the German language Wikipedia. Since I don't see any such advertising, please restore the article and let the community work on improvements if necessary. --Rudolf Simon (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Derrick Morris for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Derrick Morris 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/Derrick Morris until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Would you kindly explain in what way am I disruptive? I was trying to reason your edits and you are throwing out false accusations??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23arbitrage (talk • contribs) 19:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion of Jayanta Roy

@user:Deb you are requested to kindly restore the page Jayanta Roy as the recreated page is quite different from the earlier deleted version. The causes of deletion of the earlier version no longer apply to the recreated page. The new page passes WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV WP:COMPOSER. Please go through the new page and reconsider. Davidwarner (talk)

See my response. At present I'm stopping short of accusing you of a COI. Deb (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

2019

Next time before removing names add there names to the talk page so they can be discussed with everyone, thanks. Matt Campbell (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I did - even though I'm not obliged to. Deb (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw some of your reason edits on the article page. I also wanted to give you some heads up, you don't own the document, and not only just about what you want, it's about what everyone want's as well, and what they think as well. Not just you! Matt Campbell (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If it's that important to you, you only need to join in the discussion. Deb (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I already did. Did you even read what I said? Matt Campbell (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are you making two edits every time you leave a message? Deb (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If you send me a message then you need to send it to my talk page. Matt Campbell (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)User:Matt Campbell

@Matt Campbell: okay, a couple of things...

1) *their.

Now that that's out of the way....

2) generally speaking when someone makes a post on a talk page, such as Deb's (where we are now), the full conversation will be held on that page instead of back and forth spreading one conversation on two pages. It took me a moment to figure out what you were trying to trout Deb for, and it looks like it's to a year article. (One reason it's important to keep a conversation in one place for talk page stalkers like myself.

3) Finally, there is no ownership of articles. If Deb removes something (or adds something) to an article, she's contributing to it. If you disagree with something she does, you're welcome to undo the edit and shoot her a message, or you can ask for consensus on the talk page. You're being a little aggressive and bitey (granted, Deb isn't new) here over some disputed material. Deb has asked you multiple times, both here and on the talk page for you to voice your opinion. Instead, you're going off on a tangent about ownership of the article and missing the request for your opinion. Instead of being bitter, why don't you help Deb with improving the article?

Just some advice from someone on the outside (of the convo) looking in. Consensus is much easier to get to when folks aren't trying to read your mind. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 11:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Jayanta Roy

@Deb I did some cleaning-up works on the article. Can you please go through once to guide me whether I should submit it for review or not and also help me to fix up errors if there is. Thanks Davidwarner (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Protecting DOY pages....

A very good day to you....I noticed that you frequently semi-protect said pages (which are to almost 100% already under pending-changes protection), often for longer periods of time. So far, so good. If I take April 25 as an example, disruption (which is undoubtedly there) is on a level of about 1 disruptive edit per week, which, at least imho, is way way under the threshold for semi-protection. And doing it for 3 months is...perhaps too much? Anyway, had to get this of my chest, as I still like to see Wikipedia as the encyclopedia that everyone can edit.. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

:) ------>

Which is of course an essay....Lectonar (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The shortcut, not the bloody page. ——SerialNumber54129 08:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That's why I used the bloody twinkle ";)" in the edit summary Lectonar (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, Lectonar. I understand your concerns. When I started systematically adding references to the DOTY articles and saw how many IPs were just going in on the day of their friend's birthday (or whatever) and adding them to the articles, I felt there was a need for protection. So I started putting protection on for one month. I regularly check the date pages for unreferenced additions and, if the IP problems have recurred after one month, I re-protect for 3 months, which I don't think is unreasonable. In the case of April 25, have a look at the log and you'll see it's been semi-protected no less than five times previously, by other admins, for IP vandalism so I felt 3 months was justified. I don't know what is so attractive about this particular date though. Deb (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  I have seen that, but part of the semi-protections date from times when there wasn't pending-protection available. I still think pending-changes does the job, but will not loose sleep over an article more or less being semi-protected. As I said: just some venting :). Lectonar (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  Lectonar, it seems to me pending protection is making unnecessary additional work for people like you and me. I'm being very careful not to protect all articles for long period, but I have experienced problems in some cases with anon IPs repeatedly using alternative IP addresses to keep replacing the same entries. It's hard to take sock action against an IP. Deb (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Further proposed removals:

Hi, I noticed you wanted more names removed from the article page again, Some of those names you added need to be kept, but not all of them. Matt Campbell (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Also I want to mention your the reason why we had to add references to the article page even though we don't really don't on yearly articles, and your the reason why some of those british names were erased even though some of them were possibly notable, and a few of those actors you removed were possibly notable too. Matt Campbell (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Just so you know I removed Fritz Hollings from the article page. Hope you are happy, because one of them had to go. Matt Campbell (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

One more thing. I don't want you editing the yearly article page anymore because you have cause enough damage to it already, everything was fine until you came along, and starting changing everything without discussion it with other users. Matt Campbell (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Matt Campbell you don't own that yearly article page, so stop acting like you do. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I get it now. Matt Campbell (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Baron Cobham moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Baron Cobham, does not have enough sources and citations 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 click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 20:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121 Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: "May" women / Mayors / Environentalists Geofocus: CEE countries Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

2018

Some of those images were put in the wrong place, that's why I was fixing it up a bit, and I don't agree with the recent changes either. Also I don't anyone to disturb me in a few days because I will be on vacation, thanks. Matt Campbell (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

DOTY referencing

Hi Deb, I recently added a reference on the January 3 article. Please could you check all is good, if not, feel free to delete and tell me what I did wrong. I am trying to help referencing as I know you have a huge task on your hands. The edit was done at about 10:00 (UTC) 4 May. Regards Willbb234 (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Deb/Archive 22,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pope (music)

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 Pope (music), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) 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.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CptViraj (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Gender balance

I noticed you added women's images on year articles. I don't know about Elizabeth Catlett in 2012. I believe you replaced the wrong man, but I don't understand her significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

June events with WIR

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125 Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red: Virtual events: New topics: Pride / Royals / Space Geofocus: Mediterranean Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Just sayin'

Every entry in May 11 is now supported by a source. Whew! Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Derrick Morris

On 23 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Derrick Morris, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Derrick Morris received a new heart in 1980 his chances of survival were slim, but he lived another 25 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Derrick Morris. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Derrick Morris), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Images

You added in a couple of images of people in year articles that somehow have violated WP:NFCC. Please be more careful when adding in people’s images to year articles. I have seen you added a total of five non-free images to five different year articles. You might have balanced it for gender but actually, you violated NFCC five times. I’d be surprised if the edits I did happened to be reverted. Gar (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

What are accusing me of vandalizing? Matt Campbell (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Also please be specific because I don't know what your talking about? Matt Campbell (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)If I had to guess, I'd say this. Toddst1 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, not vandalism. The report has been correctly declined. Come on Todd, Deb, you both know better than this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's repetitive disruptive editing/edit warring, coupled with misleading edit summaries and ownership issues, over a long period, and with little logic behind it. Can you make sense of this, followed by this and then this? It seemed fair to me to warn him rather than allow him to talk himself into another block. Deb (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The point is that as an admin, I'd expect you to know that this kind of thing needs to go to the EW noticeboard, or ANI. The warnings were fine, but the AIV report by Todd was really poor and it's just bolstered Matt's position as a victim here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I know nothing about that, sorry. All I did was warn him, and he didn't really even deserve that after the one he got last month. Deb (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well it's not me to whom you should be apologising. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The "sorry" referred only to my not knowing what you were talking about, and was meant as a courtesy, not an apology. Considering this comment you made yesterday, I don't think you're in a position to accuse anyone else of being mean to the user in question. Deb (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No, that comment was perfectly apt. And I don't recall anything about me accusing you of being "mean" to Matt. What isn't apt is accusing a good faith editor of vandalism. And certainly not the listing at AIV. I know you didn't do that yourself, but honestly, people need to understand fundamental basics around here and it's not happening for some reason. Shocking stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't have given up your editing privileges. Then you would be in a position to enforce what you feel is good practice. Deb (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't give them up, I was a badly behaved human. I never abused my position, but my attitude to some was considered inappropriate. In any case, as an admin, you really really need to understand how FUR works. If you don't or don't want to, avoid it like the plague because it's not simple and errors can be costly. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with The Rambling Man. Matt Campbell (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This article isint promotion, just so your aware.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servicar_(Company) I have no relations to servicar or there brand.

Why contact me? Deb (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)