Jump to content

User talk:Domdeparis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Elizabeth Klinck Website

Hello, with regards to the Elizabeth Klinck site you raised some concerns over a conflict of interest and that the content was not informative enough and read more as a resume. I do not believe there is a conflict of interest when the many sources support Elizabeth's accomplishments. Anyone can Google her name and find the exact same information. In terms of her entry reading like a resume some edits have since been made which I would welcome your feedback on.

16:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)jackjohnmartin16:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackjohnnmartin (talk • contribs)

@Jackjohnnmartin: Hi a conflict of interest does not necessarily effect the quality of an article or the information's validity but it does mean that it is difficult to be neutral about the person. You do not deny that you have a close link to the subject which, by Wikipedia definition, mean's that you have a conflict of interest. As stated in WP:COI "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity". Another editor nominated this page as being non-notable and I agree with him, it would be best for you to make your comments on the page itself here. Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Klinck. I did google her name and I could find almost no independent in-depth coverage of her. I turned up Imdb, linkedin, twitter, her website, all of which are self publishing, I turned up other websites to which she is linked, POV magazine which is linked to DOC of which she is a prominent member, FOCAL International of which she is a member of the board of directors, Sheffield Doc Fest for which she was a speaker. All of these are not considered as independent sources. If you can find other sources please don't hesitate to add them, that said it is generally discouraged to create and edit pages whose subject is a family member. --Domdeparis (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Followup

Jackjohnnmartin (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)jackjohnmartinJackjohnnmartin (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC) I think the tone of the article is neutral and only promotes the facts of her career. I find it confusing why you believe her accomplishments might be fabricated because there is no independent coverage when the article includes sources from the Emmys, Yorkton film festival and Focal international. Sheffield is an independent festival that contracted her to give a workshop. I don't see how that is a conflict of interest. Since you are British, winning an award in Canada from the Geminis or Canadian Screen Award is the equivalent to winning a BAFTA. It is a nationally recognized award so to dismiss her as non-notable speaks only to your ignorance of the Canadian film industry.

Hi @Jackjohnnmartin: first of all no-one said that your wife's accomplishments are fabricated but they need to be sourced and have been widely covered by independent sources. I don't think you understand the meaning of conflict of interest in terms of Wikipedia editing and the difference between independent and affiliated sources. You must really declare your connection with the subject on the talk page or explain the coincidence between your user name and her husband's name. And just for information I do know what the Geminis are and as an anecdote my father was a sound engineer and a one-time Bafta winner but even with 40 years in the industry and a list of credits that is at least 3 times as long as your wife's I would never create a page for him as I understand that it is impossible to have a neutral POV when dealing with a family member. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Georges Wolinski

Georges Wolinski was born in Tunisia and had a mother who was from Tunisia. That makes him a "Maghrebian" (Maghrebian community of Paris covers Muslims and Jews) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


Alright.. I'm looking through references. Here's one thing I found:

Another: Oftentimes ethnic identity isn't as simple as the passport. One article talking about students in international schools stated that they have difficulty deciding who they are since they often move between places, are in different educational environments, and have different parents.

Using your Frenchman example: If his mother was American he could think of himself as such (since he was born in the USA he would automatically have US citizenship even if he had no American parents).

Third: Maybe the title should be changed, but when I wrote Maghrebian community of Paris I intended for it to be about all people living in the Paris region who have North African blood, including all nationalities and all religions, even if they split themselves up into sub-groups and only socialize within those subgroups. The focus is intentionally broad. I'm open for it to be renamed. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason why they are discussed about in a single article is because a lot of the references I consulted discuss "North Africans" as a single group. A lot of how these categories are decided is how the literature (books, magazines, newspaper articles, etc.) defines the group of people. A lot of the sources I consulted discuss "North Africans" and "Maghrebin" and "Franco-Maghrebians" while some which refer to Maurice Papon's crackdown refer to "Algerians."

Example: Davidson p. 129 states: "The "community" of Algerians, Moroccans, and Tunisians, however, was certainly not monolithic, as even the police acknowledged in their discussion of the North African "populations" of the Paris region"" but the rest of the essay still refers to "North Africans."

I wonder if the issue could be fixed by using the title "North African communities in Paris" with communities being plural? If North African has a better connotation that name could be used instead. Then "communities" would show that there are many different communities rather than just one. What do you think? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed the title to North African communities of Paris, and I linked to Pied-Noirs from that article. I can do the same from Wolinski's article too WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW there are other instances where broad ethnic groups have many subgroups:

  • Indo-Canadians in Greater Toronto - "Indo-Canadian" refers to any Canadian of any South Asian background, so Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalis, etc. are all included
  • Armenians in Los Angeles - Armenians are divided depending on which country they originated from: Armenia, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon/Syria, and/or Egypt. Iranian Armenians are also discussed in Iranians in Los Angeles: Iranians themselves may be divided into Muslims, Jews, atheists, and/or Christian Armenians

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how many French come from Libya or Mauritania (or whether they are counted as North Africans/Maghrebin). I think if Wolinsky identifies as any one of the subgroups (for example: "Tunisian") I think it would satisfy things. In the North African communities in Paris I cited the quote that says that the "North African" group has many different types of subgroups WhisperToMe (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Olive branch

Hey, sorry we got off on the wrong foot. Perhaps we can move forward more prouctively in the future. Hope so, we need more editors for wikiproject equine. Montanabw(talk) 08:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Montanabw! No problem whatsoever! The olive branch is received with pleasure!!! And I'm sorry too so looking forward to maybe seeing you on other pages. Without being an expert I spent all my childhood and youth and some of my adult life around horses and am now also involved as a volunteer in the organisational team of one of the legs of the Longines Global Champions Tour, the Chantilly Jumping so I am quite passionate as you are by the looks of your contributions. And like I said I'm a freelance translator and do quite a lot of research on the subject sometimes. Domdeparis (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That's excellent. With 3000 articles tagged for WikiProject Equine (WP:EQUINE if you want to join) and almost 10,000 for WikiProject Horse racing (many racehorse "biographies" there) there's plenty to do. One thing we very badly need is a global perspective on the international competition event articles. One thing I have longed to do but never put on the front burner is to properly source and cite to the FEI rules for Eventing, Show jumping, and Dressage. (Someone seems to maintain the Combined driving article, but that's about all) I've often thought that the "rules" sections of these articles needed to start with the FEI standards and then, those who cared could also create sections on the lower-level national styles/rules for the USA, the UK, etc. The big thing is that I really want to avoid a US-versus-everyone-else situation, as each view has legitimacy. We probably need to do some talk page discussions on many of the other articles on management and such. Though over the years there is something on just about everything, there is a lot of cleanup needed too -- my own work from 2006 has much room for improvement, and there are articles created in 2004 or earlier that I may have popped by to modify the biggest mistakes, but other than that they languish. Anyway, I'm rambling. Welcome! Montanabw(talk) 21:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes! Welcome to WikiProject Equine! I'm especially glad to see that you know about the FEI disciplines, because many of the people here (me included) have little experience with that level of horsedom. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello, I'm Omni Flames. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Queen Rania of Jordan  with this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Omni Flames (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


Remove that red thing from the page "Giorgi Koshadze"

He is announced in extended squad for Georgia as a Centre. This is his first cap for National side after 2016 U20 Championship in England. His name is on Georgian Rugby Union site as squad member. He is in France right now together with a team for 1 week training course.

After what He will play his First match in Tbilisi against Japan.

Why you want to delete that page. it is ordinary Rugby player's page. --GeoRugby (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi GeoRugby I presume that when you say "remove that red thing" it is because you do not understand a/ it is for an administrator to decide and b/ you shouldn't be giving me instructions Domdeparis (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I hope you feel happy. ) after you put that red "thing" on the page. I added another source from GRU official web page. let it be like this if you wish it with all your heart. best wishes... --GeoRugby (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

GeoRugby the idea is to only create pages for people that are notable. A young rugby player that has only played for one season and never for his country is not notable. You have created a lot of similar pages and none of them are noteworthy. Wikipedia is not a place to find everything about anything but an encyclopedia of noteworthy content. it would be better to remove these pages yourself. Domdeparis (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle

Go to Preferences>>Gadgets>>Enable Twinkle>>Sabe. Now if you want to nominate an article for deletion. go to the article, hover mouse of TW, click on XFD, and nominate it. However please do some research before nominating. --Tito Dutta (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tito Dutta I have researched the criteria WP:NRU and the player and he unfortunately comes nowhere near being notable enough. I shall use Twinkle to renominate him. Thanks for your help. Domdeparis (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, whats the problem with the wiki I made

What's the problem with it did you not think of actually telling me what is wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPlunkett (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi MrPlunkett please be more precise. --Domdeparis (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I made one on chronicles of Elyria and instead of telling me how to fix it you marked it for deletion and now I have lost all that work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPlunkett (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi MrPlunkett it is blatant advertising for a product that has not even come out yet hence my nomination for a speedy delete. I believe there is only one way to fix it and that is to wait until the product has been released and has become notable as per the criteria WP:GNG. There is no way of fixing it until then. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your products and if you are linked to the product please read WP:COI. You might want to contact RickBaltimore who validated the deletion. --Domdeparis (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

To second that, there's not any notability on the game as it is now. Games that have not been launched can be notable, but in the case for this game, there is not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to show how the game meets our general notability guidelines. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Dschslava. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, DJ Blue, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 21:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxwell Kalman

Please see my note on your AFD discussion. Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Cambridge Islamic College

Sorry, you can't use A7 on educational establishments (it says so on the label...). Schools, colleges and universities have to have prod or AfD (or both if prod is removed). What the position of driving schools and training centres for short order cooks is, I've never managed to find out. Peridon (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Peridon: Thanks My bad, can't quite work out why schools are exempt but there you go. --Domdeparis (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I've never been too sure on that either. One of those odd things that working on consensus throws up. High schools and universities are presumed to be notable, but no-one can easily point to where it was decided. Or even if. Junior schools are apparently considered non-notable unless very clearly proved to be, but are not allowed to be dealt with by A7. Middle schools are a headache as they cross the bounds of both high and junior. Peridon (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy_Panos

Why is it up for deletion why don't you just fix it???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanHartman389 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @RyanHartman389:, have you read what I wrote in my nomination? I wrote that he is not notable as per the criteria. The only way I could personally fix that is either get the wikipedia community to change the cirteria or to find him a position as a player in a team that means he doesn't fail the WP:NHOCKEY criteria. You might want to read them and then make an argument on the talk page if you think he does fulfill the criteria. --Domdeparis (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It does meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanHartman389 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @RyanHartman389: I see you changed your comment to Wikipedia:Notability (people) from as a hockey player (I was just about to ask which of the criteria he fulfills). If you think he fulfills the WP:GNG then you should argue this on the talk page but he clearly doesn't fulfill the WP:NHOCKEY criteria and I can see nothing really that makes him notable outside of sport. Please read the WP:BIO page for more info. --Domdeparis (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

His social media presence makes him very notable but cannot be posted on wiki. I personally removed the tags for hockey player and coach. Search him up on instagram. He is known for his social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanHartman389 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @RyanHartman389: there is a reason that social media is not considered as a reliable source for notability. Please read carefully WP:BIO and then make your argument based on that on the talk page and not here as the other editors will make their decision to close on the debate that goes on there and not here. Domdeparis (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of my page

Hello,

Could you please advise why you have put the page I created Gulfbankers Executive search up for deletion? There is no promotion of the company the page merely provides details, states facts and provides articles from third party sources discussing the company. Many other companies have Wikipedia pages, and I do not see how this one differs at all from the likes of the 'Page Group' recruitment company or many others. Please explain what on this page is not adhering to the rules and I will amend it

It was just deleted without an explanation or a chance for me to make any changes, thank you 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayanebaveyan (talk • contribs) 13:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Gayanebaveyan: You should read WP:ORG and the WP:GNG and also WP:NOTPROMOTION and also WP:COI as you seem to be connected to the company as well as WP:DISCLOSURE. These will be good starting points for you I think. Please remember to sign all your comments on talk pages, and remember that it is not "your" page as per WP:OWN policy. --Domdeparis (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Phibbs

Hi, DomdeParis,
Thanks for taking notice of the page I have just created for Joseph Phibbs. The work for this has been long in the preparation and in careful consultation. The difficulty with writing about living persons without creating a sort of advertisement for them (which I was specially trying to avoid) left me thinking that the most important and notable thing about a musical composer is his compositions and the circumstances and personnel involved in their performance, and that these, properly listed, should speak for themselves. The information that is given is therefore as useful and complete as it can be, and avoids repeating it all in a résumé which would be more disorderly, disconnected and piecemeal.
I believe if you will look at pages for other composers you will find that the listing of their works in this way is quite usual in Wikipedia, and that while this is longer than some, it is shorter than others and is carefully constructed into sections and by chronological means. (John Taverner, for instance, or Alexander Goehr, or Phibbs's own teacher Steven Stucky). I accept that the list is long, but it is also useful and as carefully referenced as I so far been able to make it. The intention is to write a further section in the text area describing Phibbs's creative intentions, choice of texts, etc.
I therefore propose to remove your tag referring to proportion of text to list, and instead to create a heading 'Nature of works' (or something like that) and to place a 'work in progress' tag in that section. It is the nature of Wikipedia articles to develop incrementally and it is in that area of text that some further development will be forthcoming. I am not an inexperienced Wikipedia editor and I am aware of the article's unbalanced appearance at present: I hope you will consider this to be a sensible and helpful solution to a difficult process, since to write objectively and carefully about a living musician's creative processes is treading on thin ice, and one cannot do everything all at once. Meanwhile the references provide both a verification of the contents and direct links to a wide range of non-subjective commentary on his music from authoritative sources. Thanks, Eebahgum (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Eebahgum: I do understand what you are saying and there is no doubt that the information is important and complete but I am worried about the weight of the works in the article the lists and especially the references take up an enormous space in the article. Would in not be better to select notable works and create stand alone lists? As per MOS:EMBED, the manual states "and that if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists per WP:Summary style" I am not a music buff I am more worried about the structure of the articles. This composer has been writing 6 or 7 pieces per year the page will no doubt continue to grow. Domdeparis (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Good morning sir! Thanks for reply. I must take issue with you in saying that the lists and references take up an "enormous" space. Many articles have upwards of 200 references, and often another 200 footnotes on top of that. 50-60 references is a very reasonable number for a middle-sized article on a serious subject in Wikipedia. The format, with short biographical details and substantial listing of works, is quite typical for articles on classical music composers in Wikipedia, and is modelled on typical entries in the respected Dictionaries of musicians (e.g. Grove, or Eaglefield-Hull), where biographical details are often shorter than listing of works.
I can't quote the manual of style as you do, despite my 10 years of editing, but I would refer you to two very long-standing and really underlying principles which certainly still exist.
First, that if a subject for an article is established as notable, then the length of the article is - within reason, and with due conciseness of data presentation and written style - not constrained by limits of space in the way that it would be in a printed book, where page-space is at a premium. For those who are interested in any subject which is agreed to be notable, it is appropriate that Wikipedia should give a full, clear, verifiable statement of the matter. The present article as it stands is only 25,000 bytes in total, list, references, text and all, which is pretty concise considering how much well-organized information it contains. I don't know where you usually edit, but that is very short even for a mid-length article around this neck of the woods. The refs/notes and lists are not there merely as an appendage to the article, but form much of the body of it, and, as in any professional writing, are intended to be read, not merely to pay service to a requirement for verifiability. The links are also supposed to be followed and read. It would be a good thing if all of Wikipedia were written with the same conciseness and linkage to wider reading, which, after all, is where Wiki beats all other encyclopedias.
The second principle I think of is WP:IMPERFECT: work is always going on, and when compiling a mid-length article there comes a point where it is better to work in page-space so that all the links can be followed and other contributions can come in. Your contribution, to point out an imbalance of text to other content, and to suggest the editing-down of the listed music, is entirely valid. My response to it (as the one of the two of us more likely to be able to effect such an alteration based on knowledge of the subject) is (a) that it would be excessive and possibly embarrassing to extend a young composer's Wikipedia presence over two articles, (b) I am not responsible for the extent of his output, (c) it may well seem desirable to remove some lesser works as the article progresses, (d) it is undesirable to extend this discussion much as it gets in the way of working on the article, and (e) for the reasons stated above I do not believe the problem is so great as you perceive it to be, taken in the context of other articles on similar subjects (which I would invite you to research). Finally, the flexibility of Wikipedia includes the possibility of allowing different subjects to be presented in different ways.
Your tag doesn't actually refer to the quantity of the list and refs, but to the proportions of text, lists and refs. I think my presentation gives the facts clearly, dispassionately and in order. But if what you are really saying is that you would like the article have a bit more discursive text, telling us more about the man and his work, I agree with you, and then the proportions would be better. That will take more time to do, especially as one doesn't want to pad it out for the sake of it, nor does one want to get into doubtful or subjective territory. Personally I would regret to see the list of works detached from the article. If you can be happy with that as my intention, I shall leave your tag as it is and will hope that I and others may find ways of improving it and taking due and fair account of your observation, now that (since 4.30 yesterday) the basis for an article does actually exist. Rome was not built in a day. Sorry this is so long, but I owe you fair explanations! Regards, Eebahgum (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ryan Mack

Made the pace by accident. Somebody made the Dallas Cowboys page have three rosters instead of the single current roster all of the other NFL pages have. Ryan Mack was on the opening day roster which I though was current so I made a page thinking he was an active player. I do agree with a speedy deletion and only make pages for NFL players on active 53-man rosters. Toeknee44 (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Toeknee44:. Hi @WikiOriginal-9: I rolled back you GF edit here's confirmation from the page creator why. Cheers --Domdeparis (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Golden Palace Hotel

Hello. Can you explain your edit in the Golden Palace Hotel article? Thanks.--Preacher lad (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Preacher lad: there is nothing in the article that claims any notability and it reads like an advertisement for the hotel and nothing more. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Then please take a quick look through the following articles:

and there are many more... Regards.--Preacher lad (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Preacher lad: From what I can gather these are articles have been created by a single user and even so as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS just because you can find similar pages this is not a reason to accept all articles. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists, all article have to meet WP:GNG themselves and there is no inherited notability. If this were the case every book in the world would have its page simply because The Catcher in the Rye does or Sense and Sensibility or The World According to Garp or A Child's Christmas in Wales. it is possible that this hotel is notable but IMHO there is nothing in your article that proves it yet but you can improve it by adding information and sources. Domdeparis (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand that you may argue its notability, but it is not a intended to promote the structure.--Preacher lad (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
As it was written it was purely promotional even if this was not your intention, I think it would be better to take the discussion to the talk page so that everyone can see it especially those that would want to delete it. cheers Domdeparis (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi dear. I have made many more edits in the article. Hopefully this will help to avoid the above-mentioned accusations.--Preacher lad (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thames Valley Housing Association

Just a heads up in case you are not aware, there is currently a fairly high profile BBC editathon happening. So if it you come across an article that seems to be on the edge as far as CSD goes, this would be a good time to crack down for 15 or 20 minutes and try to improve it, rather than mark for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 15:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the heads up I saw something with a hashtag and 100 women or something like that. I don't live in the UK anymore so I am a bit out of touch. I'll hava shufti --Domdeparis (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Talin Seik Village

Just a friendly heads up on Talin Seik Village. It's a good idea to check the page history even on new articles -- it was a redirect that was overwritten. I've changed it back to a redirect instead of deleting it. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Fabrictramp: I saw it was a redirect but as both articles were almost identical and I have searched all over the web and could not find any trace of the village let alone it being notable. That's why I marked it up for deletion. Did you manage to find anything ? --Domdeparis (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't spend much time looking because I had to head off to work. But any deletion tag would go first on the actual article, and "no context" wouldn't apply. A7 wouldn't apply either -- looks like PROD would be the way to go.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Good afeternoon

File:Pedro Fernando.jpg Pedro Fernando
Greetings, please do not delete the page Pedro Fernando PedrocasFernando (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Konstantinos Nazis

Hello Domdeparis, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Konstantinos Nazis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 21:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Raikos

Hello Domdeparis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Raikos, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: in my interpretation, A9 does not apply to folkloric tunes; this, as far as I'm concerned, is an article which could do with improvement rather than deletion. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Aegidienkirche, Lübeck

I thought I should clarify why I changed the tag to unsourced. I could have tagged the "sources" with failed verification or something, but the parish website and the choir's support nothing that is stated in the article. They are really not sources in any way, so I made them what they really are, external links. Nothing worth edit warring over though. Have fun. Mduvekot (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mduvekot totally agree that it's not worth arguing over but if you go to this page on the EL cited http://www.aegidien-kirche-luebeck.de/index.php/kirche-und-gemeinde you will see that some of the information on the article page is supported here notably the bit about the church's coat of arms in the form of a T, so it is a source (though not very well cited as you have to click around) but not footnoted correctly and a lot of the other information comes directly from the German version of the article page from what I can gather. That's why I reverted your edit as the article is sourced by EL which partly supports the information. I'm just being a bit pedantic I suppose but also thought it was important as your tag is easily challenged and removable without improving the article and the first one is not so easily challenged. If I get a couple of minutes and the creator doesn't do it himself I'll try and improve the referencing. Cheers --Domdeparis (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

the tours

Isn't it so perplexing why an editor would take all that time to create those Cure tour pages [with tables and all], just to be unresponsive and leave them unsourced? I've seen it happen before - some user making tons of Bee Gees tour pages, and now Jackson 5 tour pages. He's been warned and taken to ANI but nothing happens! why do they even bother ^_^ 8-(--Jennica✿ / ::::::: talk 10:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jennica I don't understand either especially as there must be tons of sources out there but it's not the job of other editors to complete lazy editors' work. --Domdeparis (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

George V. Pixley

Hello Domdeparis. The article has eleven references, seven from reliable secondary sources and independent authors and, a reference from the academic institution of which Pixley is director at present time. Seven articles link there (in the article). Pixley is relevant in Process Theology and a well-known liberation theologian. He wrote fourteen books from 1971 to 2009, that have been published in at least five languages (see text). Please, remove the template "notability".

Greetings, JabaquaraSP00 (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@JabaquaraSP00: I'm delighted to hear that you are improving the article and that you have added 11 references (but please note it is not the quantity of references but their quality that is important) but despite this he may not still meet the criteria WP:PROF. From what I can see he may not be notable but I have not tagged the article for deletion. You must prove that he fulfills the WP:GNG if he is not notable as an academic. I would suggest that you read Help:Maintenance template removal#When to remove this should help you. The best place to have this discussion is on the article's talk page as any interested editors can participate. As the article was first written there was a strong doubt in my mind that the subject was not notable enough to have a page dedicated to him but not enough to tag it for deletion. This tag is a signal to the creator of the article that he may have some more work to do on the article at least in the opinion of he that placed it there. As the article stands I still have a doubt that the subject is notable enough but I may be wrong so i will leave it up to someone else to remove the template as per the How-to guide mentioned above. Domdeparis (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Domdeparis. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 14:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hikmat Shadman

If you dont mind tell me why should this article be deleted Kdh (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi @Bukti.khan: as it states on the tag "This article is about a living person and appears to have no references. All biographies of living people created after March 2010 must have at least one reference to a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. If no reliable references are found and added within a seven-day grace period, this article may be deleted. This is an important policy to help prevent the retention of incorrect material." Please read this. Help:Referencing for beginners. As it stands there is nothing in the article that merits its inclusion in Wikipedia but rather than asking for its deletion straight away I tagged it to help you. You must add some more information otherwise it may be deleted as having no context. I will post a welcome message to your user page with some useful information. --Domdeparis (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wim De Waele

Hello Domdeparis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wim De Waele, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi @Salvio giuliano: I tagged the above article as an A7 as nothing in his bio seemed significant to me. Simply being holding posts in certain companies albeit with the title of VP or CTO would not make him notable as such. I read the A7 guideline and it says
A "Credible claim of significance" is a two-part test: Credible and significant. A good mental test is to consider each part discretely:
a) is this reasonably plausible?
b) assuming this were true, would this (or something that 'this' might plausibly imply) cause a person to be notable? Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?
It looks like a simple CV and there are no claims to notability in there. I'm a bit lost can you explain what is significant about the person that i must have missed or misunderstood in the article? Thanks --Domdeparis (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the person probably isn't notable, but A7 is not about notability, but rather significance, which is a far lower threshold. In this case, in my opinion, being the director of a nonprofit organisation founded by the Flemish Government for me is a sufficient claim of importance. A7 is tricky because different admins have differing opinions as to what a "credible assertion of importance" is, but this is the sort of article for which a WP:PROD would be more appropriate, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Salvio giuliano: thanks for the explanation. --Domdeparis (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Wim De Waele

Hi Domdeparis, I think your right. Wrong dude, although it would be worth changing the article to the other Waele who is clearly notable. I'll revert it at the moment, until you decide. Might be worth putting an entry into Requested Articles for him. scope_creep (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Scope creep: Thanks when you've done that I'll move the page to Wim de Waele (economist) and do a requested article for Wim de Waele (academic). --Domdeparis (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Contesting Speedy Deletion of CounterMedia Trust

The subject is notable as it has been reported by more than a few print publications as well as well-regarded online publications. This is a serious entity in the field of Indian journalism and the present article has important information regarding its relationship with PARI. Alberun (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Domdeparis. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 14:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

สนามบินเกาะไม้ซี้ listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect สนามบินเกาะไม้ซี้. Since you had some involvement with the สนามบินเกาะไม้ซี้ redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Iadmc♫talk  08:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with Nhub Nigeria Article?

I think it is unfair to remove the article. Could you please replace the article and I will fix it to wikipedia standards. It is a very important page and will reference as required. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaSkeptik (talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @DaSkeptik: the article may well be important to you but I tagged it as being unambiguous advertising and/or promotion. The way the article was written was not in a neutral manner as per WP:NPOV. You might want to read this WP:NOTSOAPBOX and probably submit your article as a draft first here Wikipedia:Articles for creation where experienced editors can help you to avoid making the same mistakes again. --Domdeparis (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC) p.s. please remember to sign all comments on talk pages with ~~~~

alright thanks! ill take note of this. I cant find the content I created in order to submit to "Articles for creation" and/or edit?DaSkeptik (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You need to ask the admin who deleted it to restore it as a draft. --Domdeparis (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedies

Hi, I've removed the speedy deletion templates from the articles Wendell Haskins and Blake Morgan (choral singer) because I don't think either of them fit the criteria. A case for PROD could be made on the former but I think the latter just requires cleanup. Thanks! DrStrauss talk 16:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @DrStrauss: I'm sorry but I don't agree especially with your comments about the Blake Morgan page. There is noting in the article that supports a notability claim I checked out all the links and when they are not primary sources they just mention him in passing. He comes nowhere near meeting the WP:NSINGER criteria; The claims of awards are in fact as an undergraduate college singer. The page mentions him as being a member of an ensemble or chorus which does not qualify him as being individually notable. His supposedly successful crowdfunding has raised 4k$ from 118 people. There are no claims that if proven to be true would cause this person to be notable and as such he fails the WP:CSS. As for Wendell Haskins I could see nothing notable about this person he is a jobbing exec but there are millions of jobbing execs in the world, the only claim to notability is the creation of the Original tee Classic, a page that has just been deleted as a non notable event. there must be something I am missing about the A7 category could you be more precise about why you refused the speedies please --Domdeparis (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hm. Didn't think of checking those specific policies. My apologies - I'll reinstate them. DrStrauss talk 17:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @DrStrauss: Cheers --Domdeparis (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I have declined the speedy for Blake Morgan. For speedy, the criterion is claim of notability, not proof. There is plenty of claim. I suggest you take it to AfD. LadyofShalott 18:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedies for mixtape and album articles

Hey there. I'd strongly recommend you'd look at the citation or reference section of each album article before nominating it for deletion. For Inhale C-4 $$$$$ and VANISHING VISION (INTERNET CLUB album), it was clear as daylight that there sources such as Pitchfork, Medium, Dummy, Fact and Tiny Mix Tapes (all independent publications), significantly discussing those albums, therefore they are notable releases. Never do this crap again!!!!! Thank you editorEهեইдအ😎 18:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

who the hell do you think you are? I did look at them and I still maintain that the album is not notable. Discuss it on the talk page and try and stay polite, if you can't then keep quiet. Domdeparis (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's a better question, what are your outrageously high standards on notability? There are similar short yet notable articles here like Floral Shoppe that have received the same amount of significant coverage. If there's at least four independent sources that significantly talk about the album, it's notable, end of story. A best albums by an independent publication and being named "essential" of a genre by a independent publication should be good enough to show its significance. Your deleting of the article was beyond disruptive to the Wikipedia community and its mission. And that's being polite as possible to you. Never do it again! editorEهեইдအ😎 19:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Madtown Movie

The subject (Movie) is notable as it has been reported in print publications (Cleveland Plain Dealer...Ohio,s Largest Newspaper) as well as well-regarded online publications (Deadline and Variety). The lead character Milo was just on the Tonight Show on Feb 21st 2017.

Could you please be more specific as to why you feel that it is not worthy? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidgoebel (talk • contribs) 15:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Davidgoebel: my comments were pretty specific but to be a little clearer the film is said to have come out in 2016 but there are no reviews whatsoever anywhere the article is routine coverage simply saying that it has been entered for festivals in an effort to find buyers. As per any article it must meet the GNG criteria which state that the coverage has to be in-depth and independent and IMHO this is not the case. If you would like to read WP:NFF you will find the following sentence

"Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines" --Domdeparis (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
p.s. please remember to sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~

Bubo leakeyae

I've restored the article creator's reversion of your redirect of this page. Being a distinct species is a claim to notability and per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES it would likely survive an AfD. Reverting a speedy redirect on an article with a plausible claim to notability is very similar to contesting a PROD, and if you disagree with it, you should take it to AfD. The article creator in question has been creating a lot of articles on prehistoric species without citations, but they are normally real species that can be found pretty easily and cited. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @TonyBallioni: thanks for that. To be perfectly honest I didn't imagine for 1 minute that a 1 line that just repeats what is on the other page would be considered as notable. There are literally millions of extinct species that don't have their own pages. That said there is a project page for Palaeontology that disagrees with this. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Single-species articles. I'd be interested to have you views on that before reverting the edit and citing it. I'd be tempted to say that if the coverage is not in depth there is no need for a page. --Domdeparis (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping: I'm traveling today so won't have much time to look around to see if I could expand it. If you don't mind, I'll get back to you sometime this weekend? I was only aware of what the general rule was for living species, not extinct ones up to this point! TonyBallioni (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: no problems. What I'll do is leave a message on the Paleontology project's talk page to see if someone has a view on the subject. I'll ping you there --Domdeparis (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: I don't know if you've had time to have a look at the paleontology project talk page but I've got a very experienced editor who is part of the project backing me so I will go ahead and revert the undo of the redirect with a comment on the talk page. He is suggesting that if there are just a few paragraphs it doesn't merit an article and this one has 1 single line.

February 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Celestina007. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to @GeoRugby: While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Celestina007: I have no idea what you are talking about. Please clarify. Domdeparis (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirecting

Hi Domdeparis, when making a redirect as for Bubo leakeyae, and in particular, if you are making a point of dropping a note about it on the talk page, please also update the wikiproject classes. Thanks, LadyofShalott 20:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @LadyofShalott: sorry I'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you explain please I may have missed something. Thanks Domdeparis (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, sure. I'm talking about assessment in the WikiProject banners at the top of the talk page. The article was a stuband assessed as such, but you made it a redirect. I reassessed it in this edit. LadyofShalott 01:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@LadyofShalott: thanks for the explanation I'll make sure I finish the work next time! Domdeparis (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Responsible Journalism studies article deletion

The article was obviously incomplete before you proposed that it be deleted. Still, I will not contest your proposal, but will attempt to present the topic in a better and more complete format next time. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Scottperry: I nominated the article for deletion as there were 2 empty references after a claim that it is a course topic in "several universities" there seemed to be some original research in there too and I found nothing in a search that suggested that is more than a course topic that is part of a larger curriculum in journalism schools. I would imagine that this subject could be included in Ethical Journalism unless there is really in-depth coverage to show that this particular course topic merits its own page. Maybe it would have been better to leave it in the draft space as it was incomplete or tag it with a {{under construction}} template. Cheers Domdeparis (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

House of Percy

I am glad to see that you reverted to edit to the redirect Percy family (diff).

I think that such a move is controversial so you need to make a WP:RM#CM request on Talk:House of Percy. -- PBS (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @PBS: I am absolutely certain of the move of House of Percy to Percy family because House of is a term reserved for royal dynasties and not noble families as per House of. I cannot do it for technical reasons. I am surprised that you say that it would be controversial though. House of is not the accepted form in English of talking about a noble family that did not produce a royal dynasty (except in Games of Throne!). Burke's peerage refers to families and only ever uses "House of" when talking about a royal house. Domdeparis (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
If your arguments are persuasive than there will be a consensus for a move, but I think you should use WP:RM#CM. -- PBS (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see WT:RM#House of -- PBS (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

test

test --Domdeparis (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NRU - Georgia

Hi @domdeparis, I'm back again to talk about WP:NRU. I know we had a good go at trying to totally redo the notability guidelines for rugby, which fell on deaf ears, but I have a new suggestion. The most glaring probelm with the current guidelines is Georgia's absence from being notable just for playing for Georgia, with many other teams which are generally viewed as below Georgia being granted this right. I just stumbled across a recent document from World Rugby, referring to this summer's internationals. It is conveniently colour coded to distinguish Tier 1 vs Tier 1, Tier 2 vs Tier 1 and Tier 2 vs Tier 2 matches. Georgia is explicitly shown as Tier 2, amongst a bunch of nations which are already deemed high-performance in the current WP:NRU. I know the current guidelines are pretty rubbish and need an overhaul, but we both saw that's going to be very tricky so I propose just using this most recent information to squeeze Georgia in the back door. I see this as a 'better than nothing' solution. You seemed to be pretty good at this stuff last time so I thought I'd post the link here and hear your thoughts on whether you think this is doable, then have a go at getting this one through.

Here's the link: file:///C:/Users/Lili/Downloads/170323-June-2017-Fixtures.pdf

Also, nice to see a fellow Bristolian on here! BulgarianBoy21 (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Skemcraig (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richthofen Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montclair. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletiion of Cappadochia/sandbox

Greeting Domdeparis!

My name is CnocBride and I am leaving this message in relation to the speedy deletion of Cappadochia/sandbox. It seems that you may have left the notice on the wrong talk page. I have no knowledge of this page whatsoever and am quite puzzled by the fact that I am being notified. I do not know if it is a system mistake or a mistake on your part. So I was just wondering do you know anything about this little incident? Jeermud (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Jeermud: it must be a system error as it is a message automatically generated by twinkle. Domdeparis (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi! No worries. Just sorting it out. Good day! -Jeermud (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What did I do?

Hi, You seem to have accused me of doing something that wasn't constructive and linked to a deleted page so I can't see what it was? I am not sure I have made any edits that have not been constructive, apart, possibly from this one. RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@RaRaRasputin: As I explained in my notification it is forbidden to modify Afd discussions after their closure which you did here; You modified your own comments on a closed discussion this is disruptive editing as anyone looking at the page will not have a true version of the discussion. You must not modify your comments after someone has replied or they have been there for a little while and definitely not after a discussion has been closed. In an open discussion you are allowed to strike comments by redacting, see WP:REDACT for more information. Domdeparis (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I see. My apologies. I am a slow editor and didn't realize the discussion had closed by the time I entered the comments. I'll try to double check better in future. Thanks. RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Whether you are slow or not if you had started your edit before the closing of this discussion when you saved your changes there was a notification of an edit conflict as the discussion had already been modified. You should have taken heed of this notification and checked what the edits were. before continuing. Domdeparis (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marta Cunningham (director), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Grown Ups (TV series) and Maggie (TV series). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Iván Iglesias

Hello there from Portugal,

I think we have reached a good place with your edit. Sorry for any inconvenience (especially the completely-out-of-place summary, not insulting or anything but idiotic nonetheless), continue the good work --85.242.133.151 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem 85.242.133.151 just trying to make Wikipedia a place where the articles are understandable by everyone and not just the initiated. Happy editing! Domdeparis (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Bea Priestley's article speedy deletation nomiation

Hi Domeparis

I'm coming forward to tell you, what is the problem with me and my articles? It has reliable sources and it fits all the policies. Also do you know about professional wrestling?

I would like you take the speedy deletation because she is notable, she is current a women's champion and she also is the girlfriend of notable professional wrestler Will Ospreay, so instead of deleting it why don't at least ask to improve it?

I hope you can understand

Thanks for your time

TheBuilder456 (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

P.s:Also with this you tell to be bold, but how can I be bold if every article I create is speedy deleted?

Hi @TheBuilder456: First off this is not the best place to discuss the problem because only you and I will see it and the admin that decides to delete or not the article will not see it. I suggest you click on the link and leave you arguments on the talk page. Domdeparis (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi already left my argument but I don't think it will make the article kept, because I wanted that article to be recognized, and so I think it should not be deleted so could you take the speedy deletation notice or it has to be an admin? If it is an admin who can I find to keep the article?

Thanks for your time

TheBuilder456 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ponjit Dowarah

Why Ponjit Dowarah it has good references with notability person Pankaj Acharaya (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Pankaj Acharaya: I don't agree. He is a relatively low level police officer and the sources are just routine. Please do not remove speedy delete tags from articles you have created. This is not allowed. Domdeparis (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Contactpage

I think these all need striking, but I want to be sure I am within policy doing so. Dlohcierekim 16:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017

Hello, you participated in the deletion discussion for the article List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017, which was deleted as a result. I have taken the closure to deletion review, and it may interest you to take part in it. Thank you. ℯxplicit 06:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Domdeparis. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Swarm ♠ 03:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: thanks very much, I will do all I can to get the backlog down. cheers Domdeparis (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Suhani Jalota, Domdeparis.

Unfortunately Markdask has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Hi - thank you for writing this article. I think the Myna Foundation might have links with the Mona Foundation, which might be helpful to you in developing this article.

To reply, leave a comment on Markdask's talk page.

MarkDask 10:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Markdask: I'm afraid I'm new to the curation tool and when I reviewed the article i could see no glaring errors and I don't understand your comment about developing the article. Could you explain why you unreviewed the article and what mistake I made that you corrected to enable you to mark it as reviewed yourself? thanks for your help. Domdeparis (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Oops my bad Domdeparis - I did not mean to un-review Suhani Jalota - my only purpose was to bring the author's attention to the Mona Foundation page as a matter of interest. I am not new to reviewing but the new "Curation tool" has some glitches; instead of simply accepting my comment it unreviews simultaneous with accepting the comment.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. MarkDask 13:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem thanks for you reply I've just started using the tool today so the learning curve is very steep!!! Domdeparis (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Very steep lol - That said the new tool is a vast improvement on previous. Btw I tend to mark brief articles as stubs to encourage the author to develop the article. Also - you might find it helpful to choose the "Sort Oldest" option on the New Pages Feed - I work from oldest to avoid conflicts with more experienced "Hotshot" reviewers - less grief . MarkDask 13:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice that's what I've been doing actually. Is there a quick way of adding stubs? Domdeparis (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yup - when you click on the "Tag" button of the curator tool - the menu begins "Bare urls" - scroll down until you see the "Stub" box. I use it often cos it is non-intrusive and is aimed specifically at the author. Let me know if you need any further feedback on the tool - I've been using it since its inception, and I'm still learning . MarkDask 14:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That's great thanks for the tips. Domdeparis (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

‎Operation Euphrates Shield

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. This doesn't refer to a redirect in the history: it means that the page should be deleted only if it would not be a good redirect. If ‎Operation Euphrates Shield were a red link, it would be a good idea for someone to redirect it to Turkish military intervention in Syria, so since someone's already created it, there's no reason to delete it if converting it into a redirect would be sufficient. Of course, a page with major content problems that would warrant a revdel (e.g. copyvios in the history) can be deleted, but that's a less common situation; if you ran across such a page, you could leave a <!-- comment --> next to the speedy template saying "This needs to be deleted, not just redirected, because of ____". Nyttend (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: thanks for the explanation. --Domdeparis (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Stub sorting

Instead of using page curation to add the {{stub}} template, please stub sort instead. Thanks. -- 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) @ 23:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: thanks for the tip. Do you have a technique for adding stub categories quickly? I haven't found a way of finding the right stub and adding it quickly. Domdeparis (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a little hard to read, and you might have to do a few times. My apologies.
Put "show preview" in a new tab, and then check if a category has a stub category (typically, a new article doesn't have a lot of categories). If that category doesn't have a stub category, I go one of the categories that the category is in, and, etc. Sometimes, the back button gets involved, and I go up another "trail" or "subtrail" of category, but eventually, I'll usually find at least a top-level stub category. -- 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) @ 09:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Domdeparis,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 804 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Will Robinson

See my comment on Talk:Will Robinson. I don't think that article name should be PROD'd, but the content that was added should be PROD'd (wherever article it ends up on). — X96lee15 (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Review Quality Collector, Domdeparis.

Unfortunately Winged Blades of Godric has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

May you explain why are you reviewing articles you have CSD-ed yourself?

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

Winged Blades Godric 16:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Winged Blades of Godric: nominating for deletion is part of the reviewing process. As it says here at the top of the page Wikipedia:New pages patrol "Any reviewing action done through the page curation toolbar by a reviewer marks an article as reviewed (adding maintenance tags, nominating for deletion, etc.)". The toolbar has some bugs in it I have found so I prefer to tag for deletion with twinkle and then tick as having been reviewed. When you review an article and you find it meets CSD criteria you nominate for deletion but that also means you have reviewed it. I hope that clears it up for you. Domdeparis (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I seem to have been carrying some mis-information! I seemed to think that pages which are CSD-ed are not ticked lest these be indexed by Google.Pinging Kudpung.Winged Blades Godric 05:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The short answer, Domdeparis, is that if you are having to ask these questions, when Swarm added you to the user group you had not read the tutorials or the talk pages. It was also assumed that you would be using the software that was developed by the WMF especially for this task.This has all been explained in every which way and several times over in recent threads at WT:NPR which is the place New Page Reviewers have been told several times to look for information and stay up to date.
FWIW and at the risk of yelling myself hoarse, the long answer is: 'patrolled' means 'reviewed' means checked by an accredited New Page Reviewer, whether or not the pages are ticked OK for indexing by Google or tagged for some form of deletion in which case they remain at NO_INDEX until deleted or the tag is removed. Aye, there's the danger in letting anyone tag pages from Twinkle and allowing raw newbies to control the quality of Wikipedia. As far as we know , there are no bugs in the current iteration of the Page Curation suite, and if there are, if they were to be reported (in the right place, and the instructions are clear for that too), they are addressed quite quickly - that's what we elected coordinators for, because I am sick and tired of doing all the work to improve NPP/NPR all these years just to see that even 400+ reviewers between them can't/won't keep the backlog down.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC).
@Kudpung: I'm afraid I'm still not clear about this; A new page that myself of any other user, @Winged Blades of Godric: for exemple, decides is not up to scratch and is nominated for deletion via CSD PROD or Afd automatically has the trash can symbol next to it and is not referenced by Google. But if it also has the blue button "review" next to it on the right this means that it has not been tagged as reviewed so it stays in the the statistics unless I'm very much mistaken. From what I understood these pages have to be reviewed to make sure that the deletion nomination is merited but this verification by a reviewer would not normally be necessary if it was another reviewer who has done it. I have come across a number of pages marked for deletion (PROD Speedy or Afd) by reviewers but still in the list, notably by Winged B of G. If they had used the tool bar it should have marked it as reviewed and so disappeared from the list. If we review the pages and tag them for deletion but do not mark them as reviewed they stay in the list and there is a risk that they will get reviewed by more than 1 reviewer because when you click on the "next page" button it comes up for review and you have to spend quite a bit of time looking at who tagged it and why especially when the comments are sometimes limited to "fails GNG".
I got the message that there is a backlog of unreviewed pages and that is why since I got the tools I have reviewed 208 pages in the last 10 days. As you know this requires a considerable time I understand that you are "sick and tired" of doing all the work. I understand your frustration but maybe you could be a little more understanding of newbies' problems we are here to help and getting ticked off and told we hadn't read things is not necessarily very motivating. When I tagged Glass Cabin Films for deletion using the tool bar something went wrong and I had to edit the deletion log myself and the page creator's talk page all of which took a considerable time. I had never had this problem before using twinkle. Earlier I got a message from @Markdask: saying he had unreiveiwed a page and during the discussion it turns out that it was unintentional and he said that the curation tool has some glitches so I thought this might be one of them.
  • So to resume It seems problematic to me if I come across an unreviewed page that has been tagged for deletion by another reviewer this means he didn't use the curation tool bar or untagged the reviewed button because this generates extra work for the other reviewers. Domdeparis (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
That's right, because although we created a special user right for New Page Review, the community in its great wisdom insisted that every newbie and his dog should be encouraged to patrol pages through Twinkle. What we've go now is an even lower standard of tagging and qualified reviewers having to review their work as well as do their own reviews. I've done thousands of reviews using Page Creation, a system I helped to develop, and never had any problems with it. Nor have the hundreds of other patrollers and reviewers who use it. It works fine and the place to bring up any issues with it is at your reviewer talk page at WT:NPR. I've tried to help you but frankly I'm now even more frustrated now than when I was pinged here. Perhaps it's because I went through life for nearly 70 years always reading the instructions first, and spending the last 10 of them explaining things to Wikipedia users who won't read the instructions. I'm out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC);
@Kudpung: fair enough...I'm a little frustrated too because in fact you're calling me out for doing what I'm supposed to do which is marking as reviewed pages I have reviewed. I did read the instructions and started using the tool as is, but as another more experienced reviewer told me that there are glitches and I had seen one myself I thought it wouldn't be a problem to use twinkle and then tag as reviewed. If the curation bar works fine then I'm happy to use it as it will tag as reviewed each time I use it and I will most certainly report any problems. Thanks for your patience and understanding.Domdeparis (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung please assume good faith. By your tone I'm guessing you clearly are "Sick and tired" of "yelling [yourself] hoarse", ("doing all the work") - because "raw newbies", (and everyone else using the new Curator tool), are no longer using the "Page Creation" system you "helped develop". Perhaps also because you have some misgivings about those who do not "follow instructions" - (you went through life always "reading the instructions") - either way. I have found the new Curator tool less than perfect, though you would hardly classify me among "every newbie and his dog". In a recent conversation with Domdeparis on his talk page, he asked me where the "stub" button could be found. Within 48 hours both he and I were informed by I dream of horses we should not be using the stub button but instead we should be using stub sort . While the curator tool aint perfect, at least Domedeparis and I can discuss the matter; far more constructive than throwing sarcastic rocks, don't you think? So while Domedeparis and I could perhaps well take your advice by perusing WT:NPR more often, perhaps you, Kudpung, could go refresh at WP:AGF and also, perhaps, WP:DONOTBITE. MarkDask 21:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Markdesk: You know, you could stub sort and then use page curation to mark the page as patrolled so as to remove it from the back log. Also, you could use {{stub}} sparingly, if you're not sure how to stub sort a certain article. Just don't use it willy-nilly as the page curation tool seems to inadvertently encourage. My apologies if I didn't make that clear.
@Kudpung: I thought twinkle patrolled pages automatically as you added tags? It's always done that for me. I often use Twinkle out of habit, plus all the templates are sort of more on one page, making it easier to use.
Also, people sometimes will read the instructions and then have genuine difficulty understanding them. This happens a lot to people who need help reading (perhaps because of a learning/intellectual disability, or a lack of English language fluency). Some people want to be absolutely certain they are going to get things correct due to an aversion to conflict or risk, regardless of whether or not they've read the instructions. Granted, everyone should read the instructions, anyways. However, you need to give back by realizing there are genuine reasons people need help understanding, or reassurance that yes, they do understand (or yes, be bold). As hard as it is, you are seen as a representative of the new page patroller community, which is probably why you were pinged and expected to help.  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) @ 23:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Special Box

Hi. Not sure why you tagged this. It has three citations. WP:NALBUM states: "a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria": "2.The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart". It charted on Japan's national main album chart. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 14:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Teemeah: I looked at the Billboard page but as my navigator won't translate all Japanese language websites I couldn't see the chart position and I missed #96 position in the lede so it meets that criteria but as NALBUM says "may" be notable there should also be in-depth coverage to pass GNG and that is missing. Of the 3 citations 2 are just chart positions (billboard and Oricon) and the third is data base entry in Encyclopaedia Metallum with no coverage, nothing in the reviews section. For the moment it fails GNG. Logically if it charted you should be able to find something I think. The article is not really more than a stub and NMUSIC states "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." i hope this helps. happy editing Domdeparis (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The ranking is on the second page on the Oricon article: [1] It's a compilation album, hardly anyone reviews those in English...Also, this came out in 1997, it is unlikely we will find a lot of reviews online and in English. This doesn't mean local rock magazines didn't write about it at that time, especially that it charted and that it came out before the last concert of the band. Nevertheless, the album charted on a national chart, that should be sufficient for notability. Maybe a Japanese speaker can look up local magazines to extend the article, but this should suffice for a stub. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 19:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lipstick Prince

Hello, I have rolled back your edit for proposed deletion of the Lipstick Prince page. I would like to hear your reasons for this as this show is not unpopular or insignificant. If you would like to still see it deleted, please follow the AfD policies. I would recommend that you cease your actions which undermine the quality and content of Wikipedia by proposing speedy deletions in ways that do not follow policy. Please feel free to visit the Reddit page for koreanvariety if you would like to learn more about the show or Korean variety shows in general. I would also like to point you to a clip on YouTube of the show which currently has 525,173 views as support of my point. Thank you. --Knowledgepreserved (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Knowledgepreserved:: I think you must be very very new to Wikipedia to come and leave a message like that. First off please read WP:GNG and familiarise yourself with the critera. Secondly read WP:PROD and WP:CSD so as to learn the difference between the 2. Nobody says it's unpopular or insignificant I simply.said that the article fails GNG. If you want to contribute in a useful way to Wikipedia then familiarise yourself with policy and learn what is needed to prove notability and find the necessary sources and add them to the articles. Climbing on your high horse and telling someone to cease their actions because ypu think they undermine the quality and content of Wikipedia when you only have 15 edits to your name is may be a little presumptuous. Happy editing. Domdeparis (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's easy to link a page then tell me to read it. Yes I have read it. I am here to ask you to point out specifically which part of the WP:GNG you believe the page failed. There are many reasons listed and it would help if you can point out which one specifically. Also, just because you have many edits doesn't mean you are always right. It would help if you can "get off your high horse" as well. Thanks in advance. --Knowledgepreserved (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello again, I have read through some of your past edits and proposed deletions, and I would like to thank you for your work on the majority of them. They did indeed increase the quality of Wikipedia. For example, short articles with one or two authors was not up to standards. Thank you for your work there. May I suggest that in the future for there to be extra caution for topics which are not as well-known in the west, especially for pages with more than three or four editors' contributions? It's dangerous that the editor proposing the deletion may not be familiar with the topic and the few visitors to the page may not be knowledgeable about technology enough to remove the proposal. I still would like you to point out which point of the WP:GNG you believe the page failed. Thanks in advance.--Knowledgepreserved (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm writing to weigh-in on what I see as a track record of trigger-happy activity. To my understanding, WP:PROD should only be used if "you have a valid reason for deletion. For articles, consider alternatives to deletion like improving the page, merging or redirecting". It is not a tool to be abused or used recklessly. A topic that does not seem personally notable to you should not be justification to question whether it is notable for the wider community. The number of contributions made to the article itself is evidence of that. Moreover, I find the reason of WP:GNG that you used to justify the WP:PROD wholly unsatisfactory. There are numerous third-party sources found in the Lipstick Prince article. May I remind you: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." The main principle is to "avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics". Please outline exactly HOW the article you proposed for deletion violates the General notability guideline. By my assessment there are several sources fully focused on the topic of the article, satisfying 'significant coverage'. The sources are also reliable and independent of the subject. It is wonderful that you are so engaged in the community, and I am sure that many of your contributions have helped the Wikipedia experience immeasurably. I will, however, ask that you follow the guidelines more strictly and be less quick to rush to judgement. Thank you.--Erroridentified (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Wowowin

Correction, there are 7 active segments while 6 are discontinued/inactive. The logic here is that if they want to see the discontinued segments, check the list of segments article. Just like what they did to List of Eat Bulaga! segments and List of It's Showtime segments. Only the current or active segment will have a list. Check them out so you can understand. Leo kingston (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Leo kingston: There is an enormous difference between the 2 shows, 1 has been going for nearly 40 years and has had 310 segments and the other for 2 years with 13 segments. I suggest if you want to keep the detailed segment info in the main article then add the discontinued segments and leave the redirect. The Eat Bulaga segment article has 300 discontinued segments and 10 current segments because the series has been running for nearly 40 years and so a separate page is warranted. The segments article for Eat Buluga limits each segment to 1 or 2 lines, the Wowowin one has 5 times that. There are only 6 discontinued segments so there is no real need to have a separate article to list them. I would suggest reducing the length of the discontinued segments to 1 or 2 lines and to put them into the main article. If and when the list of discontinued segments becomes too long then a separate article is useful. Wowowin has only been going for 2 years and 2 separate articles are not warranted especially as the main article has no independent sources to prove notability. I would suggest that you work on proving the notability of the main article first. --Domdeparis (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

KISK

Thank you for reviewing KISK. I am the one who should remove the review template at the top of the page? User:Rudy2alan

Hi I could have removed it myself but once it's reviewed anyone can remove it. Domdeparis (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

help

Hey I'm requesting for not to and seek your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanandmahakud (talk • contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Devanandmahakud: how can I help you?Domdeparis (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reviewing this article. Silvia Girometti (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Silvia Girometti: you're very welcome. Thanks for thanking me, it makes a change !!! Domdeparis (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Domdeparis

I known that I just starting creating Rmd voleibol it is historicly one of real madrid official department that we have to presented to the public I know the article is just new and kneed a time to improve however I add a link in the page in spanish hopefully someone understand it and help improve the work. as I also created ATM Voleibol I add link In my Own Idea The works need a time for improvements. thanks

gee

You're making me blush.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Akse

It seems you are right. It might be better for dictionaries. I am OK with its deletion. Thanks.----Studyroom of Subtraction (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @損齋: an orphan page is "an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace" Wikipedia:Orphan so what is needed is links from similar pages to the one that is an orphan. I hope that clears it up for you. Domdeparis (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Bobbie - our mutual friend

I'm reasonably sure he's not here - or at least no longer here - with the motives of contributing productively. What say you? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @BigHaz: to be perfectly honest I think he is incapable of holding a reasoned and reasonable discussion. He seems to be convinced that he is the only one who is capable of saying what should or should not be included in WP in terms of music content. He will most certainly do the same thing on the next article that gets nominated for deletion. I have literally spent hours trying to discuss this with him and he goes round and round in circles and when you stop replying he thinks he has "won" the discussion. Domdeparis (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I would endorse every word you said right there. And it's not as if you and I - and others - haven't tried to help. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Do you think there is suitable evidence to take this to ANI?and try and get him to listen to reason? Domdeparis (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I can honestly say I don't believe I've ever taken anything to ANI. In this case, however, I've broken my duck and it's listed there as of now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@BigHaz: Re:Nothere. It's probably moot, but I at times wondered if he were WP:PAID. Or am I just overwrought?Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The thought had crossed my mind, too, but I don't quite get that feeling, at least based on the interactions I'd had. Just a very passionate person whose passions were running into policies, I think. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

DJ Montay

Actually, I had looked at this one, but did not want to address it till after the other one at AfD. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: My motto is Strike while the iron is hot!!!! I was worried that if I waited until everyone had moved on i would again be banging my head against a brick wall...a little cowardly I admit but he was driving me nuts! Domdeparis (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You just did what I was reluctant to do. <cowardice>. The thing was A7'd; he appealed. AfC's standard on moving to article space is, as I understand it, a 50-50 chance of surviving AfD. This is probably confusing to new editors. They do a damned good job over there, but no one is infallible.Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And in case you did not notice-- and so it goes.Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
But sources added that go towards proving GNG!!! Miracles do happen!!! Domdeparis (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
talking about Afc (he says with an embarrassed smile) I submitted one there that I'm sure is OK and meets WP:GNG and would have put it into the main space directly but I have a declared COI and wanted to go by the book. If you've got a minute could you give me your opinion? Draft:Chantilly Jumping (GCT) it's been sitting there for a month now and I'm tempted to move it over but I don't want to create any extra work if it's challenged. Domdeparis (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I might contribute to it. I love horses and equestrianism (except for dressage). Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bobbybobbie: Feel free to! the more people that contribute constructively to Wikipedia the better!! As you have no doubt now understood no-one owns the articles they create and so long as your edits are constructive and you are not WP:WIKIHOUNDING you are very welcome to help! Just keep in mind that disruptive editing in any form can lead to a block as this admin reminded you here. But I really think that the ANI incident has been useful for you. Happy editing! Domdeparis (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a very abnormal welcoming. By the way, show jumping and gymkhana are my forte. Bobbybobbie (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Not really sure what you mean about the welcoming but I'm sure you do and that's what is important! I'm delighted to hear that music is not your only passion and area of expertise. Feel free to join this WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine where there a lot of like-minded editors and as you'll see there's a to do list and I'm sure your help will be much appreciated! Happy editing and thank's for the offer to help! Domdeparis (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I can't wait! Bobbybobbie (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

afc thingy

I'll circle back on that. Been to Tampa w/ my brother. Feel the need for liquid refreshment. 'twas Wikipedia drove me to it.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It should be notable, so you should be able to find deeper, broader coverage. "Most prestigious" invites the question, "by whom". Might want to omit The "attracts the best" paragraph needs to be reworked-- it reads coi, almost spammy. Some of the sources are a little gossipy. You might want to replace or remove. Might want to dwell less on attendees and briefly summarize winners. Were any records broken there? More extensive history? Hope this helps. Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: thanks very much for the pointers! I'll work on that. Cheers Domdeparis (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about WED2B

Hello Domdeparis,

I saw your message on my talk page and I have responded to the deletion request for WED2B with my opinions on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WED2B#WED2B

I wanted to personally thank you for supplying information on the process, as I am a relatively new user of Wikipedia and WED2B was the first page I've created. I've typically edited vandalism changes as I found those the easiest way to contribute as a new user.

Thanks BritishGuy (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing !

Thanks for noticing the article I wrote on Roy Godson ! What do you think of the article? Sagecandor (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Anjali Tendulkar

A tag has been placed on Anjali Tendulkar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Domdeparis/Archive_1&oldid=1140193573"