User talk:Ottawahitech

Archives

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Happy happy!

Reminder: your work notes on Talk:Bill 28 (British Columbia)

I moved them to User:Ottawahitech/Bill 28 (British Columbia) notes. Please keep the talk page for discussion of the article. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality C for BC Transplant Society

Howdy @Ottawahitech , You just assessed as C-level Quality for the new BC Transplant Society. And too often there are negative comments by wikipedia users. So hope is okay to say THank You for being first contributor after my creation of the article. And also Level C that says needs more information and references is very accurate so I am thankful for your assessment. And also adding categories to the Talk page. I was hoping health editors with more knowledge about the subject or sector would be contributing sooner. So am glad you added something.

Cheers ! Canuckle (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of talk pages

I removed a question you posed on Talk:Homelessness in Vancouver because talk pages exist to discuss the article, not the subject. Perhaps you can ask your question at one of the reference desks instead. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@World's Lamest Critic: You have blanked Talk:Bill 28 (British Columbia) several times and refused to participate in the thread that I started there: Talk:Bill_28_(British_Columbia)#Repeated blanking of this talk-page. I believe you are deliberately being disruptive and ask you to please stop. My talkpage should not be used for these types of messages. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

As I've explained here twice already, I moved your notes to a subpage. I attempted to discuss this situation with you here, but you did not respond. Please leave the talk page for discussion of the article itself. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Regarding my reversion of your recent edit to Public housing in Canada – please review MOS:OVERLINK and Wikipedia:Red link. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ottawahitech. You have new messages at Mkdw's talk page.
Message added 01:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mkdw ^talk 01:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to speedily rename category

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Companies of Canada established in 1972 to Category:Canadian companies established in 1972 per C2C: Hugo999 (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing warning

Please stop with disruptive edits such as this: [[1]]. Faking ignorance that you don't know where it goes and asking other editors to clean up after you is unacceptable. 2605:8D80:687:8040:E50B:A21E:AF0D:66AB (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits/my revert

Listen there isn't a campaign to silence you here. The problem is low quality edits. If you look at your last homeless edit, it is of poor quality and is re-wording a news story. There isn't any meaningful information being added. If you are having such problems with reverts and apparently having your stuff deleted maybe it is time to re-evaluate and review the WP:GNG? SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again please engage in a discussion on this. Stop shopping for someone else's opinion and provide some justification on your own please. You don't appear to be interested in collaboration, perhaps this isn't the place for you. SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding "Economy of ..." categories to homelessness articles

You participated in the discussion at Talk:Homelessness in Vancouver about adding the category "economy of Vancouver". There was consensus not to keep that category. I think it is reasonable to assume that the same applies to every other article on homelessness. When working collaboratively, it is important to accept that others may not agree with you and to go along with the consensus. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airports

Hey bud - nice job tagging all those airports for WikiProject Canada! Cheers, PK T(alk) 22:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Talk:Bill_28_(British_Columbia).

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You appear to be engaged in an edit war. Please discuss instead of reverting. SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. You are now creating pages, redirecting them to other pages and linking your newly created page. This is completely ridiculous and it is obvious you are not adhering to WP:NPOV. SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC) SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is about warring at Talk:Bill 28 (British Columbia). Per this comment, I'm letting you know that you and the other party can both be blocked under the edit warring policy. I urge you to reply at the noticeboard and agree to stop reverting the set of notes until a consensus is reached on where to locate this material. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint has been closed with warnings to both you and World's Lamest Critic. You are risking a block if you add or remove the disputed talk page material again until consensus about it is reached. One option to consider is to put it in a collapse box. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ruth Ibanez

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: You have tagged this page within two minutes of its creation. Have you done wp:Before? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Yes I did, and it appears that she has not been covered in reliable sources (except CNN's iReport, although I am not aware if that is considered a reliable source). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

It doesn't look like anyone alerted you about this yet:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

I'm just the messenger. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for an apparent long-term unwillingness or inability to follow Wikipedia's basic content policies. A user with your experience should not still be creating pages that qualify for speedy deletion, and there is no reasonable way you are not aware at this point of what the minimum standards for articles are, yet you routinely ignore them, and seemingly deliberately flaunt them. Doing this a few times as a new editor is one thing, doing it for nine and a half years is something else. Users with this much experience are usually the ones helping others make articles better not creating more work for those who maintain this project. The core issue here is the creation of new pages, and given how long this has been a problem I can't see a reasonable path to unblocking that doesn't involve some sort of restriction on you doing so in the future. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also taken the liberty of archiving 2015/2016, just for ease of readability of this page during any upcoming discussion of this block. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ottawahitech, I highly appreciated the (mutual) 'categorization-motivation' in 2016/17, and truly hope that the unexpected Wikipedia-block (at least for me personally) will not last indefinitely. My best wishes and greetings,

Roland zh (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Roland zh: thanks so much for leaving me your message a few months ago. It gave me a big boost when I felt I was being discarded by the community.

Just wondering if you would still be interested in continuing the "categorization-motivation" we had before? For example I have noticed that when you create a new category that is underpopulated you add the {{underpopulated}} template to categories that are underpopulated. Since the Category:Underpopulated categories is huge (12,100 entries as of now), few if any editors are working in that area.

Here is an example of what I used to do when I could still edit. In that particular case it seems that the addition of Category:New Zealand businesswomen to Category: Underpopulated women categories achieved its goal and that the cat is no longer underpopulated.

Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ottawahitech, welcome back :-) Honestly, my "categorization-motivation" as wikignome is time-limited by early 2018 since then hopefully the people of India 'bio task' should be done (then returning 'back to restricted Wikmedian's work (Wikimedia Commons), and on 'Zürisee' and South India content). In general, all the scheduled categories are established (and also 'some' undone, you know), and the categories that are tagged in the beginning as 'underpopulated' usually should have > 20 wikis, hence, I've already removed that tag. At the time being, from time to time, 'filling' these categories and refining.

But, you are right, in general, I share your opinion that just a handful Wikimedians may be engaged to take care of these 'underpopulated' categories, but at least related to bios about people from India, imho the India community (project) does 'fill' underpopulated categories. In general, to women related categories, I was also frustrated that many of them were handled in a rather negative way, but xxx happens ;-) Nevertheless, hoping, you'll continue on 'your course', too, kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Innovators by nationality has been nominated for deletion

Category:Innovators by nationality has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women humanitarians has been nominated for merging

Category:Women humanitarians has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 15:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Maria Sastre for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Sastre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PepperBeast (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Road accidents and incidents

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Road accidents and incidents on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patent holders has been nominated for merging

Category:Patent holders has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block

If you're interested in en.wp content, have you considered requesting an unblock and addressing the reasons for your block? It's been years and I can't think of why WP:STANDARD wouldn't apply. VQuakr (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Seychellois women by role

A tag has been placed on Category:Seychellois women by role indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways

@Just Step Sideways, in 2022 you restored my talk age access but qualified this by saying I could only use this access:

for purposes of appealing the block ONLY. if used for proxying again, feel free to reblock.

As I have told you on several occasions, I have no interest in appealing my indef-block but I would like to know, for example, if I am free to remove the box at the top of this page which implies that I have left wikipedia of my own free will. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the template with this edit. As far as I am aware, you are not eligible for Template:Not around. Do not make any further edits to this talk page except "for purposes of appealing the block only". Do not reply to this comment. James500 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: If you can't comprehend why you were blocked and don't wish to appeal, all you have to do is just go away. Please don't ever ping me or otherwise contact me in any way ever again. It's extremely tiresome getting pinged once in a while about nothing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York World journalists has been nominated for renaming

Category:New York World journalists has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women conservationists has been nominated for deletion

Category:Women conservationists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 14:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mexican Avocado Dispute" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mexican Avocado Dispute has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 21 § Mexican Avocado Dispute until a consensus is reached. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Nortel protocols

The article List of Nortel protocols has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Let'srun (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marketing women has been nominated for renaming

Category:Marketing women has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Supermarkets of San Marino has been nominated for merging

Category:Supermarkets of San Marino has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]