User talk:Deb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Notice Coming here to ask why I deleted your article? Read this page first...

If that doesn't help, read these FAQs.

1. Why did you delete my page when I hadn't finished writing it?

Answer: Don't create new articles unless you are sure they meet wikipedia's criteria, particularly notability and verifiability. If you want to practice, there is the sandbox facility and Wikipedia:Articles for creation where you can get a second opinion from a more experienced contributor. And if you really can't help yourself, use {{underconstruction}} so other people will know you are still working on it.

2. Why did you delete my page for advertising? I wasn't trying to advertise!

Answer: Read Wikipedia:NPOV for guidance on how to word an article so that it doesn't sound like an advertisement.

3. Why did you delete my page for advertising? It was about a non-profit organisation!

Answer: Non-profit organisations advertise all the time - it's still promotion and the rule applies to them just as it does to commercial bodies. See no 2 above.

4. Why did you delete my article without warning?

Answer: Because you are not entitled to a warning if you don't follow the guidelines. See no 1 above.

5. Why didn't you do a google search and find references for my article and put them in for me instead of just deleting it?

Answer: Because I don't have time to do the boring bits for you. I have enough boring bits of my own to work on, thank you.

And please SIGN YOUR POSTS, otherwise I don't know who is asking me the question!


Archives: 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Contents

Cautionary reading[edit]

I would like all my readers, both regular and irregular, to note the content of these three sub-sections. This is the calibre of comment you can expect to find on your talk page if you become an administrator and try to fulfil your duties conscientiously. Miraculously, none of those who have contributed to this section are administrators themselves, even though they clearly have superior skills that would make them far better at the job than any existing admin. Between them, they have amassed the impressive total of 18,460 article edits – in one case, a staggering 334! Sadly, their efforts have remained unappreciated by the community as a whole and they have been victimised by having some of their accomplished work deleted for mere failure to comply with the inclusion criteria. The world is a cruel place.

BeerXML deletion[edit]

I've already been through this with another deleter. BeerXML is not a product it is a data interchange format, and is a subset of XML. If you don't know what that means then you should not delete it. You are quite simply factually wrong. I will put the page back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrivateWiddle (talkcontribs) 16:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I have to agree with PrivateWiddle, you apparently don't have a good grasp on technology and probably shouldn't be commenting on those articles. It also appears that you have a personal issue with PrivateWiddle. Perhaps you should refrain from commenting on his articles as well. Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
And you're an administrator? And you don't understand WP:BEFORE? Shameful. Are you willing to stand for recall?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Ę=== Wrongful deletion of BeerXML rejected ===

If you have come here to find out why your article has been deleted then take heart from BeerXML

Despite a concerted campaign of tagging User_talk:PrivateWiddle, outrageous accusations of sexism Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/PrivateWiddle#Views a failed AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BeerXML, attempts to use admin status to silence oppostion and wilful misreading of the guidelines; this user has failed to get away with deleting an article just because they really want to.

Don't allow yourself to be bullied and be aware that this user has a henchperson that they call in, particularly if you are on your own. Expect heavy templating of your user page, accusations of offensiveness if you disagree with them and an RFC on a trumped up charge if they feel they are losing.

Stick to WP policy, get other users involved and don't be intimidated. I remain Devils In Skirts! (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Deb is an excellent editor and administrator here; one of the good people who stands up against the tide of crap and chaos that always threatens to engulf the encyclopaedia. She may or may not have been in error about the article and your username/sig; if she was, then it's part of a rather small error count against a vast amount of good that she does here. On the other hand, your ungracious crowing above presumably makes you feel good, but does exactly what to help the encyclopaedia? Nothing, I fear - it comes across as snotty and triumphalist; the mark of an editor to avoid. A more mature response would have retained your dignity very much better. DBaK (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Additional Comment: We all make mistakes, I'll grant you that. But Deb has doubled down on her's. She has tried to intimated editors that have disagreed with her. And, at a last resort, she has played the gender card. I do not mean to negate the positive that she has done, but that doesn't mean she gets a free pass on the mistakes. She should simply admit her mistake and grow from it. Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Interesting comment (well, actually, not very interesting but I don't like to be rude). You have a very hazy view of exactly what you think my "mistake" is. It can't be the original deletion on the grounds of promotional wording, because no one disputed that. It can't be the fact that I voted in the deletion debate - everyone is allowed to do that. So what it boils down to is the fact that I found another contributor's signature to be offensive. And that's just a matter of opinion. The fact that a lot of male contributors couldn't see the reason why a female contributor would object to the signature does not make it a "mistake" on my part, although I was always going to be banging my head against a brick wall bringing it to Rfc. So U can keep Ur opinions to Urself. Deb (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Your rfc accusation of sexism against me[edit]

I take the accusation of sexism from you extremely seriously. You have defamed me publicly and I am considering my options on how to respond to this appalling, baseless, slur. I would like to give you the opportunity to retract this accusation and apologise. If not then we will find ourselves taking the matter forward for resolution.

It would have been useful had you looked up the reference at Carry On Up The Khyber before launching a complaint against me for sexism. Specifically, even five seconds reading Carry_On..._Up_the_Khyber#The_regiment

Libelling me as a sexist is a rather extreme response to not getting your way in the debate at BeerXML AfD and if you had read the Wikipedia page on the film, you might have spared yourself the indignity of being hauled over the coals by those who responded to your rfc against me.

The idea that my username or signature is somehow directed against you personally is risible and speaks volumes. Be assured that I will not be changing anything.

As far as the BeerXML debacle is concerned, I think your time might be well spent responding to all the keeps on its AfD page (there's also one on the talk page). At the moment yourself and the seconder of your complaint against me are the only people who have a problem with the article, even though you are not very clear on what the problem is.

If I could offer you one piece of advice, it would be to address the points made by those users by making reasonable points in return that convince them that you are correct. This, I have found, seems to work better than hectoring, personal abuse, templating and launching rfcs against everyone who does not agree with you.

I note that you have managed to get admin status and use the authority that comes with it as a weapon against people who disagree with you. To save you a lot of typing, I'm really not in the slightest intimidated by that. Don't forget that authority comes with responsibility. If you continue to misuse your position as admin to persue personal vendettas against people who challenge your decisions, you may find that it is removed from you.

Devils In Skirts! (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your allegation of calculated method of insulting female wikipedians is indeed extremely serious. Also I don't think I (or any other random editor) have any chance of guessing your gender if I haven't noticed the RFC. Solomon7968 08:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
P.S. You first threatened PrivateWiddle about opening a RFC about his signature at 10:23, 15 February 2014 without bothering to ask him what the intended meaning of the signature is. Perhaps he would have changed it if asked politely? Assumption of bad faith from the very first indeed constitutes a personal attack and you should apologise unless there is good reason to believe PrivateWiddle is indeed sexist. Unfounded accusations of sexism is no better than real sexism. Solomon7968 08:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


Issues with CMDportal Page[edit]

  • Advertisement, citations and general notability of CMDportal page

Hi Deb, thanks for your comments on the CMDportal page that I created. Sorry for using your talk page about your comments on a wikipedia page. I had a look at the links you mentioned above for further information on neutrality and POV and unfortunately, I still don't understand what the problem with this page is. As far as I can see, there is no advertisement and everything is properly sourced, without a single source from the company's website, thus avoiding conflict of interest or advertisement and clearly showing relevance of its activities. If you could perhaps pinpoint some of the issues, that would be very much appreciated. Thanks for your time. Best regards, Manuel0506 (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2014 (GMT)

Did you think Manuel0506s answer was Insufficient? Am I wrong in believing he answered in an hour? Fischblubl (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes. And no. Deb (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you care to elaborate how it was insufficient? Fischblubl (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to discuss this with a new contributor. The appropriate place for you to ask these questions will be at the deletion review, if and when he submits it. Deb (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but am I understanding Correctly that my Experience concerning Wikipedia is a Guideline for you to not Discuss this? I think that Manuel0506s Arguments were fully sufficient. I would like you to explain why you don't. Do I need to be a long-established contributor to do that? Fischblubl (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You're on the verge of badgering conduct that is discouraged here. Please desist. Deb (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I am very sorry if this hurt your feelings in any way, and my contribution was not Intended to do so. However I see "I don't see any reason to discuss this with a new contributor." may, even if as I am sure not to be intended "discourage them from editing entirely"[1]. But I apologize again if you have found any of my posts badgering you in any kind of way and I hope that you forgive me if that was the case. Fischblubl (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I would also like to give you some recommended Reading(look at "what Harassment is not") concerning the definition of harassment according to the page linked above. I realize that it may not be the same to your definition of harassment, but you may find it interesting. Fischblubl (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Please Answer


Deb Deb. As far as I can see, all the issues abovenoted have been resolved. The article is factual and comprehensively referenced. Please desist from taking down this page as it is a legitimate company with a notable presence in the market.

Johnjohn


Deb The references provided are from notable financial institutions and testify to the company's notablity. If CMDportal was not notable, major global banks would not be mentioning them in public releases. Furthermor, CMDportal is simply the trading name of Capital Market Daily. CMD = Capital Market Daily. Having a trading name that differs slightly is accepted buisness practice. I welcome any constructive feedback, but in this case it seems like ther is an alternative agenda. Please restore the article and provide constructive suggestions on what might be missing.

thanks Johnjohn

Deb Deb, I am not missing any point here. However, I would like this issue to be resolved - but let us desist from making speculative comments. I'm happy to clarify that the formal name is Capital Market Daily and CMDportal is a trading name - this is regular business practice and it can be mentioned in the article. Furthermore, the references below are reliable as they are factual! Those organisations participated in an awards process and their public releases confirm CMDportal's notability. If you put the page back up I will happily address your concerns by adding the required text and inserting more references. Can we work together opls? I'm very happy to address your concerns. How do you wish to proceed?

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Nice Work...
Muhammad Aftab 14:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Michael the Maven[edit]

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been rather rudely requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Deb is reviewing pages with head closed[edit]

I see you deleted a page for a bakery that i made which i don't own/am affiliated with. It would be better if you cross verify before acting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rico25new (talkcontribs) 12:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rico25new, maybe you want to read the linked page and the FAQ at the top of this talk page before making vague and offensive accusations. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You are a dumbass ;/ Even the stupidest of person would care enough to learn before acting. I will bring that page back when I figure out howto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rico25new (talkcontribs) 12:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rico25new: There's no reason to attack me, my friend. I can assure you that Deb was deleting your page not only in good faith, but also in full accordance to Wikipedia's deletion policy. Articles on Wikipedia must adhere to a couple of policies and guidelines. The link and FAQ on the top of this page, which I've already mentioned in my first post, will give you an idea what they are. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 13:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Blue Giraffe[edit]

Dear Deb. I did not fully understand why the article about Blue Giraffe was deleted. The company is a split-off of Zylom and is continuing its game studio activities. Other studio articles seem to be relevant, unfortunatly Blue Giraffe isn't. Could you clarify to why specifically this one was deleted or what needs to be added in order to comply? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartjezzz (talkcontribs) 16:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ninetails =[edit]

Ninetails are a significant band, with substantial buzz around them at the moment, being written about positivley by The Quietus, The Independent, Drowned in Sound and more (http://supercatpr.wordpress.com/ninetails-press-kit/) and have recently signed with Talk Talk's manager. I would appreciate your help in the creation of the page for the band, as I do believe they meet WP:Notability and can provide references to support so

Thank you in advance Deb Betacrizzle (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Mid-Bay Bridge[edit]

I think you're supposed to do the move (using the reason in the {{db-move}} template) so it doesn't end up as a redlink. No worries - I've done it. --NE2 03:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I just assumed someone was watching it. Deb (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Danielle Tunstall[edit]

Hi Deb. You deleted a page I was just starting to work on about a photographer who strangely has not yet been written about here on Wikipedia. I would like to know under which section of the criteria for speedy deletion you based your decision on? The notability component of the page is without doubt there, her work has been featured and discussed in publications across the world so finding reliable third party sources wouldn't be a problem. She has also for instance photographed several celebrities from the United Kingdom, and the way in which her compositions are done are very unique and engrossing to her large following. She now has almost a 100,000 likes on Facebook for instance. I am assuming it was under A7 in which you based your decision? Thank you for your time. Kind regards, jokern102 (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Tekkensauce[edit]

Hi Deb, you might want to keep an eye on this user. See the history of his talk page. jni (delete)...just not interested 20:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jni: Nothing left to watch. After their removal of your comment yet again, I decided that they were not doing anything productive and indef'ed them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Digi-Capital new page[edit]

I would like to submit an article for Digi-Capital (see below), and saw that you deleted a previous one. Below is the text and references I would like to submit, please let me know if there are any issues with it, otherwise I will go ahead and post it next week.

Digi-Capital [1] is an investment bank for games, mobile apps, digital/media services and tech/telecoms across America, Asia (China, Japan, South Korea) and Europe.

Digi-Capital delivers sell-side M&A, buy-side M&A, fundraising, investment, Board advisory, strategic consulting and industry analysis services [2].

Digi-Capital publishes its Global Games Investment Review [3], including economics, industry dynamics, trends, M&A and investment transactions, and public company comparables/indices for mobile/tablet, social/casual, MMO, console/PC, tech/gamification and games advertising sectors. The Review is published annually, with quarterly updates. In the 2014 Review, Digi-Capital forecast that “Mobile games could drive total games software industry revenue to ~$100B by 2017. The mobile and online games sectors combined could grow to ~$60B revenue (23.6% CAGR 11-17F), and take 60% games software market share by 2017.” {ref 1 below}

Digi-Capital is used as a reference source by financial {ref 2 below} and industry {ref 3 below} media for data and analysis on games and mobile apps markets.

Ref 1: [4]

Ref 2: http://blogs.ft.com/tech-blog/2011/02/china-games/

Ref 3: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] IzzyGregson (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Quacking?[edit]

Hi, thanks for these edits:. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=To_Hell_With_You&action=history But do you think this might be a block evasion? Looks a bit of a coincidence. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Good call. Generally I'm not in favour of blank/redirect of any sourced article but this wasn't sourced. Seems the other albums by same editor (or 2 editors) are similar. Btw - are you an admin? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Could I btw encourage adding an admin category to user page, while optional I believe it is helpful for Users seeking helpful admins. No need to reply to this either way. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, that suggests you think I belong to the "helpful" category! What a compliment! :-) Deb (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

About Philips Innovation Campus[edit]

Deb, I think I re-written the article enough to meet WP:A7 and to avoid WP:G11 and WP:G12. I make it a personal policy not to use rev-del without another user requesting it, so I'm not going to do it here. Your thoughts? Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"Perhaps even the book to restore the serious reading public's faith in the contemporary novel... You should make time for it. It will keep you company for the rest of your life." (Daniel Johnson, The Times). --Shirt58 (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

And BTW-[edit]

Hope you are well! Would you care to glance at the discussion on my TP just above your RfC post? The user keeps deleting stuff from another user's page. Quite obsessive behaviour to say the least... thank you! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 15 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:KIBI NATHAN[edit]

Hi, you moved this to user space, but "KIBI NATHAN" is not an existing user. The article was in fact created by User:KIIBI NATHAN (took me a while to actually see the difference... :-), but I cannot move this page there. Perhaps you can have a look at it. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Easy Taxi[edit]

Information icon Hi mister Deb! It's Paul.malicki here. I just wanted to let you know that I fixed all suggested items related to the article you removed. Please take a look at it. Looking forward to your feedback. —Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I added quotations and fixed the language errors. Please feel free to take a look at it at your convenient time. I hope it's now polished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.malicki (talkcontribs) 01:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Deb! May I follow up on this thread, please? Did you have a chance to check the updated version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.malicki (talkcontribs) 00:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As per you request, I moved the article there for the review. Is there anything else I can do to speed up the process? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.malicki (talkcontribs) 12:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Which accomplished work is that, Deb?[edit]

You say about me: "they have been victimised by having some of their accomplished work deleted for mere failure to comply with the inclusion criteria." Which work is that, Deb? And you never explained your multiple accusations of canvassing against me? So yes, you're claiming I'm motivated because I've "been victimised" by having some of my "accomplished work deleted" and that I am guilty of canvassing. What are you talking about, exactly? Please be specific.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Deb. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amazon Instant Video UK[edit]

Hi this article I just created will be expanded over time and has been renamed from lovefilm to Amazon Instant Video UK Paladox2017 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Joy Mallari[edit]

What, wait, how on earth is that written like an ad? It's a pretty standard bio for a prominent contemporary Philippine visual artist/painter. There's an entire section on major works that I haven't had the time to write yet, but I don't think that'd change this article significantly. I mean, as far as I can tell, this is better written than most articles about National Artists of the Philippines. I'm starting on a series for prominent contemporary Philippine Artists, so I would really like more detailed input than just that tophat. Also, I have nothing to disclose: no relationship with Mallari, no income from the Philippine art sector. If anything, I'm a museumgoing newbie who's writing wikis in order to learn more. Would appreciate more detailed input. Thank you. - Alternativity (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Request to Userfy the Page[edit]

Hello, I am a student and I have a problem. I built a page named BioScrip but it has been deleted for it looks like an advertisement, I am very sorry for that, I want to modify it to meet the standard of Wiki, would you please userfy the page for me? Thank you very much! ReganChai (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion: Two pieces for wind quintet (Ropartz)[edit]

Hi,

Noticed that you added and then an IP user removed a noteability tag on this article, I've restored it and consolidated it with a "Multiple issues" template.

I would just like to begin by stating that when I write articles like this (eg. Based off an ISMLP score, for a composer who has a biographical article on wikipedia.) I am doing so in the hope that someone else will join me in the research/improvement of the article after it is created.

I am a firm opponent of what is sometimes referred to as the "Great Composer Racket" and also understand that simply because information is not online (or at least not findable by Google or other search engine) does not mean that the information does not exist. I also firmly believe that dialog between Wikipedia editors is the best way to do things, hence this message.

I invite you to continue the discussion on the articles talk page.

Graham1973 (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Black Adder I ---> Princes in the Tower and the ePetition for DNA testing[edit]

Was watching pilot of The Black Adder, The Foretelling, and bounced around refreshing my memory of the Battle of Bosworth and who the heck is Brian Blessed playing (King Richard IV of England who???) but finally got interested in why they haven't DNA tested the possible skeletons of the boys bodies. Looks like the e-petition at Her Majesties Government website has been closed without reason 9 months before the 12/02/2014 expected closing date. Sent an email response asking and will see what they say. It's a shame but this article in The Guardian explains the motivations of her majesty and the church. Alatari (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I know Blackadder is fiction. Clearly I'm talking about the real boys who were murdered in their youth... Alatari (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
As I recall, I was just explaining why King Richard IV appeared. Deb (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for page protection[edit]

Hi Deb. I'd be grateful if you could protect the article for A Touch of Sin. There's currently an IP editor adding unsourced information. Thank you. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Deb. I would do, but they keep moving from one IP address to another! Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Source:
子川 (2013-10-07). "「專訪賈樟柯:電影《天注定》通過虛構達到真實」". BBC中文網 (in Chinese) (BBC). "(traditional Chinese)(simplified Chinese)" 

Moved ... without leaving a redirect[edit]

Hi Deb. Is a move without leaving a redirect like the one you performed here restricted to users flying the suppressredirect flag (WP:RIGHTS) from their mizzen? Best, Sam Sailor Sing 12:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Source, BBC news , A Touch of Sin[edit]

子川 (2013-10-07). "「專訪賈樟柯:電影《天注定》通過虛構達到真實」". BBC中文網 (in Chinese) (BBC). "(traditional Chinese)(simplified Chinese)" 

Deletion of Apply AS[edit]

Deb, with respect I have been editing merrily on WP for years and I've never experienced any user so trigger-happy in their deletion of a newly created article. You deleted the stub I created literally seconds after I created it. I'm very aware of the deletion policies, but I think this behaviour fails to live up to WP:AGF. Looking at your disclaimer at the top of this page it seems like you have been criticised for this on more than one occasion and perhaps you need to think about moderating your own behaviour before you try to dictate how other people work on WP. It is unreasonable to insist that an article is fully verified and notability established from the very first edit. I will be recreating this page (adhering to you frankly ridiculous expectations) at some point in the future, but if really expect your to assume good faith for longer than half a minute next time.

Famousdog (c) 08:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, the article failed the inclusion criteria because I had literally just created it and was about to add the necessary citations regarding verification/notability. Sadly, you did not give me that opportunity. You say in your response that you are "disappointed that (I) expected it to remain there", but I simply expected it to remain there for at least a couple minutes while I added some sources. That doesn't seem too much to ask, does it? I think your attitude is a little gung-ho for somebody with admin responsibilties and I'd like you simply to consider checking timestamps for article creation next time before you go all delete-happy. (PS the legal name of the company is Apply AS, which I chose as the article title because 'apply' is a verb and therefore too generic and Apply is already taken for an article on the programming function)
Famousdog (c) 09:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Owen Glendower[edit]

I reverted your recent edit because the attribution is incorrect. The Powys Society webpage is probably your source, but I carefully checked the article. I think that the phrase may be from a publisher's blurb, and it seems highly likely that it is by Kavanagh (but that's speculation). Rwood128 (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

I carefully checked the full (brief) article and the quotation on the Powys Society web page isn't there. The cover of the Duckworth edition may be the true source, as the original link connected with Duckworth. I'll contact the Powys Society. Rwood128 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but the above message states that I read the "full article", which surely indicates that I had accesses to the article! Yes I have a copy of Newsletter no.70 and I checked it more than once! Furthermore I have reported the error to the Powys's Society's web master. I would have thought that the web site was a poor source (incomplete), especially as there are better ones available. I'll of course restore the quotation if the Powys Society responds with the correct information. But this is surely not of major importance? Rwood128 (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Re your last message, I'm not a member of the Hardy Society, though I have tried to improve the Wikipedia Hardy article. Rwood128 (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. Yes, I'm nervous re original research. I plan to add further discussion at some point. I'm glad that you also plan to work on this and that you will also be keeping an eye on things. Rwood128 (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Why my WikiPage for GuruAid has been deleted?[edit]

ok but why is my wikipage deleted? did i do something wrong? i dont understand :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheal28 (talkcontribs) 15:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

hello deb, why did you deleted my wikipage of Cabo Love? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheal28 (talkcontribs) 15:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Deb,

I had created WikiPage for GuruAid on 20th March 2014, which was deleted due to promotional content.

Kindly let me know which part of the content sounds like advertising, so that I can make the changes and republish the same.

Regards,

Ravi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raviiarora2014 (talkcontribs) 13:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Date linking and tony1[edit]

tony1 is at it again removing date linking from "INTRINSICALLY DATE-ORIENTED" articles as in here 2014 in Canada - please help--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

USER Denisarona is reverting the reverts that i have made to tony1's date linking removals--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
as in here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1892_in_Brazil&diff=prev&oldid=601624859

--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Destructive and stupid. Too silly to bother with, and reintroduced other damage to the articles. It's really disgusting. Very fitting to come here to the Queen of Silly Links. Tony (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Tsk, tsk, remember your wikiquette. Deb (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that this is a world edit war: it's also going on at the articles on 2014 in Moldova, Romania, Spain, etc. (And 1892 in Brazil, great.) The history of 2014 in Canada is a sight to see, with all the edit-warring, and especially the appeal-to-authority edit summaries of the IP when reverting Tony and Denisarona: "Administrator Deb says you are to be reverted without comment", etc. (Isn't that a comment, btw?) I have seen plenty of examples of new users assuming that administrators are God, perhaps even that there is only one Administrator and what the divine Admin says goes, but in experienced users, as the IP is, that notion has usually worn off against the edges of reality. Anyway, as far as I can see, Deb hasn't said that, at least not this time round. Also, since she is editing this and similar articles, taking sides with the IP, she is of course not going to exert any admin authority in the context.
I notice the IP was blocked in December for edit warring on 2014 in the United States (alternating between their IP and their account S-d n r), where they had expressed the same religious faith in admin authority.[12] (Another charming edit summary here.) This is a static IP and very belligerent. I'll monitor it too.
I won't touch 2014 in Canada (let alone the other lot), as I want to remain uninvolved in case admin action is needed — also because I'm reluctant to get into MOS quarrels in any capacity, they depress me — but I want to see much more discussion on talk. At least, if it has been thoroughly discussed before, please put a link to the archive. Deb, for the record, I disagree with your recent revert after so much edit warring by different hands, especially with the lack of edit summary and/or talkpage note, and also with your similar edits to other articles today and yesterday. I don't see much support for them in MOS. Bishonen | talk 10:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC).
I do recognise your concern, but, frankly, this debate - if you can call it that - has been going on for literally years. It centres on the fact that User:Tony1 and several others refuse to accept that Year in Topic articles are Year articles. You are quite correct, I didn't say what the anon claims I said. However, I think it is quite reasonable for any user to revert changes that are made by what are essentially bots, based on a peculiar interpretation of policy that isn't supported by the Years project or the wording of the Manual of Style. Deb (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


Octavoce[edit]

Hi Deb, thank you for your recent post regarding advertising on my recently created page. I have read the guidance and amended accordingly. Hope it is now acceptable. Thanks Hendy275 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

YRViceChair & Buncombe County Young Republicans[edit]

Deb, I don't quite understand how the organization that I made a page about does not meet the requirements for verification and notability. The page wasn't well sourced, I admit, but the group website should prove that we do exist and we do significant work in both a political and community service aspects in our county. What are we missing to meet your standard of verification? Help! Thank you.

Ohconfucius has a perosnal vendete started against me and has begun to vandalize anything i have worked on[edit]

Ohconfucius has a perosnal vendete (over his inccorect use of date linking) started against me and has begun to vandalize anything i have worked on as in here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths_of_Lawrence_and_Glenna_Shapiro&action=history--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

i cannot just ignore him he has begun this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths of Lawrence and Glenna Shapiro--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your RfA support[edit]

Hi there, a bit of a form letter from me, Cyphoidbomb, but I wanted to drop you a line and thank you for your support at my recent RfA. Although I was not successful, I certainly learned quite a bit both about the RfA process and about how the community views my contributions. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


Belated thanks[edit]

Hands4 Overlaying.jpg

I know this is late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- KeithbobTalk 19:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no "like" button on wikipedia.Deb (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Metal-Pages Ltd[edit]

Hi Debs,

Thank you for your comment, however, I have verified sources to add to the page. I simply want to state that Metal-Pages is in fact a company, and outline what they do.

Below is my proposed text, with the links to add as reference.

'Metal-Pages Ltd is an independent provider of news, reports, benchmark pricing, and events to the rare earths, ferr-alloys and minor metals industry.

The company was founded in 2000 and is based in London, with offices in 5 continents.'


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/metal-pages-plans-online-exchange-for-stainless-steel-metals-1-.html

http://www.mmta.co.uk/members-directory/373965a1-1698-4609-8a02-320703050744

http://www.lme.com/en-gb/news-and-events/events/events/2014/03/metal-pages-nimoco


If this is still not acceptable as an article, could you please explain to me what I would need to add/remove/adjust to make this a valid article?


Kind regards, Minximoodle (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)minximoodle


DigitalOcean[edit]

Hello Deb, please re-instate the DigitalOcean article I just wrote. I came to Wikipedia looking for unbiased information on DigitalOcean, a fairly significant service in my version of the world, and found that the article has been deleted twice. I'm sorry if you're unaware, but this company is on par with Amazon as a entrepreneurial resource. I specifically cited market-based criteria, like Netcraft, because the company is focused on markets. I note it is entirely comparable to other services, like Bluehost and Amazon AWS. Please undelete the article. Niels Olson (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

==Deletion review for DigitalOcean==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of DigitalOcean. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

some other converation[edit]

Hi Deb, i want to contribute adding articles of games published in the stores, making a litle review of what the games are and what cool things they have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evacolasso (talkcontribs) 17:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah yeah i forget, i found that there are similar articles like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Birds_Go

Best! Evacolasso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evacolasso (talkcontribs) 17:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry[edit]

Hi Deb, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

KSMO[edit]

The page you deleted, KSMO Advocates, was recreated by the same user. The only major change seems to be the addition of one of their clients to the article(whom also has an article); the page still seems promotional to me thus I submitted it for deletion per PROD but I wondered if you would take a look. Thank you 331dot (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Albert Einstein Healthcare Network[edit]

What the...! How many seconds was that there? I'm in the middle of editing that and you delete it! Give me a break! Vegaswikian (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Request to recreate Sean Carswell article[edit]

Hi Deb,

You recently deleted the article on Sean Carswell for being "an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." I would like to recreate this article in accordance with Wikipedia's standards and guidelines.

Best, Untruc1981 (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG May every good thing in life come to you for all of the patience you share with others on Wikipedia. Please never lose your grace and for the sake of the community here may you never lose your sanity. Thank you for all of your peacekeeping and for managing AfD. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Biography intros[edit]

I see that at Jan Buijs you put the info about his birthplace and deathplace into the body of the article while removing them from the lede as is preferred. May I however suggest a longer edit summary than "fixed intro" in such cases? The "fix" is more a matter of preferred format than error or unclarity, and you're moving the information elsewhere. I was a bit perturbed until I scrolled down. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I became aware of that manual of style guideline since I wrote the article in question, and have tried to follow it since, but it's awkward because unless there is other information on the person's childhood and death, the information regarding birthplace and deathplace sticks out as misplaced. In at least one recent case translating from another Wikipedia - we are unusual in this - I simply left one of them out, hoping I'd remember when someone eventually added the Persondata template! I don't feel it rises to the level of "get it wrong" suggested by "fixing", and your mentioning that others commonly also put that information in the "wrong" place according to the ruling confirms my feeling on this, as well as what I've seen myself. So I'd still like to ask you to change the edit summary to something that doesn't suggest there was a major problem with the lead. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not known for concise edit statements, but personally I would write "Moved birth/deathplace out of lede as per WP:MOS", or wherever the recommendation is actually enshrined. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've got me there, I can't! Personally I only make really brief edit summaries when I'm fixing an obvious or an urgent problem - that's part of what bewildered me about this one. I skimmed the RfC and noted several other editors also headscratching about why putting that info in the to me most logical place - where it appears in other Wikipedias and in many printed reference works - is "wrong", but that puzzlement applies to many other MOS strictures, in my experience. The fact is, while I grant that those who really want our articles to have a consistent appearance care about this and have decided it that way, it isn't unclear, ungrammatical, or even outré, hence changing it remains a matter of conforming to rules rather than "fixing" - and to me that merits an explanation to whoever has the article watchlisted. It's more important that you are not removing the information from the article, or sticking it in the infobox instead (I see someone suggesting the latter), but where's the harm in explaining briefly, especially since you are already taking the time to find places to tuck it into the article? Clearly we have different assumptions here (and now you see why my own edit summaries tend long, I think). Once more, thank you for fitting it into somewhere else in the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion/Recreation of SMFS page[edit]

Hi Deb, I left an answer to your comment on my page. Page should be acceptable now. Please let me know if it isn't, and I will tweak it. Thanks! ex JHK, trying to think of a new username...

Loose Change (song)[edit]

May you please put the song on the search box since you redirected--Ysleta61 (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Ysleta61

  • Well you know the search box can only contain things that people upload to it, so I'm thinking you know that works--Ysleta61 (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Ysleta61
  • You know what just forget about it--Ysleta61 (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Ysleta61
Forget about what? :-) Deb (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh my god i'm talking about the search box thinofmagig, and also message me on my talk page when i leave you a message so i will know you responded to comments.--Ysleta61 (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Ysleta61
I didn't respond. Deb (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I/O (album)[edit]

There is a malformed AfD on this page I wasn't to sure what to do so I thought I'd ask a admin. Whispering 22:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Entrevues Belfort International Film Festival[edit]

Dear Deb, I'm working for the Entrevues Belfort International Film Festival. I wanted to create an English page on the festival (a French version has been accepted and is on Wikipedia since a while now). Why did you delete it? Is there something in the text that was not proper? All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entrevues Belfort (talkcontribs) 12:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple issues template[edit]

Hi Deb! When you add a {{Multiple issues}} template to an article (as you did here and here), could you please end the template with }}? When you end the template with |}} (an extra pipe before the closing braces), it puts the article into Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfair Speedy Deletion[edit]

Hi Deb, trust me when I tell you that I really appreciate your work for wikipedia. I am a new user willing to contribute and has chossen John Croft as my first article. He is a notable man cited in many other articles, creator of Dragon Dreaming which is a very widespread methodology for project design. There is no advertising intention whatsoever in the article. I completely understand that there is a protocol and my article might have some deficiencies so I would like you to help me do it in a better way or guide me to the information that could help me to improve it. Please consider repuplising the article since I have no backup of it and it took me some hours to write. I will delete the sections that you think are not correct. Thank you for your kind patience and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azprendiz (talkcontribs) 16:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Page deletion for Groundforce Portugal[edit]

Hi Deb, you just deleted the page I was constructing about Groundforce Portugal. There are references, and even a good referenced article on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Their official Web site is http://www.groundforce.pt/ -- Denis.arnaud (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Information icon I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Getting Rid of pages Under A1 When they are first made is not a very good idea since they may be still working on the page. Please see WP:BITE Dudel250 ChatPROD Log CSD Logs 10:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Re deletion of "Agricultural Market Information System"[edit]

Dear Deb,

Browsing Wikipedia, I just noticed that an article existed on the "Agricultural Market Information System" (AMIS) of the G20 and that this article was deleted by you. I am part of the AMIS Secretariat, which would obviously be interested in having encyclopedic information on AMIS available to the public. However, none of us here in the Secretariat authored the article, so it's strange that "unambiguous advertising or promotion" was the reason for it's deletion.

Please advise on the best strategy to restore and/or re-publish this article. We are happy to apply a neutral and objective language to inform readers of this inter-agency platform started under the auspices of the G20 countries.

Thanks Maulwofer (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for quick and helpful feedback. We'll start from scratch to avoid previous shortcomings. The user you mentioned is not known to us, so must have been the project of one of our "fans" ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maulwofer (talkcontribs) 15:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

La Mafia[edit]

first of all its November 22, and second of all if you would released is by the band and not the other way around. thing that gets me is I wasted all night and morning making the articles the earliest articles you just killed off had my sources in place. if you would have liked the way its put you should have done it your self. I don't mind the changes but please use the month and day correctly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc30002001 (talkcontribs) 16:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

you just killed multiple albums that can be found by sources Un millin de rosas vida, Amor y Sexo, Enter the future could only be found on amazon and on the fan web page. Neon Static and electrifying was found on ebay and I posted the source as for the earliest albums they are rare collectables which is why I posted the website to show that they exist. check out LaMafia.net all of the albums are posted there as well. I will find a source for Amor y Sexo and will bring it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc30002001 (talkcontribs) 17:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of articles about music and film festivals[edit]

As a courtesy notification, I made reference to one of your deletions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy deletion of articles about music and film festivals and would welcome your perspective there. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

La Mafia albums 1-6, number 8 and 12[edit]

hello deb I am coming to let you know that my buddy let me used his website as a source for those following articles I tried looking for other sources but could not find them. They are rare collectables I hope his website is enough to source. He is a big fan of La Mafia and you can find a lot of information up there. the pictures have been put up for deletion by Stefan I think that's his name. I am letting you know so you wont be mad. again I hope the articles stay but if they don't at least I tried.

I will go see him on Wednesday.

La Mafia[edit]

Hello Deb just writing to you. that I tried looking for sources and could not find it. go ahead and delete.

xxxx (year) in British music charts[edit]

Hi Deb, I know you often get involved in these articles correcting bits here and there, and I would like your opinion on standardising them. Yesterday I spent a lot of time properly citing the 2013 in British music charts article – I'd like to do the same for all the articles, particularly the year end charts, back to 1970 (the first year the year end charts were based on sales rather than a points system). However, before I spend more time on them I think there should be some sort of consensus on how they are presented: they vary greatly from year to year, whether it's the format of the chart (some are lists, others are tables), the cut-off point for how many records should be included (some are top 40, others top 50 or top 100), etc.

I have also spoken with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars about the weekly chart summaries that Hadji87 and others have been writing since 2011. Personally I don't see the point in them and they make the article absurdly long, but if he wants to do that, I won't stop him. My problem, however, is the date system he uses. He views the charts as dated on the Sunday that they are revealed on the Radio 1 Top 40 show. The charts have always been dated week ending the following Saturday – you can see this on the Official Charts Company's website and also the official chart books, the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums and its replacement The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles. This means that all 'week counts' on Wikipedia are a week out from the official sources: this may seem a trivial complaint but it means the final week of '2013 in British music charts' should actually count as the first week of 2014, which is important when you come to talk about how the year end charts were calculated. I posted a message to Hadji87 yesterday pointing this out, and he simply blanked his talk page. As I said, I don't mind him writing his summaries, but if he is going to continue using different dates to official sources and not citing his sources, it's going to cause me an awful lot of time and effort to clean it up. This is why I'd like to get consensus first to change all the dates.

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars suggested choosing an earlier year to work on in my sandbox as a template for all other years, and then present it for comment. This seems a good idea and I plan to implement it. I don't know how involved you want to get in this project, but do you have any other suggestions? Is there anybody else that you know of who I should contact for their opinions? Ideally I'd like to put it to a WikiProject for comment – the most obvious one to choose is Music of the United Kingdom but it seems to have been inactive for years so I think I'd be wasting my time posting there. Richard3120 (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Personally I didn't feel it needs to be too different to, say, 2004 in British music: a summary of the year, the charts, births and deaths, groups (re)formed and disbanded, and winners of Brit Awards, Mercury Prize, etc. I'm not in favour of splitting off the charts into a separate article but I can see why you did it, it was making the original articles too long. I'd be happy to hear any suggestions you have, I don't have any "set in stone" feelings about what the articles should or should not include. I prefer simple lists rather than tables for the year end charts pre-1995: this is because there are no reliable sales figures before then and so there is little further information you can add to the album name and artist. I'd rather keep these lists to a top 40 or 50 at most: although the official year end charts printed in Music Week and elsewhere often go up to a top 100 or even 200, this would make the list far too long, and (particularly for the charts from 1970 to 1982, when the data is somewhat contentious) not necessarily accurate anyway. I really would like to change Hadji's chart dates though, just so they match all other official sources – it makes it far easier to check for citations as well. Richard3120 (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, just an update on this: I've been looking at a few of the articles and it strikes me that most of the sales figures quoted in the year end charts aren't verified – I suspect most of them have been lifted from internet forums where chart enthusiasts have calculated them from the officially published year end artist sales figures, and then apportioning the sales among records where the artist have had one or more singles/albums out during the year. While laudable, it does mean these figures are no more than guesses, and more to the point, unverifiable. So I think all "sales figures" should be removed unless they have been published in Music Week or the OCC's website – this usually means only the top ten at most for each year will have any true sales figures. I don't believe there are any published figures at all before 1994, so I think all figures in the charts before 1994 should go, full stop. Or at the very least, there should be a note saying that figures are unofficial and estimated, but this kind of defeats the object of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia of facts. What do you think? Richard3120 (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Britten[edit]

I owe you an apology. I reverted your "Britain" to "England" without checking your user page first. I entirely see why anyone with a particular interest in Wales might miss the point about BB's longing for England, but it was remiss of me not to look at your page. Kind regards, Tim riley talk 18:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the important point about English/British that we have debated on my talk page should be on the Britten article talk page, where it will remain accessible to later editors, and I have copied and pasted accordingly. May I say that though we disagree on the substantive point I am most grateful for the generous and courteous tone of your comments. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 16:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
:-) Deb (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Wey[edit]

I see you were able to improve the article after I had given up on it ; I made some further edits to remove uncited material; the i.p. presumed COI editor reverted them, & I restored them; you may want to keep a further eye on the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The article now seems to be in a reasonably neutral state, with all potentially controversial content supported by independent sources. We need to keep an eye on it though. Deb (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Deb, did you intend to protect Benjamin Wey indefinitely? If so, I don't really see a reason for such a long protection especially given the page has only been around for a few months so there isn't a pattern of bad edits. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. I have no strong opinion on whether or not the article needs indefinite semiprotection, but I'll say that it does have a pattern of bad edits. -- Hoary (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 15 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Charlotte Sweeney[edit]

Hi Deb. I've tried to upload this page twice now, and rewrote the article the second time to sound less bias. I'm not sure where I'm going wrong with it? Could you highlight a few points in the article where i'm going wrong? I'm creating the article purely for on a factual basis. Thank you, Winningwork — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winningwork (talkcontribs) 08:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Skin Game[edit]

Out of curiosity, did you read the version I have in my sandbox? From your comment, it seems you have. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see your commentary at the DRN discussion if you care to participate. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be funny for you DEB[edit]

it was a conversation YOU weren't a part of, and i had every intention of deleting the article literally minutes after. I don't mind the deletion, as that was going to be the end result anyways, but keep your opinions to yourself, thanks. i don't care what you think is funny or not, because as I said, IT WASN'T FOR YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martyrdrebel27 (talkcontribs) 19:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) These comments so badly miss the point of what Wikipedia is about. Please read the Welcome message on your talk page and have a look at some of those links. They might help you to see how inappropriate your message above is. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Zouzous[edit]

If I read the logs correctly, you deleted Zouzous. Why? Another editor, curently under warning of a block, has been messing around with this article, replacing it with another, unrelated, TV programme that has not even started, and - quite frankly - creating a nice little mess. I can't even begin to imagine why it was deleted or how to put things right. Thanks.

Sorry for not signing. No, I can't refer you to a version to restore because you've deleted it so I can't see its history. But I was a major contributor and set up what was at least a passable article. Emeraude (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Though looking at the history for La Quotidienne (TV), this version might be OK: [[13]]. Emeraude (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No, Zouzous has not been renamed La Quotidienne. The former is a kids' TV strand, the latter a consumer affairs magazine programme which seems to have taken its scheduling slot (if I understand the poorly-written article). It is is no way otherwise connected. This is plainly obvious when reading the articles. Emeraude (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Country of Western nigeria[edit]

I think you've deleted this country, Country of Western nigeria before. ;-) --220 of Borg 10:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleting of my page[edit]

Hello Deb

I'm prypz2014 user. I was wondering about why you have deleated my new page just when I make the uploading. The page I want to upload is just a company profile, that is also aproved in Spanish language for Wikipedia editors. So, I can't understand why the English version is not approved and, as you said in the email you send me, it has something about advertising.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prpz2014 (talkcontribs) 11:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"Data Tutashkhia"[edit]

There was an edit conflict there. I noticed that you'd deleted the page just as I was creating the redirect. In retrospect, I don't think it's an A1 as there is enough context to identify it as a popular Georgian book/film and therefore a redirect to the author makes sense. Valenciano (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Western Nigeria et al[edit]

Responding to your comment at WP:ANI and the user I blocked for hoaxing: the block wasn't simply for creating these articles, which as you say, might not be hoaxes per se. However, much of the content carried fake citations (the content obviously didn't come from the source), and that's the basis for the block, since the user was falsely saying that such-and-such information came from these sources. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I'd confused you about my reasoning, that you simply didn't understand because I'd not explained well enough. Thank you for the reply, and glad to know that we're on the same page. Nyttend (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Emma Stern[edit]

Hi, this is Silentintern. Thanks for your message. I still don't quite understand why my message was deleted because the person I was writing about was not notable. This person has made important contributions to the modeling world, worked with some of the most important photographers in the industry, and was in major magazines. How do I get Wikipedia to see this as notable? I feel that this fits the notability criteria: "Entertainers Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Thanks. Silentintern (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk: May 1975[edit]

  • Deb, there's an editor named User:Shakehandsman who wants to raise a wider discussion about the Months in the 1900s articles. I'm looking for any people who have helped build these, so that they can voice their opinions as well, since he and I seem not to be in agreement. Mandsford 01:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Bell Integrator[edit]

Hi Deb. I just recreated the article you previously deleted - Bell Integrator. I read guidelines and made proper changes getting rid of an advertising tone and leaving just proven facts. Please check it out. It now looks very similar to those of other IT companies (Accenture, EPAM, etc.). Please let me know if it can be more improved. Thanks in advance! IProshkina 12:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Agatha Eric Udorie page[edit]

Could I please retrieve the contents of this deleted page to improve it by email please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granola t (talkcontribs) 19:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

you sent me a link on G S Palmer 's talk but the page is empty Granola t (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).