Jump to content

User talk:Deb: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 637: Line 637:
:That's a fair point. However, both of those who voted '''Keep''' (and two votes to one doesn't really constitute consensus) commented that the article needed improvement, yet there has been no subsequent attempt to improve it. Meanwhile, the article creator has churned out articles at an alarming rate for football teams he claims are professional but it's obvious from [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bangkok_City_F.C.|this discussion]] that his English is so rudimentary he does not really understand our notability and verifiability guidelines. He himself raised the question of why Pualand F.C. had not been deleted when he presumably felt it was of a similar standard, which is what brought it to my attention. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb#top|talk]]) 22:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
:That's a fair point. However, both of those who voted '''Keep''' (and two votes to one doesn't really constitute consensus) commented that the article needed improvement, yet there has been no subsequent attempt to improve it. Meanwhile, the article creator has churned out articles at an alarming rate for football teams he claims are professional but it's obvious from [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bangkok_City_F.C.|this discussion]] that his English is so rudimentary he does not really understand our notability and verifiability guidelines. He himself raised the question of why Pualand F.C. had not been deleted when he presumably felt it was of a similar standard, which is what brought it to my attention. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb#top|talk]]) 22:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
::Thanks for the explanation. I don't feel strongly about the article, and won't contest the decision. --[[User:Paul 012|Paul_012]] ([[User talk:Paul 012|talk]]) 09:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
::Thanks for the explanation. I don't feel strongly about the article, and won't contest the decision. --[[User:Paul 012|Paul_012]] ([[User talk:Paul 012|talk]]) 09:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
:::They have played in the FA-cup ([[2018 Thai FA Cup]]), so you had no valid reason at all to delete the page, [[User:Deb|Deb]]! The same with [[Ubon Kids City F.C.]] I demand that you get both pages back ASAP! What you are doing is vandalising! I`m sure these 2 are not the only pages you have deleted without any valid reason! [[User:SveinFalk|SveinFalk]] ([[User talk:SveinFalk|talk]]) 06:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
:::They have played in the FA-cup ([[2018 Thai FA Cup]]), so you had no valid reason at all to delete the page, [[User:Deb|Deb]]! The same with [[Ubon Kids City F.C.]] I demand that you get both pages back ASAP! What you are doing is vandalising! I`m sure these 2 are not the only pages you have deleted without any valid reason! [[User:Paul 012|Paul_012]] [[User:Aquaelfin]] [[User:SveinFalk|SveinFalk]] ([[User talk:SveinFalk|talk]]) 06:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


== William Jackson Harper ==
== William Jackson Harper ==

Revision as of 06:27, 26 January 2019

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.

6. You have a very interesting view of neutrality. The authors you give credence to have a definite point of view and you discount those that disagree.

Answer: There is of course no answer because this is not a question. It's a snide comment added by someone who doesn't understand the NPOV rule. Possibly a Ricardian revisionist.

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, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

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

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

Teahouse discussion

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

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

Continuing problems

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

symphonova - speedy deletion

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


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

Page review request

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

October 2018 at Women in Red

Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October!



New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/94|Clubs]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/95|Science fiction + fantasy]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/96|STEM]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/97|The Mediterranean]]

Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Aija Nagle-Izaks

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

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

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

Complete nonsense. I check your edits every so often because I know that you have made unreliable edits in the past. You should be thanking me for fixing your errors. Deb (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never made unreliable edits, but you did, or did you forget your "small mistake" ;))) at Talk:Jörg Kastendiek. --Greywin (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the one where two experienced users corrected you and you continued to claim that you understand English better than either of us?
Everybody sees who is right there and how the discussion with you and your buddy ended. Stop twisting clear facts.--Greywin (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

You mean the article with a single minor reference to a tourist website, advertising the state-owned facilities? Oh, nearly forgot, you added a broken link after I tagged it.
I recommend that you restore the reputably sourced article immediately or at least restore it and start a regular AfD discussion. Please also note and act according to WP:ATD in the future, which belongs to the basic rules of the project.--Greywin (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your peremptory manner will not help you get your own way.Deb (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines of this project are not "my own way"! You think you are above the law? Why? You are obviously misusing admin rights here, deleting a reputably sourced article just to hit me. Everybody can see that this is either because of your personal revenge campaign against me or to push through your political agenda (or both). Where are your arguments, why did you delete the article against the guidelines? The factual reasons for a speedy deletion are exactly zero.--Greywin (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - everyone reading this will recognise the facts of the matter. Deb (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they will see that you are discussing without any arguments. Again, why did you speedy delete? Because a public children's playground and a public swimming pool were mentioned in an article about a public park? I am urgently waiting for an answer which includes facts.--Greywin (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(stalking) It can't be that urgent; you've been banging this drum for nearly 72 hours now. ——SerialNumber54129 18:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Greywin, while I'm here, allow me to expand upon my remark. In that 72-hour period, you have accused User:Deb of WP:HOUNDING, WP:ADMINABUSE, and a failure of WP:ADMINCOND. Now, these are all egregious digressions from expected admin behaviours on Wikipedia, so I suggest you start a thread at a relevant noticeboard to resolve the issues you have raised. Alternatively, you could cease the accusations and do something else. ——SerialNumber54129 18:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have the right to get an answer which includes facts and arguments rather than philosophies about someone's "behaviour". A reputably sourced article was deleted without any reason. By the way, do you have facts and arguments to add to the discussion? No? Well, good bye then. Oh,and please read the page that you linked closely and recognize that I'm NOT a "talk page stalker". But are you? The page says that a talk page stalker "answers or adds input to threads in which the stalker is not directly involved". That's exactly what you are doing here. And be calm, I'm thinking about some of the measures that you suggested.--Greywin (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Err, yes, that's exactly what I am, and exactly what I am doing; well done. The point is is that you have asked your questions, and Deb, per WP:ADMINACCT has answered them. She is under an obligation to respond to your queries; she is not under an obligation to do whatever you want, or to agree with you. So, having asked your questions, and, as you see it, not received a satisfactory response, you must now take this elsewhere. PS: as far as further reading goes, this might also be profitable. ——SerialNumber54129 19:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Deb did clearly NOT act according to WP:ADMINACCT. This admin is hounding me for months, attacking me, bullying me, editing every article and talk page, making strange edits in my articles, adding false tags. Now even deleting a properly sourced article! And maybe WP:BOOMERANG could help this administrator more than me. Regarding your input here: it's really strange that people defend "authorities" misusing their power and twisting facts and guidelines. But who cares about guidelines when it's for a certain "good cause"?! Or why are you here? Defending a buddy?--Greywin (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fraudulent sources / WP:SNEAKY vandalism

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

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

Truly stupid person

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

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

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

Deletion review for Born Park

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

edit war

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

I'd suggest you read it and then tell me where the consensus for your edits is coming from. Deb (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to push material into the article Immigration and crime in Germany which is not connected to the subject for political reasons. And then nominate the article, a clear revenge action to my edit and again part of your WP:HOUND campaign...--Greywin (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness' sake, give it a rest. Deb (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should. Stop your campaign against sourced information you just don't like. Stop using the banner of "neutrality" to push unconnected material into articles. And stop your personal revenge actions like the deletion of Born Park, weird tagging, editing and so on.--Greywin (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is not alone in seeing your AFD as wp:forumshopping, this will not go well for you, please stop. Here is some help for you, search in goggle for "links between the immigration crisis and Germans racist past" and see if it brings up any hits. That is how you should be improving the article, finding RS that actually say what you want to say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"This will not go well for you" sounds like a threat. If you check out my history you will find that things seldom do "go well" for me in deletion debates. Administrators with actual experience of deleting articles rarely join these discussions (I rarely do myself) and the empty vessels usually make the most noise. Your mistake is in thinking that I am going to stop doing the right thing just because I've been accused of doing the wrong thing.Deb (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a threat it is a warning, you are making PA's and casting aspersions, you have been accused by an ed not involved in this dispute of forum shopping on an AFD. If this kind of behavior continues you will end up with someone reporting you, and your attitudes and actions are not going to go down well. You need to stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with someone of your edits is a racist who wants to whitewash racists actions. All you have done is antagonize at least one ed who actually thought you had a valid point, but is now very dubious as to your real motives.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken in thinking that the ed who made the accusation is not involved - he's up to his eyeballs. I've been reported before, for many many reasons. After all the years I've been here making useful contributions, I'm really not troubled by that possibility. Deb (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You as an admin are constantly violating WP:ADMINACCT and WP:HOUND. This not only the wrong thing and unuseful, it is a problem for the project.--Greywin (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

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

Get ready for November with Women in Red!

Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives



New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/98|Religion]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/99|Deceased politicians]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/96|Asia]]

Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

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

Page review request

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

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

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

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

Precious

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

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

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

Page review request

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

Speedy deletion of BCN Drone Center

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

Paint chat

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

Page review request

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

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

Minnow

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

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

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

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

Page review request

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

@Roger Bevins The 3rd: When you answer the direct question you were asked, about whether you have a connection with this company, I will tell you whether you have a COI or not. Deb (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb: Apologies, I didn't recognize the notes on the page as questions, let alone direct ones! I was asked by my employer to make an assessment on the viability of multiple cloud storage platforms. Backblaze, Google, AWS, Wasabi, Microsoft were the main ones we looked at. I had been looking at Wikipedia for a while and wanted to start contributing, noticed that the other platforms had pages but Wasabi did not and decided to add it since I had a lot of fresh knowledge in my head. In my opinion, they're a notable company, but that may just be my opinion! If this warrants a COI tag in your opininon I'm happy to add it. Just hoping to learn the ins and outs a bit better. I also noticed you cleaned up the article, which I appreciate -- I'm going to look into the comparisons to see what I can learn :). Roger Bevins The 3rd (talk)

Swift Sensors -- need your help, Deb

Hi Deb,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Deb.

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

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

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

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

wikipedia edits

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

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


Bankset

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

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

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

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

Second opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dauntless23

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

Speedy Deletion: Al Haramain Perfumes

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

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

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

Kerala scool.delhi listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Recreation of deleted page (notability issue resolved)

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

Best regards, Zach — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach191944 (talkcontribs) 16:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018 at Women in Red

The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone.



New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/101|Photography]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/102|Laureates]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/103|Countries beginning with 'I']]

Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Rosiestep (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
[reply]

Regarding my recent revision on the article June 5

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

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

Salt request

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

Michael (disambiguation)

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

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

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

Well, that's clearly wrong as you should never link to a redirect. Deb (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, when I say "wrong", I don't mean that you are wrong, just that the guideline that says that is a particularly stupid one. Deb (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that it's an exception used in disambiguation pages - it's listed several places in the MOS. Since most links to DAB pages are errors, the intentionally ambiguous links are pointed out in an obvious way. Leschnei (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red

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

January 29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cooperstown Beverage Trail

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

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

Speedy deletion: Apros (software)

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

Intro

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

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

Regarding my recent revision on the article August 16

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

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

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

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

German crime topics

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

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

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

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

No, you're not one of them; I don't recall ever coming into contact with you previously. And I know I'm right about Bild, thanks, because I raised the issue with German editors beforehand, in order to gain agreement. I'm more than happy for editors whose first language is not English to edit here, and have given considerable assistance to such users over the years. However, when a German Wikipedian chooses not to edit in his native language and instead berates those whose native language is English for "not understanding English", there is definitely something wrong somewhere. Deb (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think also that you are missing the point. These articles have been created with a political motive, which the article creator has admitted. The reason they fail at AfD is because these incidents are "notable" in the sense that they fulfil Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The fact that Greywin's articles are mostly unbalanced and in conflict with the NPOV guidelines is not relevant to their notability, therefore they have to stay. That doesn't mean they are good articles. Part of my role as an administrator is to try to limit the damage done by biased reporting of the known facts, and the best way of doing this is to add a warning to readers to ensure that they don't take the current slant of the article at face value. Deb (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Fyi

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

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

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

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

Maxx Force

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

@ChrisGraslie: So you see wrong. I redirected the article once because it didn't have adequate references demonstrating notability. You then made a second attempt to create it, again without adequate references, and again it was redirected - by another contributor - without me even knowing anything about it. Feel free to improve it by adding content and some evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb: Okay, will do. And yes, I see what happened now. Sorry about that. ChrisGraslie (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. Deb (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019 at Women in Red

January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108


Happy New Year from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons.

January events: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/104|Women of War and Peace]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/105|Play!]]

January geofocus: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/106|Caucasus]]

New, year-long initiative: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/107|Suffrage]]

Continuing global initiative: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/108|#1day1woman2019]]

Help us plan our future events: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas|Ideas Cafe]]

To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list
Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list
Image attribution: Nevit Dilmen (CC BY-SA 3.0)

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Merry Christmas

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

Dead man walking

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

Nostalgia Critic (season 10)

Hello,

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sure they've never made any non-abusive contributions. Deb (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) I think what Abelmoschus means is that that is an IP and so shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but it's fairly obvious it's someone we know, logging in anonymously just to post abuse. I don't mind if you want to shorten it. Deb (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gwin poeth sbeislyd i chi ...

... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi!
That is Welsh and translates to:
Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019!
Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia.

Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Explanation

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

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

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

Non sequitur

And "baloney" is not an argument

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

This is bordering on a personal attack.

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

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

Concerning Wikipedia February 1st Page Edit

Greetings ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you ideologically biased?

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

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

Journal access?

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

About your draft article

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

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

Wikipedia or Wiktionary?

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

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

Thonburi University F.C. is professional team now

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

Why you delete this page again ? The Club is update from old Articles for deletion Aquaelfin (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you read Thai language ? https://www.thaileague.co.th/official/t4/?r=News/ScoopRead&id=328. (Thai รายการไทยลีก 4 โซนกรุงเทพฯ และปริมณฑล : มหาวิทยาลัยธนบุรี). This link annouce teams which Thaileague 4 (T4) pass club-licencing. Teams don't have club-licencing can't play this league and Thaileague 4 is lowest professional team. If you can't read Thai language, You would not be choas. Aquaelfin (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher)I'm glad to hear it! Deb, not being choas? ...chaos, maybe; but we can put up with that!  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 15:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do my best not to be either. But maybe I don't always succeed. :-) Deb (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My dad used to say, just before knocking our heads together, if we do not have order, we will have chaos. Ahhh, god times.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

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

Misplaced post

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

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

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

A7 deletion of Pualand F.C.

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

That's a fair point. However, both of those who voted Keep (and two votes to one doesn't really constitute consensus) commented that the article needed improvement, yet there has been no subsequent attempt to improve it. Meanwhile, the article creator has churned out articles at an alarming rate for football teams he claims are professional but it's obvious from this discussion that his English is so rudimentary he does not really understand our notability and verifiability guidelines. He himself raised the question of why Pualand F.C. had not been deleted when he presumably felt it was of a similar standard, which is what brought it to my attention. Deb (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I don't feel strongly about the article, and won't contest the decision. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They have played in the FA-cup (2018 Thai FA Cup), so you had no valid reason at all to delete the page, Deb! The same with Ubon Kids City F.C. I demand that you get both pages back ASAP! What you are doing is vandalising! I`m sure these 2 are not the only pages you have deleted without any valid reason! Paul_012 User:Aquaelfin SveinFalk (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Jackson Harper

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