User talk:Ottawahitech

Archives

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

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Happy happy!

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

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

Quality C for BC Transplant Society

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

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

Use of talk pages

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

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

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

Overlinking

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

Talkback

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

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

Proposal to speedily rename category

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

Disruptive editing warning

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

Your edits/my revert

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

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

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

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

Airports

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

January 2017

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

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

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

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. You are now creating pages, redirecting them to other pages and linking your newly created page. This is completely ridiculous and it is obvious you are not adhering to WP:NPOV. SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Template:Z43 SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Ruth Ibanez

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

ANI notification

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

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

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

February 2017

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

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

for your kind motivation to (still) categorize (India-related) women-related content

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of FATCA privacy Controversy

The article FATCA privacy Controversy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no controversy actually exists, redirect based on a news headline

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 99.254.120.118 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, because redirects are not eligible for deletion via PROD, I removed the PROD tag and nominated the redirect for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 9. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American women bloggers has been nominated for discussion

Category:American women bloggers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. JDDJS (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Wesley Clover companies

Hello, Ottawahitech. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, List of Wesley Clover companies, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Civil Resolution Tribunal

Hello, Ottawahitech. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Civil Resolution Tribunal, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of executive search firms

Hello, Ottawahitech. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, List of executive search firms, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

- Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alumni of business schools has been nominated for discussion

Category:Alumni of business schools, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history in The Signpost (2012 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history in The Signpost (2012. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history in The Signpost (2012 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Joseph Dear for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SL93 (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Advocacy and Public Policymaking

The article Advocacy and Public Policymaking has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability issue unaddressed since 2015. Only source is the website of this research project.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. darthbunk pakt dunft 13:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ombudswomen has been nominated for discussion

Category:Ombudswomen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Barbara Stymiest

The article Barbara Stymiest has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

little evidence of notability, based on a single RS; further RS check shows little about subject; flagged 5 years with no improvement

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Company spin-offs has been nominated for discussion

Category:Company spin-offs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of housing cooperatives in Canada for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of housing cooperatives in Canada is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bob Crittenden for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Canadian women government ministers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Canadian women government ministers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mark Sutcliffe (Ottawa) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Sutcliffe (Ottawa) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of residential buildings in India for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of residential buildings in India is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of residential buildings in India (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kalpesh Mehta

The article Kalpesh Mehta has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joe Max Higgins

The article Joe Max Higgins has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Senior’s Supplement

The article Senior’s Supplement has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jack Kitts

The article Jack Kitts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Karen Midthun

The article Karen Midthun has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Peter Marks (FDA)

The article Peter Marks (FDA) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mark Machin

The article Mark Machin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Marion Buller

The article Marion Buller has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Steve Kanellakos

The article Steve Kanellakos has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chez Piggy

The article Chez Piggy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alfred Roth (Concordia)

The article Alfred Roth (Concordia) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Keith Romney

The article Keith Romney has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jane E. Shaw

The article Jane E. Shaw has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sandra Chapnik

The article Sandra Chapnik has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Zachary Mider

The article Zachary Mider has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: It's hard to believe you're doing a thorough search for sources for all of these, at a rate of sometimes more than one PROD/minute. Is winning a Pulitzer not enough? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I guess it does make it less clear. I will withdraw this one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Vauhini Vara

The article Vauhini Vara has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Alfred Roth (Concordia) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alfred Roth (Concordia) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vauhini Vara for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies spun off from Nortel has been nominated for discussion

Category:Companies spun off from Nortel, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies based in the National Capital Region (Canada) has been nominated for discussion

Category:Companies based in the National Capital Region (Canada), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dave Brown (columnist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dave Brown (columnist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you're blocked

My yearly check in to retain admin flag, and was coming to say hi.

You may be better off being rid of this place. Wish it was on your terms and not theirs.

As always, kind regards. Syrthiss (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Businesswomen has been nominated for discussion

Category:Businesswomen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Thanks for notifying me of this discussion user:Bearcat. I hope you also notify the creator of Category:Lebanese businesswomen whose category you co-nominated in the same discussion. I know the editor already commented in the cfd, but in the interest of getting more editors involved in this discussion it would not hurt to follow established wiki-tradition.

Since I have been blocked from editing wikipedia I’ll try and clarify the difference between Category:Businesswomen and Category:Women in business here where I am still allowed to edit. I would appreciate it if someone such as User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Justforthefun17, or User:WikiVirusC who have already commented in the cfd would post a link from there to here.

Category:Businesswomen is a collection of biographies of women who are/were in business, while Category:Women in business is a more general category that also contains articles that are not biographies, such as Gender representation on corporate boards of directors, Women's Business Ownership Act, Women in cooperatives, Women's Technology Cluster, Women in cooperatives, Zonta International, Women of Krusha e Madhe, Women in business and more.

Readers who are looking for a biography of a businesswoman would be better served by a category exclusively dedicated to house such articles, while readers who are looking for general information about the the subject of women in business would find this information in Category:Women in business and not vice versa.

Category:Businesswomen is a legitimate child of Category:Businesspeople and Category:Women by occupation while Category:Women in business should not be a not a child of those categories. If the categories are merged will the merged category be forced to inherit this parentage? If so it will mean that Gender representation on corporate boards of directors (for example) will turn up when a reader follows the links from Category:Businesspeople which currently contains only biographies of businesspeople. If this parentage is omitted then what is the purpose of categorization?

In short I cannot see how merging these two categories is in the interest of those trying to find information about these two distinct topics. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see User: Explicit has closed the CfD as reverse-merge simply by counting votes (I believe?). Some of the side effects are:

Category: Businesswomen is now a subcategory of itself: This happened when all subcategories of Catgory: Women in Business were made into subcategories of Category: Businesswomen by User:Cydebot
Category:Women in business/Category:Lebanese women in business/Category:New Zealand women in business were not originally tagged with the CfD notice (nor were the creators of those categories notified of the discussion), yet these categories have now been deleted.
Articles about non-biographical topics are now mixed in with biographical articles for example see Category: Businesswomen in the F column :

BTW I also noticed that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Administrator_instructions#Process specifically says:

2. Check that the nominated category pages were tagged. if you find that a category has been listed in the discussion but was not tagged, then your close (in respect of that category at least) should be "procedural close" as an invalid nomination, after which no action is required. Alternatively, tag the category pages and relist the discussion on the current day's CfD log
- and
4. If a category is merged to its own sub-category, the bots transfer the head categories incorrectly, so revise these manually after merger. If you list such a case on the Working page, either check back later or leave a note at WP:CFDWM#Other for someone else to do so Ottawahitech (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to #4 (just above) I just found out that this has been happening for years (+ much better wording describing the problem). See: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_17#Bad_edits_by_Cydebot Ottawahitech (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women criminals has been nominated for discussion

Category:Women criminals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Greenwoodtree 05:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Greenwoodtree, you nominated for deletion Category: Women criminals (which has been emptied) saying it was a duplicate of Category: Female criminals (to which articles and categories have been added). Here is why those categories are not duplicate:

DESCRIPTION: Category: Women criminals explains its inclusion criteria by using Template:Catmain saying that only articles about Women who are criminals should be added to this cat (category), while Category: Female criminals does not specify any inclusion criteria, leaving the impression that, for example, criminals who are transwomen (XY chromosomes) should not be added to a cat of Females,but transmen (XX chromosomes) should be(?).
PARENTAGE: The parent cats (categories) of Category: Women criminals are Category:Criminals, Category:Women by behavior and Category:Women associated with crime, which is what one would expect. On the other hand the parent cats of Category: Female criminals are Category:Women in society, Category:Women by behavior (added by you), and Category:Criminals by sex. There is no parent cat with the word Female in it, which is what one would expect. Why not replace Category:Women in society, and Category:Women by behavior with Category:Female mammals as a parent cat (rhetorical question), and shouldn’t Category:Criminals by sex be instead Category:Criminals by gender? To be continues shortly... Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech, so there should be "female criminals", "women criminals", "male criminals", and presumably "men criminals"? Is that right? Because there are transmen as well as transwomen and your argument suggests that transmen should not be in "male criminals". So they would go in "men criminals". Is that right? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

…Proper categorization of articles helps the community achieve one of its goals which is to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia (Is this described anywhere as a goal?). One of the mechanisms to achieve improvement is the use of wikiprojects to collect articles within a certain topic to allow editors to easily locate articles of interest to them. Look at the talkpage of the category you want to delete and you will see that it was added to wikiproject women. This means that all the articles included in this category can safely be added to wikiproject women. This allows editors who prefer to work on articles about women to more easily find articles to improve.

However the shear number of articles on Wikipedia is a hinderance for collecting articles and placing them in the appropriate wikiprojects. It requires a huge effort on the part of human editors and is tedious work that most editors shun. With the use of BOTS the addition of articles to the appropriate wikiprojects can be achieved more speedily and consistently. Cats that are well named can be a huge help in this respect. For example an article belonging to Category: Women criminals obviously belongs to WikiProject Women, and a BOT can easily be programmed to find all the articles belonging to categories that have titles that include the word Women. However when the article belongs to Category: Female criminals it may end up in Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology if left up to a BOT.

I would like to thank you, User:Greenwoodtree, for inviting me to participate in the CFD, but since I am blocked indefinitely from editing wikipedia, I am unable to add my comments to the discussion page and would appreciate it if you, or the other participant User: Dimadick would post a link to my comments from CFD discussion. Thanks in advance Ottawahitech (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked the CfD to your comments as requested. --Greenwoodtree 08:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, though: you have collapsed User:World's_Lamest_Critic's reply to you into the "Extended Content" tab in the middle of your discussion above. Please uncollapse it. If I linked the CfD to your talk page for users to see, you need to allow any replies to be immediately visible too. Thanks. --Greenwoodtree 08:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of women in science and technology

Hello, Ottawahitech. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of women in science and technology".

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Just wondering if you are aware that I have been indefinitely blocked since the beginning of this year and cannot edit any articles, drafts, etc.? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is just routine cleanup, one of thousands of old drafts being removed. If you ever want to come back to it ask for a [WP:REFUND]] Legacypac (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: I see there are others with views different than yours regarding the "routine cleanup" of drafts. On another note, I see that we both bear a grudge against the same ADMIN. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's September 2017 worldwide online editathons.

"Hispanic and Latina Women"

"Women in the Olympics"

"Women from New Zealand"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for User:World's Lamest Critic: Book written by a woman

@World's Lamest Critic: I would love to be to be able to create a new article, Walking Out on the Boys, but unfortunately I have been blocked from editing wikipedia. Just wondering if you would be interested in creating this article:

It would be a good challenge for you: Have you created any book reviews yet?
It is a work by a woman (Frances K. Conley) and is "the story of her protest of misogyny" at the University hospital (according to the article).
It is controversial

Are you up to the challenge? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to be accused of proxy editing. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]