User talk:Deb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Notice Coming here to ask why I deleted your article? Read this page first...

If that doesn't help, read these FAQs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Why did you delete my article without warning?

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

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

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

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.

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

Also

Please don't waste your time trying to steal my wikipedia ID. Mr 101.191.142.18 in Sydney, Australia, is just one of many who have tried and failed to do this because it didn't occur to them that the new password would be sent to my e-mail address, not theirs. Mr 82.132.222.214 in London is another.


Archives: 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Deleted Page[edit]

Hi Deb,

I believe that the CoderDojo movement is of global significance and request that the page be unlocked so that people can recreate it. As a founder of the movement, which is a charity, I promise I will not edit the page or cause others to put content I control on there as I do understand the wikipedia rules and respect them deeply. I can say that thousands and thousands of people world wide are or have been involved and even a short search in Google will return you numerous independent media articles about CoderDojo. Your assistance in this matter would be appreciated I am sure that there will be enough people willing to contribute once the lock down is removed. My two sons who attend CoderDojo are also keen to contribute without my influence - Bill Liao Co-Founder CoderDojo.

I have no recollection of this article or of deleting or protecting it. However, at the moment it's reading like a blatant advert and needs to be cleaned up PDQ if you don't want it deleted (again?). Deb (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Deb, Thank you for replying about the CoderDojo page, I can see you have to deal with a lot of issues and don't have much time. I have removed the Philosophy section from the page as this seems to be the most noticeable non-neutral content. I hope this change is sufficient from your perspective as a moderator, if not I hope you can find the time to post a short note here. The CoderDojo movement has parallels with Football clubs, and each of the some 600 'Dojos' can be very proud of their own brand and at times may be over-zealous in their use of non-neutral language, it may be necessary for us to deal with the many different clubs in a similar fashion to List of association football clubs. - Lindsay MacVean (sometime CoderDojo volunteer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsaymacvean (talkcontribs) 05:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Deb, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.72.140 (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC) You deleted my recent changes to the Mobify Wikipedia page. I would like to revise the article to ensure it follows the guidelines that you directed me to. What is the best way to go about this? Thanks, --Kmcyr (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Kmcyr June 16, 2015

Deltapath speedy deletion and related Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Deltapath was recently recreated by another user. currently, a Sockpuppet investigation is open see here. if you are interested please check them. thank you :) Nicky mathew (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Vizhiyil[edit]

It was previously deleted per afd-the creator put the article back up in March right after it was AFD-oddly it never appeared on the talk page that it was before and oddly not caught till now. Wgolf (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Also looks like a SPI, there is also Michuroks01 Wgolf (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted page - French Operations Research & Decision Support Society[edit]

I find it really rude that you deleted the French Operations Research society without any prior warning. The society is one of the largest Operations Research (OR) societies in Europe, and OR is a well established and recognized academic field. There have been some discussions going on about similar pages for other countries, that ended up being kept. So I don't understand the hurry in deleting this one. Please clarify (and read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/German_Operations_Research_Society first). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfortz (talkcontribs) 20:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

How dumb are you guys when we post sum thing unless the sheep people believe it you delet it, HYETECH superchargers is a real company I was doing research on. Check then out or call them Hyetechsuperchargers.com so don't delete posters when thry are real, HYETECH is a leading manufacturer and the products they supply have never been done before by any other company so how can we write this so it's won't be deleted if it's the truth.

Deleted page - Lexinnova Technologies[edit]

Hi, you just deleted the page Lexinnova Technologies. I do not believe any of the content on the page was promotional. Also I believe it met the notability criteria. LexInnova and its insights have been published in several leading journals and several other notable sources.

Please let me know if there are any modifications that can be made to make sure that it meets all the criteria. Please not that several of our competitors are already listed on wikipedia with a similar number of sources.

I can provide additional sources if needed.

Request your cooperation in the matter. Thank you. Nasir at Lexinnova (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you add Andy Griffith to the Death Section for July 3? I can't remember how to do it, and would probably screw it up

SayRayJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SayRayJ (talkcontribs) 14:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Just checked and he's already there! Deb (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi Deb,

You deleted my page ==LED wallpaper== three days ago. I wish to rework my article because it was not intended to be advertising. Please let me know what to do. Thank you.Viarasp (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Pages[edit]

Hi Deb, You deleted my page ZTEsoft yesterday. I don't intend to make this page promotional.I can revise it to meet the criteria. What should I do? Thanks.


Hi. I tried to revise the Page-ZTEsoft just now, and I noticed there was an warning "this page is under protection". I just want to make sure that this page will not be blocked if I revise it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cher1991 (talkcontribs) 13:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to create ZTEsoft page for people who need to know the basic information about it. I will modify the previous one and make sure that it meets all the criteria. Can you please unlock the page as it is really important for me. ThanksCher1991 (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsigned post[edit]

Hi Deb, You deleted a page I was editing under the pretense that it was an advertisement, but from my perspective it's simply a means of informing the public about what the program is in action to do (help educate people who arent getting a full masters degree) and how this program affects the ever-changing business market. If that is an advertisement then wouldn't havard's page be an advertisement? As well as any band/musician page? They both tell the history of their topics, as I was doing on mine, as well as the affects they have on the ever-changing cultures they are associated with. I mentioned where it was started because that's the history of the program. I mentioned how the certificates are becoming more accepted so people can see how the educational system and business executive growth models are both changing and how this kind of program may become more and more prevalent, giving way to more optional learning that gives similar lessons to graduate degrees, but not be the entire program a master's or doctorate takes. If talking about that program is an advertisement, any business described on wiki would also fall under that same category, would it not? I'm not at all angry, or trying to be rude. I just have to be very honest about the way I perceive the post I was working hard on and how your labelling it as an advertisement should not be a double standard. If that program cannot get its information posted on wikipedia because it's a program that's specific to a school, or a certain demographic, none of the businesses, musicians, non-profits, etc... should have that right then. It just feels like a double standard and with all due respect, I disagree with it being deleted for the reason that it was. Id appreciate if you would respond with rebuttals to my points here, as I believe them to be legitimate points. If you disagree, i respect that and look forward to learning why, but wikipedia is an information hub that covers many specific topics, businesses included. The standard should be the same for all of those topics, no? Thank you for your time. Sorry for rambling. I do get passionate when I feel smaller parties are being censored for an unjust reason, but this is in no way personal and I mean you no disrespect as a person, so please take this as a friendly, spirited debate post.

Hi Dev,

I would like to improve my page based on your comments. You are requested to again put my page back so that i can work on the same.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by President DEF (talkcontribs) 17:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


My RfA[edit]

Homemade chocolate chip cookies, fresh out of the oven, November 2009.jpg
Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven!
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

(talk page stalker)Wasn't that ten years ago??? :o !!! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

July 4[edit]

I don't see anything on Talk:July 4 about a large-scale deletion of entries. Was that intentional, or are you talking about a different talk page? OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 July[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks fro rmvoing[edit]

Young cats.jpg

take kity

Ca1ek (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Pages[edit]

Hi Deb, You deleted my page Nutty - A Network Utility yesterday. I don't intend to make this page promotional.I believe it is giving information about the existence of an application that many users of the Linux platform need. I read through the 'Neutral Points of View' and believe I have not mentioned anything which goes against the spirit of neutrality. It will be much appreciated if you can return the page and mention which part of the same went against the promotional/neutrality nature so that I can rectify the same. Thanks. Siddharthadas (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)siddharthadas

Sorry, no. It's very clear that you have a conflict of interest here.Deb (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

User:OluwaCurtis[edit]

Hello Deb,

Could you please assess the above editor? I came across them few weeks ago and they seemed a brilliant contents creator. The user had created 68 articles within a space of two months of editing experience and I'm sure they will definitely create hundreds of Nigeria-related articles on notable topics. I thought of nominating them for Autopatrol to reduce the stress of patrolling their pages but I'm concern about their experience because they joined Wikipedia 2 month ago. What is your opinion on this? Thanks! Wikigyt@lk to M£ 09:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 July[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Page Protection[edit]

Hi Deb, could you please protect the Cyclo (film) page? Thanks. -KH-1 (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Page re-instate?[edit]

Hi Deb,

I would like to re-instate this page, I have been following it for a while - If there is an issue with the content, please let me know. Appreciate your input -

Best wishes, Mills

Not enough information here for me to act on. Please read the FAQ at top of page and don't forget to sign your posts. Deb (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Deb,

I've read through your message and no page currently exists so I think the bot may be confused.

Do let me know how I can re-instate - *Be the change you want to see* (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Equally baffling, sorry.Deb (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry! I am trying to reinstate the Cablefree page which has just been picked by the bot and then deleted.

*Be the change you want to see* (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Deb. I'm deleting what you've userfied. It's spam. -- Y not? 15:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Fine with me. It was only userfied on the understanding that it would be fixed. Deb (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted DropTask Page[edit]

A page that we have recently published has been deleted under the pretense that it was an advertisement. This was not the intention as it was simply stating factual information about the software. I understand and respect the rules of wikipedia and therefore would like to request access to it so that I can make the appropriate changes please.Thinkproductivity (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Deb. After your first warning I consequently made edits to the page and wouldn't have saved and published had I known that it was still in breach of the Wikipedia rules. I understand the conflict of interest. Am I able to obtain a copy of the text that was deleted for other use (without any intent to publish here) please?Thinkproductivity (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015 - Edit warring / Richmond Pharmacology[edit]

Hi Deb, Jytdog, All - I apologize for the lack of communication, I have being trying to gain a clearer understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am the marketing manager for Richmond Pharmacology and our recent edits to the page created by JzG, were done in good faith. We felt the original content was intended to put the company in bad light following recent legal proceedings with the HRA. Our reasons for recent edits made are as follows:

1. The omission of academic research is unreasonable, as its factual and referenced. Therefore it is a removal of relevant and factual information presumably motivated by the malicious intent to smear the organisation.

2. The reference to Metro provided does not support that Richmond pays up to £2,000 therefore this a pure fabrication by the Wikipedia contributor. The article asks the question whether £2,000 are enough to be a guinea pig and Richmond Pharmacology is mentioned there.

3. The Dhaliwal case is misrepresented as the reference clearly states the borderline nature; a far cry from “won” which suggests that she was awarded damages. The case is irrelevant to the entry and not reflective of the organisation. It has presumably been added by JzG out of malicious intent to lower the reputation of the organisation and its officers.

All the text provided in our recent edits is factual and to the point and unlike previous editions are well referenced. We welcome new additions so long as they are balanced. We also welcome your recommendation on how to improve the content so that it is completely neutral and complies with your COI policy.

Please kindly advise how we can resolve this amicably.

Regards Swelgemoed (talk), 09:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.106.121 (talk)

Paul Barlow[edit]

Did I read it right? Paul Barlow passed away? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Mass Pike[edit]

The redirect you had previously deleted under CSD R3 was recreated by the same editor again. Imzadi 1979  23:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Resellpk Page[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Develper,

I create a Page and write article according to the government of Pakistan. The Wikipedia say after submit the page , your page is not meet according to the Wikipedia and it will be deleted in 7 Days. The Link is that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resellpk

............................................................. We have described about the Best Company of Pakistan which provide hosting.Although we can improve this page day by day by owner.This Company is Chartered by Pakistan.So Please don't need to delete this page.We can write this page according to the Government. ................................................................................................................ Our Government IT Head Department also contact by a Phone for discussing some issues about that company.But Company owner Requested for approval for that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allurdututorial (talkcontribs) 21:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Resellpk Page[edit]

If you further say that , this page is not meet to our criteria so please send that what should to do for improving this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resellpk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allurdututorial (talkcontribs) 21:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

VLCC Health Care Ltd[edit]

Hi Deb,

Submitted it again, Hope this time i have n't used any promotional language and wherever there is a claim, it is addressed by a reference.If you still think,there exists the need of removing or editing any portion of article then let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swapnilc2 (talkcontribs) 06:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Panther Industries[edit]

WP:A7 states, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source.... If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion."

I would be happy if you would please copy the deleted work to my user space while I wait for an email reply with the details. Tim AFS (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"With 20 employees, I very much doubt you will be able to find independent references."
They have a write-up in the July 1, 2007 issue of Packaging Digest, which is behind a paywall (although there is a single paragraph web-only blurb at [1] which appears to have been published just prior to the detailed article) and their earlier work is described in this 2004 RFID Journal article. But it's their applicator robotics which I found interesting, and for which they have won several awards, the trophies for which I saw with my own eyes, and on which I wanted to write as soon as I get the details in email.
Would you please copy the deleted work into my userspace? Tim AFS (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

NEW BEACON SCHOOL[edit]

New Beacon School.

Deb, I would be interested to know if you have any connection with New Beacon School, paid or otherwise. I would like to be sure that all bias is transparent in this article in which the sexual abuse of a minor is mentioned. I would like an explanation as to why and how Wiki is being used to continue the cover up of this sexual abuse case. Having read Guy Hamilton's note about editing, I have now reviewed the edits and it appears that you are the source writer and that you have made alterations to factually correct and well referenced edits. Is it also the case that you have semi protected this site? I would like to understand why you have apparently taken this stance against a victim of child sexual abuse, in favour of the public relations of the school. I refer particularly to the used of the word "claims", as noted below.

The Controversy section refers to the alleged cover up of sexual abuse of a boy at the school. The site has now been semi protected. This

This section is biased in that it is stated that the Seveonaoks Chronicle "claims"....... The word "claims" should be replaced with the word reported. The Newspaper made no claims, merely reported the proven facts. The word "claims" is a piece of blatant spin used by the author to minimise public perception of the schools behaviour in response to the award of by Criminial Injuries Compensation Authority in respect of sexual abuse of one of its pupils.

The word claimed is also used in respect of the perpetrator having been previously suspended. Again, the newspaper made no claims. It reported the facts. The words claimed should be changed to the word reported.

In the first sentence, the same "spin" technique is is used....."....a former pupil who claimed...." The use of the word claim implies doubt. The school has written to the child saying that did not doubt his testimony, but is saying another thing publicly. The sentence should be changed to "....a former pupil disclosed".

The page should not be an advertisement and public relations platform for the New Beacon School. It should be open to editing. Otherwise Wiki is being used by the school to protect its reputation in the very serious matter of the sexual abuse of children.

Kindly explain why the article has been edited in a way which repeats the schools one sided and misleading comments made in the press (for which the school has apologised) and is potentially damaging to the victim. Johnobrienuk (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnobrienuk (talkcontribs)

To edictor Johnobrienuk -- I doubt that editor Deb has any connection to the school, though they should answer on their own. Would you please discuss the content of the article at its Talk page? To editor Deb I have been contacted also. I see that you have semi-protected the page and have been involved in back-and-forth editing for some time, perhaps protecting the page in another way. But what I don't understand is why there is no discussion at the Talk page. There's no sifting of any evidence. No consideration of balance of coverage. My first edits at the page and its Talk page might be seen as being on the whitewashing side, because I am looking for sources. But offhand I must say there's merit in Johnobrienuk's pointing to apology made by the school as being significant, IMO. That was in the article and now is not, if I understand correctly. My impression is that Johnobrienuk is a relatively new editor and does not see any proper example of Talk page discussion. Just looking at the one article, if I were a new editor I would think the way to proceed is to lobby on the side and to believe that is how things get done here. To both of you, please discuss specific items of content at the Talk page for a while, I request of you. Then eventually we can get around to discussing refinements of general tone when there is a properly sourced article with some consensus built up from discussion, hopefully. sincerely, --doncram 08:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, doncram, I've responded on your talk page. Deb (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Ehrlich - Deleted page[edit]

Dear Deb,

I'm writing to ask for some minor assistance. You deleted my article about Jeffrey Ehrlich, because it did not comply with Wikipedia's NPOV rules. I'd really like to revise the article to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia's standards, but I don't have a copy of it.

Could you provide me one, please? Or even just point me in the right direction?

I'm serious about fixing my mistakes, and I appreciate whatever help you can give me. Thanks so much.

Sincerely, KirkTiberius KirkTiberius (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Were there some special reasons for a) userfying by copy&paste instead of restore&move and b) leaving the speedy tag in place? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Not "special reasons", no - but I wanted to see how long it would take him to start work on his sandbox and I can't see any reason to restore all those revisions for an article that may never see the light of day again. Deb (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Page deletion: PayU_India (understanding your context)[edit]

Hi Deb, I appreciate your strong patrolling. I created this page, as a knowledge point. It'd be good to have you go through the page again and suggest what you see now as NOT aligned with the Encyclopedic content and context of Wikipedia.

The intent here is purely knowledge and value driven. I am personally against the abuse of any disciplined platform. Thanks! paritoshsharma (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)So you agree with User:Deb; who also prevents the abuse of a disciplined platform. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 09:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree. But [Note to Deb]: I have gone through deeply on many other pages on Wikipedia which have purely promotional content as per "your guidelines". Since they have been existing, I had modeled this page accordingly, which was purely writted with a NPOV as Wiki says! paritoshsharma (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid it wasn't. But I've done some work to remove the promotional content. If you see any other examples of articles with promotional content, please tag them accordingly so we can work on improving them also. Deb (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help Deb. I would really like to work with you to understand where exactly am I going wrong in building this page. I am 100% for maintaining the sanctity of Wikipedia, though existing pages from the payments industry are misleading. Some of them don't even have proper citations, but still exist, which is blatant advertising.

I appreciate your inputs to help me improve my first effort. This way I will be a solid contributor to Wikipedia henceforth. paritoshsharma (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)