User talk:Ottawahitech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
3 February 2016
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 01:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Contents

Nomination of Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service 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/Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 21:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Joe Landolina for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe Landolina 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/Joe Landolina 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 18:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ottawahitech![edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of Us military command hacker by isis[edit]

If fellow editors continue to post a quote box and leave a message for this editor with friendly advice how to create his/her first article they create the impression that such a quote box was carelessly posted because it is quite obvious that this editor has authored quite a few articles. Content creators should be encouraged and not vaguely insulted.   Bfpage |leave a message  00:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Us military command hacker by isis, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

  • It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 01:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Identity theft in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UTube (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Us military command hacked by ISIS listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Us military command hacked by ISIS. Since you had some involvement with the Us military command hacked by ISIS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 21:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Americans for Tax Reform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tax return
Nina E. Olson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tax return
Washington Apple Health (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to CHIP

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Asset protection[edit]

Just curious what you mean by your edit summary here at Asset protection ("just to see if anyone else will get involved")? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just curious to find out why you saw fit to post this on my user talkpage? Why not on the article's talkpage where others who are interested in the topic would normally opine? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Because you removed it with a strange and perhaps pointed (though I can't really tell) edit summary. That you're asking why I'm asking you on your talk page just makes this all the stranger, but by all means respond at the article talk page if you prefer? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Canadian Marketing Association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Conference and Self-regulatory
Percy Downe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Veterans Affairs

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Dan Lamothe for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dan Lamothe 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/Dan Lamothe 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

TurboTax database knows your secret listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TurboTax database knows your secret. Since you had some involvement with the TurboTax database knows your secret redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mrfrobinson (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

for reminding me of that edit. It was a long time ago. I probably still had a sense of humour in those days ;( Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The need to communicate[edit]

  • Hey Ottawahitech! Regarding your comment, I'm certainly interested in your perspective. Mine is that people aren't obligated to respond to every comment that comes their way; everyone chooses what they do here, and if they personally find a discussion too boring or time-consuming, they don't need to justify that. But if you're doing something other editors (correctly or not) object to and you continue to do it while ignoring repeated attempts to initiate discussion, that is a problem (I wouldn't call it a crime). This is a collaborative project after all. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Neil P. Quinn: I agree, I think. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of IRS Nationwide Tax Forums Online[edit]

If fellow editors continue to post a quote box and leave a message for this editor with friendly advice how to create his/her first article they create the impression that such a quote box was carelessly posted because it is quite obvious that this editor has authored quite a few articles. Content creators should be encouraged and not vaguely insulted.   Bfpage |leave a message  00:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on IRS Nationwide Tax Forums Online 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 web content, but it does not 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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia-related lists[edit]

Category:Wikipedia-related lists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. DexDor (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Companies of the United States with untaxed profits[edit]

Category:Companies of the United States with untaxed profits, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Companies of the United States with untaxed profits for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Companies of the United States with untaxed profits 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/Companies of the United States with untaxed profits 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


References[edit]

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem - I have placed the information on the article's talkpage for those interested. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I hope things are going well for you.Lbhiggin (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

RfA Question[edit]

Hello, I think you broke the template asking your question. If you want to fix it I will post and answer. Fenix down (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

some ideas[edit]

Hi Ottawatech, I've noticed our overlapping in a few AFDs and elsewhere. Hmm I thought more so than I see in wp:EditorInteractionAnalyzer, maybe I've been observing and agreeing with your comments in discussions where i didn't actually post. Anyhow I think we have similar views: we're both inclusionists, we're both being concerned about negative effects of Wikipedia deletion processes, we've both created lots of articles, maybe we both have been criticized for creating lots of articles (i have, and I see on your User page and above that you've had a lot deleted). We're both interested in business topics or at least not afraid of them. And I recently noticed your mentioning (at some "WikiProject X"-related page?) about not really having a home project, and I am pretty much in the same way. I wonder if we could team up usefully somehow. Maybe:

  • engage in a collaboration to change deletion processes, maybe with a new wp:WER-like WikiProject?
  • develop the repatriation of profits area? You created Companies of the United States with untaxed profits and I supported keeping at AFD, and it was kept, i think by no consensus. It's incomplete as a list-article and maybe we should make an effort to fill it out: actually identify the firms having more than some level $X of untaxed profits abroad, maybe using some business library resources, maybe easily if companies are required to report this in a footnote in their financial statements. It's within an important topic area which could be in the news prominently. Besides Obama's proposal, maybe U.S. presidential candidates of various parties will make proposals. Yet there's scant development in Wikipedia, nothing that could be updated to support Wikipedia front-page "in the news" linking, if/when the issue area is hot. The Repatriation article is about persons being returned to their home countries, and there's no "Repatriation of profits" article or other main article(s) in the general topic area.
  • systematically create a lot of business-focused list-articles, that could guide a lot of future development? E.g., we both participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birungyi Barata and it led me to notice that coverage of law firms in Africa is minimal, while there's tons of coverage of firms in U.S. and U.K. There was a List of law firms in Uganda that was deleted, and I asked for a copy and have it at Draft:List of law firms in Uganda, planning to restore it perhaps. I would expect the top law firms in any country should be covered in Wikipedia. And the top firms in any professional services area, e.g. top architectural firms. But it looks like there never was a List of law firms in Africa or lists within individual African countries besides Uganda and South Africa. Use the sources found in the AFD to create them.

Just thinking out loud, no biggie. cheers, --doncram 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wulf Schiefenhövel[edit]

If fellow editors continue to post a quote box and leave a message for this editor with friendly advice how to create his/her first article they create the impression that such a quote box was carelessly posted because it is quite obvious that this editor has authored quite a few articles. Content creators should be encouraged and not vaguely insulted.   Bfpage |leave a message  00:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Wulf Schiefenhövel 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, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not 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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  CombieTractor        talk 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a WikiProject Study[edit]

Hello Ottawahitech,


We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.


The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.


You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.


We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.


The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects


Ryzhou (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Identity theft in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tax returns (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Spelling corrections[edit]

Just curious. Why would you undo my correction of your spelling mistake? It's drama not dramah. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Harold Kahn[edit]

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

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. 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. ubiquity (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I posted a question on the article's talkpage. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dan Rosensweig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Turbotax database knows your secret[edit]

. A tag has been placed on Turbotax database knows your secret, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aileen Lee[edit]

.A tag has been placed on Aileen Lee 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 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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Reddogsix: What do you mean by "lack of asserted importance"? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Turbotax database knows your secret[edit]

I am not sure what you were requesting on my talk page. Did you want me to restore the redirect? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90: Thanks for asking. Actually what I want you to do is wave a magic wand and get User:Mrfrobinson to leave me alone, just kidding :-)
But seriously I don’t know what processes Wikipedia has in place to stop User:Mrfrobinson from nipping at my wiki-heels. I don’t believe in wiki capital punishment and really have no desire to go to wp:ANI and start another wp:dramah to try and have him/her blocked (and possibly end up being blocked myself). But it is hard enough to contribute content here without the constant stream of deletion nominations and reversions of legitimate content. I just want to be left alone to contribute content and not be involved in "talk" exclusively.
So... to answer your question: I was just trying to bring this user's behavior to the attention of the community, and your talk page provided me one such opportunity. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
(added as an afterthought) The proximity of your post to the one that follows it reminded me that my hassels with USER:Mrfrobinson go back a long way, and that trying to prove my case at Wikipedia is hopeless. Back in March 2014 I tried to illustrate how this user was one of those targeting my edits, but failed to convince 4 editors (user:DGG /user:Cullen328/ user:Voceditenore/ user:PamD) involved in that discussion, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
and in the meantime User:Mrfrobinson continues to revert my edits with impunity, sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Who are you talking too? If you have a problem with an editor bring it up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You just need to show your position that you feel stocked and they are doing wrong..for example this revert that you mention above is not what should have happened as per WP:CONTESTED. You need to make a case that your editing in good faith but some guy is following you not in good faith (with differences). Be aware he has the same right to explain his POV at any investigation. -- Moxy (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Since I have been pinged above, I'll just point out that the revert that Moxy is talking about was entirely appropriate. It was a completely unreferenced BLP, with the tag BLPPROD. Such tags may not be removed unless a source is provided. If they are removed without adding a source, the tag is restored. Ottawahitech, as for your other assertions, I see no evidence that Mrfrobinson is "stalking" you. One only has to look at the multiplicity of notices on this page from many other editors for your inappropriate and/or completely unreferenced articles to see that the problem does not lie with Mrfrobinson, but with your own approach to creating articles here. Voceditenore (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
@Voceditenore, Did you just say that even if I am a victim stalking, I brought it on myself and therefore it is my own fault? Just trying to understand. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not what I am saying. I'm saying that:
  • Your perception that this person is "stalking" you is incorrect and a misinterpretation of WP:HOUND. Incidentally, we don't use "stalk" any more.
  • The problematic nature of your editing has been observed by many editors. It is not the case that only one editor sees problems with your edits or "has it in for you".
  • You should think very seriously about why you have so many of these messages on your talk page and do something about it.
  • Accusations of "hounding" should not be used to deflect attention from problems in one's own editing or to avoid confronting an obvious problem. Ditto describing oneself as a "victim".
It is quite common when an editor finds a problematic article to start also checking the various articles and categories linked from it as well those which link to the article. In my experience, one often finds many more problems. If one editor is connected to all those articles and categories, it can look like "hounding", but in my view it's not. Likewise if an editor finds problematic editing from another editor, checking their other edits can also be permissible and is even advised for new page and recent changes patrollers. I have tracked such editors myself, although not you. I consider repeated creation of unreferenced BLPs, removing BLPPROD from articles without adding a reference, and a tendency to treat Wikipedia like a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia to be quite problematic. This revert of yours was particularly egregious. That completely unreferenced article contained the subject's exact date of birth and alleged partner's name—both serious BLP violations. You obviously don't consider this problematic, and I think that's where the the problem lies. Note also that the person you are objecting to has only dealt with a very small proportion of your edits, and in a particular area. I suggest you re-read WP:HOUND. I also suggest you re-read very carefully the excellent advice DGG gave you in that conversation you linked. So far, you seem to be largely ignoring it. Voceditenore (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Voceditenore:
The problematic nature of your editing has been observed by many editors Lets agree to disagree on the best way to add content to Wikipedia, at least for the moment.
Accusations of "hounding" should not be used… Please note I have been very careful in my choice of words and have not accused user:mrfrobinson of stalking me, however, I do consider myself a victim.
Your perception that this person is "stalking" you is incorrect Just wondering if you have actually assessed this or whether you just decided that I am simply not worth the effort?
I have tracked such editors myself Tracking is one thing, but going on fishing trips to nominate articles for deletion, for example Aileen Lee, using this type of rationale: a businesswomen who lacks any real n notability. No significant award or achievements may end up hurting Wikipedia's credibility.
a tendency to treat Wikipedia like a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia to be quite problematic I have more to say, if you are interested? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Your contention that you have been "very careful" in your "choice of words" and have not accused Mrfrobinson of hounding you is nonsense and pure Wikilawyering. Below is just a sample of the stuff you have been posting about him on other editors' talk pages (clearly identifying him by linking his name or via a diff). This is in addition to pinging 4 more editors (one of whom is an admin) to this section to continue your assertion that he is "targeting" your edits, and your continued assertions here that you are his "victim":

Repeatedly casting aspersions on another editor is in itself a form of harassment. I strongly suggest you cut it out. And yes, I have examined the editor's contributions and yours very carefully. That is precisely why I said that your perception that the editor is "stalking" you is incorrect. This is my final comment here. I am not interested in discussing your editing philosophy any further. Voceditenore (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aileen Lee[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Aileen Lee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable: 3 references: 2 are her own work, one is a mention.

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. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Therese Lawless[edit]

If fellow editors continue to post a quote box and leave a message for this editor with friendly advice how to create his/her first article they create the impression that such a quote box was carelessly posted because it is quite obvious that this editor has authored quite a few articles. Content creators should be encouraged and not vaguely insulted.   Bfpage |leave a message  00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Therese Lawless requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nitasha Tiku[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Nitasha Tiku has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vauhini Vara[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Vauhini Vara has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. BiH (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your article has three references now. One primary, two secondary. I certainly consider the person to be notable. I just can't find the place to participate in the deletion discussion. The template was one I wasn't used to seeing for some reason.
  Bfpage |leave a message  00:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bfpage: Deletions at Wikipedia are strange rituals: there wp:CSDs. wp:PRODs (at least 2 kinds,apparently), and wp:AFDs. Then there is also other rituals for nuking categories, redirects, templates, wikipedia pages, to name the few I remember of the top, sigh ... Ottawahitech (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Portia Li[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Portia Li has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nitasha Tiku[edit]

If fellow editors continue to post a quote box and leave a message for this editor with friendly advice how to create his/her first article they create the impression that such a quote box was carelessly posted because it is quite obvious that this editor has authored quite a few articles. Content creators should be encouraged and not vaguely insulted.   Bfpage |leave a message  00:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nitasha Tiku 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 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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wgolf (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Aileen Lee for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aileen Lee 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/Aileen Lee 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Employment Law Alliance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Labor, Client and Member
Fadl Shaker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Saida YesY
Xenia Wickett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dean

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thank you[edit]

Thank you for sending me a 'thank you' for my editing on the Animal attacks article. I often wonder how and why editors like yourself even notice such things and I am flattered.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bfpage: The pleasure is all mine - what a great article you have created. How did you find all these bits and pieces and put them together? And, to answer your question, I was notified when you linked an article I created long ago (and forgot all about). This is one of the brownies wiki-editors get for creating articles on Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, thanks for responding back to me. I'd love to chat via email about how I find all that stuff. I have taken a look at your editing history and I believe that I've discovered a kindred spirit-someone who appreciates all that wikimedia has to bring to the world yet at the same time frustrated with the problems inherent in its' operation, Am I right? I love your user page, and how you boldly proclaim how creative you have been and yet how it looks like all you do is get ...ummm well, the opposite of encouraged on your creative endeavors. May I send you an email?
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bfpage: One thing I noticed from looking at your contribution history is that we both started editing wikipedia in 2007 (The number of active editors on the English-language Wikipedia peaked in 2007 at more than 51,000 and has been declining ever since). I have always wondered if those who started in 2007 simply experienced the wikipedia version of Eternal September. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
There are a lot of things I like about 2007. I almost gave up because I didn't realize how trigger-happy some administrators are and are so quick to NOT assume good faith. I've got your talk page on my watchlist and whenever I see that you have gone and found somebody wanting to delete one of your articles I'll just go right in and find all your references for you. It's quite simple if you ever want to learn I'd love to help you out. Very Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  21:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bfpage: I rarely use my watchlist, but any tips on how to find references I am sure would be welcomed by me and others reading this page. BTW since you like animal pages have you seen this: List of animals with fraudulent diplomas? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Hazelrigg[edit]

Effectively I "nominated" it myself. Admins are allowed to use their own judgement, and directly delete pages that they believe meet the Speedy Deletion criteria. In this case, A7, notability. Please read WP:BIO. To pass A7, an article needs to show that there is at least an indication that the person might be notable by Wikipedia's definition of notability. Just being a "developer", a "lender", or even being sent to prison for tax evasion, none of that shows at all that the person might be notable.

And even if you pass A7, you then have to actually show that they do indeed meet the criteria, or the article is likely to be deleted at AFD fairly swiftly. Independent, reliable, non-trivial sources are needed for that. And if they are notable only for the jailing issue, you need to get past WP:BLP1E. And especially if the article is written mostly as a way to show the negative information, it is going to get extra BLP scrutiny. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@TexasAndroid: Thanks for taking the time to reply. Since you have nominated Thomas Hazelrigg for deletion I am wondering:
  • Why you did not notify me of the pending deletion that took place only 20 minutes after the article was started?
  • How can the wording be changed so that it passes CSD#A7 without using wp:peacock words? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Notice is not required. Many, many non-notable people get articles written every day. Most get deleted fairly quickly, as yours was.
As for avoiding it being deleted, one good way is to astart off with one of the article creation systems. Draft article space, WP:AFC, etc. These allow articles to be developed without being under threat of sudden deletion.
That said, you really should be thinking not about how to avoid A7 deletion, but how to avoid deletion at a full deletion debate. Just building in Draft or User space will avoid A7 for now, but the article is still subject to deletion as soon as it moves to article space. If you want your article to stand, aim for avoiding that from the beginning. As for how to avoid that, please do read WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E]]. It's not really a matter of wording, as much as it's a matter of sourcing/references. You need to be able to provide (preferably multiple) sources that are Reliable, Independent, and Non-Trivial. All three of those points are critical in determining if a source is enough to help show notability. As examples, a blog is no Reliable. A press release is not Independent. And a brief mention in a list or article on a tangential subject is a Trival reference. You should be gathering your references now, rather than later. Otherwise, even if you get past A7, you'll just find yourself in the middle of a deletion debate, facing deletion. And full deletion debates carry more precedent, are harder to get past, than simple A7 deletions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@TexasAndroid: One thing that struck me when reading your reply above is your suggestion of using draft-space for article creation, which is something I did a while ago, thinking it would buy me time to collect information, but my article was deleted anyway. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you referring to Draft:Julie Ireton? That one was deleted as "abandoned". It had not been edited in six months or more. Draft space is not free web hosting, it's a place for articles that are being actively worked on. So yeah, it's not the case that articles in Draft will never be deleted, but they generally will not as long as they are actively being worked on. And if one *is* deleted under G13, like the Julie article was, all you have to do is ask, and it can be restored. I could restore that specific one for you if you want. If it sits unedited for another six months, it'll likely again be deleted as "abandoned" again.
There are a lot of different reasons things get deleted. Some are more easily undone than others. G13, G7, and WP:PROD are among the most easily undone. All those really take is a request to have it restored. On the other extreme, copyright violations and attack pages would be reasons for deletion that would IMHO likely be the least likely to be easily restored. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Editing abuse filter[edit]

You need to add sources to these new articles because your getting alot of abuse filters the pass few months. This leads to even more people looking at what is going on and thus deleting your work.... because they see no sources. Just have to add sources and a cat to stop this. -- Moxy (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy: Thanks for reminding me of the abuse filter -- I remember seeing it before and not understanding its purpose. I am still confused because it appears that all the recent "abuses" have been triggered by Creation of a new article without any categories (650) which I had no idea was considered abuse. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Funny[edit]

not everyone likes my new article Here is thw one I created today: Empathy in chickens, one of my finest.

  Bfpage |leave a message  15:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Duggan (CEO)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Robert Duggan (CEO) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. --Finngall talk 18:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

fixed,   Bfpage |leave a message  21:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Congratulations and much in encouragement and admiration do you for putting up with all the people who want to delete your work. I am the new president of your fan club. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  21:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing Wikipedian[edit]

Thanks for considering me for the list of missing Wikipedians. Though I can't think of much reason to have such a list at all (feel free to enlighten me if there is some such reason). Actually, per the policy notes, I've just been on a long break. My "day job" has kept me very busy. As an aside, it currently involves the Chapter 9 case of a public hospital district! I'll be back some day. Cheers. --Pechmerle (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pechmerle: Wow, am I glad to hear from you and to know you are considering returning. You are one of the editors I met here for whom I have a great deal of admiration. It is great to know that you will be returning — there are just so many editors who simply vanish.
I guess you are referring to Wikipedia_talk:Missing_Wikipedians#.22Don.27t_add_users_with_fewer_than_.7E1.2C000_edits.22? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Portia Li for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Portia Li 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/Portia Li 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. Onorem (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

fixed,   Bfpage |leave a message  18:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You may want to comment on the Portia Li deletion since the discussion has expanded to include other editors.
  Bfpage |leave a message  14:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tina Huang v. Twitter[edit]

Hello Ottawahitech,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Tina Huang v. Twitter for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Karlhard (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • You thoroughly deserved to have this deleted. Surely you know by now that it is article suicide to start ad article in mainspace. I have moved it to your sandbox. Do not even think about moving it back until you have clothed those naked URLs. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The naked are clothed.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You are quite charming in your replies... I haven't decided which link I'm going to click on yet, the suspense is killing me. I do see your point, though. Best regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  21:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey! I'm pretty sure I'm one of those hags! I'm going to get you for copivio. Your new friend,
  Bfpage |leave a message  21:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:CAC 40 companies[edit]

Category:CAC 40 companies has 12 members. Category:CAC 40 has 29 members, and only one of them is about the index. I see that Category:Dow Jones Industrial Average has members such as Dogs of the Dow and List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Are you planning on adding similar articles to Category:CAC 40? Otherwise, I don't see the point of your partially completed category split. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia categories named after stock market indices for examples of other stock indexes. For example, Category:TOPIX 100, not Category:TOPIX 100 companies. As your project to change this category configuration remains unfinished, I am reverting your changes. I'm open to the idea of renaming the category, though I don't think that's necessary. I don't see the point of a category with just a single member, that's WP:Overcategorization. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Mateo County Superior Court, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Mateo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Chia Hong v. Facebook for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chia Hong v. Facebook 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/Chia Hong v. Facebook 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

talk p.[edit]

You're in the right, and I don't mind your invoking me, but for various reasons I'd prefer not to comment there. I'd gladly merge them back for you except that my experience in performing history merges is that I mess them up further about half the time. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Thank you! I was really impressed by the constructive and non-acrimonious tone and contributions from everyone involved in the recent AFD discussion on the Alliance of Women Directors article. What could have been—with the wrong editors involved—a very nasty debate, turned into a very positive discussion. Even editors who strongly felt that the article should be deleted worked hard to find sources and fix problems with it. This is the kind of positive collaboration people don't hear a lot about in Wikipedia-land and I'd like to recognize it. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brad D. Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquinas College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Small Business Health Care tax credit[edit]

Hi Ottawa. Some interesting editing going on in relation to Healthcare in the USA at the moment, including this Small Business Health Care tax credit page you started. Possible SPA activity, not sure if it is legitimate or not. See here. 220 of Borg 06:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Drobot, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Irvine and Long Beach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI[edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg
Hello, Ottawahitech. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. North America1000 09:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

New article: Excellence Canada[edit]

Assuming you haven't already seen it, I'd like to bring it to your attention. It could use some strengthening and I'm guessing you're in a position where you could make a difference. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikibreak[edit]

Hi, Ottawahitech,
I'm not sure how long your wikibreak is but it was nice to see you edited this week. You've been missed! There is a project I'd like to work with you on whenever you are able to return. Be well, Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank user:Liz. I am just here for a short visit - still on a longish wikibreak. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Understood. Ping me whenever you decide to return. Take care, Liz Read! Talk! 11:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Linda Pinizzotto[edit]

Last year, a discussion took place here about deleting the Linda Pinizzotto article. The result of that discussion was to redirect the article to COA Ontario, and that edit was made here by User:Davey2010. Could you please explain why you removed that redirect here? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion#Can_.22anyone_can_overwrite_any_redirect_with_an_article_at_any_time.22.3F Ottawahitech (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scotiabank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The fifth estate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. YesY

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scotiabank may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • This information became public only in 2013 when [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]]’s [[The Fifth Estate (TV)|[The fifth estate]] broadcast a program about it on October 18, 2013. YesY

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

archiving[edit]

to be honest, I am way behind; I am following my method from yras ago when I was a little less busy here, and I know I need to change. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orla Tinsley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hachette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Seattle in Progress[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Seattle in Progress 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 web content, but it does not 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 "Click here to 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. SounderBruce 22:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@SounderBruce, You left me scratching my head trying to figure out how anyone would think such an interesting idea can be described as subject not important or significant. What am I missing? How many cities have such a wonderful public service that allows the public to view building permit information with a mere click of a button? Can you please educate me? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@SounderBruce, not much point in discussing this at the article talkpage if it is to be speedy deleted, is there? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I didn't notice this earlier, since you didn't use {{ping}} to send it to my notifications. Anyway, the indie app is not notable enough for its own article and would be better served as part of the Shaping Seattle article (which is notable as being a city app with multiple mentions from national news outlets), citing the GeekWire article as its "inspiration" (though I speculate that it was coincidental and not direct inspiration). SounderBruce 01:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: I thought Notability had nothing to do with A7, but since you seemed to know more than I did I asked the question here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wbm1058#A7vNotability. BTW I am not sure if I am representative of the typical editor, but I find the removal of content I slave over very demoralizing. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Patient ombudsman for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patient ombudsman 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/Patient ombudsman 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. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 20:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dubai Design District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freezone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Las Brisas condominium for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Las Brisas condominium 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/Las Brisas condominium 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. Onel5969 TT me 19:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh... here we go again: even the nomination is inaccurate. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of condominiums in the United States[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article List of condominiums in the United States has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a directory; also fails WP:LISTN

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. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Inks.LWC: I don’t believe I have met you before? Can you tell me what is the point of proposing for deletion an article I just created yesterday earlier today? You do realize that I can simply remove your deletion tag (I think)? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The point is that the list has so many potential items that could be included that it seemed relatively uncontroversial to propose it for deletion. True, you could remove it; however, then I would nominated it for Articles for Deletion, where I am almost certain that the consensus would be delete. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Inks.LWC: Since I continue to spend a fair bit of time building List of condominiums in the United States, I would appreciate it if you let me know if you intend to take it to AfD. I would really appreciate an answer because I hate to waste my time. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
What is your end plan for the page? Inks.LWC (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not the owner of this page, but this does not mean that I will willingly continue contributing my volunteer time to it, if you are adamant that this page does not belong on Wikipedia. I'm trying to minimize my contribution in areas that are likely to go into the bit-bucket, there is enough work to be done around here. Thanks for your continued dialogue. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
so many potential items that could be included
It is not clear to me why this is an objection? BTW why do you feel that there are so many potential items that can be included? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The list in question also links to every one of the condominiums and essentially pulls together information that would be tedious for a reader to put together on their own. Since each wikilink links to a notable topic, the list itself is notable. I quietly suggest that the article/list should remain part of the encyclopedia. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  10:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Inks.LWC and Bfpage: Since the article List of condominiums in the United States has been ‘stuck in deletion discussion since the end of September, I thought I may use this opportunity (again, sigh) to tell you both what it is like to be an editor who seems to be a target for deletion of many of the articles that they start on Wikipedia.
Thanks for pinging me on this. I am trying to figure out why article creation isn't supported more-especially concerning your contributions. I'm going to your list of 'page watchers' but it appears to me that there is a bit of trolling that may be taking place here. Every article/list is a stub, that turns into a start article, then a C article, then B, then Good, then FA. I want to know if the same editors participate in deletion discussions regarding your articles. If there is a pattern here, we should first, contact those who have a pattern of trolling individually and in good faith and point this out. We can tell them what it looks like without questioning their intentions. Then, if the same editors continue to participate in proposing deletions or consistently commenting that your content should be deleted, we will ask for the opinion of an administrator. I will do this on your behalf, or it might seem like 'whining'.
  Bfpage |leave a message  19:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@Bfpage: It sounds simple, but in my experience extremely time consumming to try and figure out who is "trolling" and who is not. Every once in a while I get so fed up I decide to try and find a pattern, but I always stop before I get anywhere because it is an occupation I do not enjoy and it takes time away from adding content. Some editors that I have crossed wiki-swords with show up only in certain areas of the project, for example anything to do with large U.S. companies. The only problem I have with those editors is their automatic assumption of bad faith and personal attacks, and I see one of them has managed to antagonize enough others to be hauled before the arbitration committee.
Actually when I think of it, things have gotten much much better, for me at least. A couple of years ago I had 3 editors pursuing me relentlessly evereywhere I went one of them an admin using personal attacks all over, including well attended WikiProject talk pages, to my surprise with total immunity. Now there is only one such editor left and the "training" I got while being pursued by the three is coming in handy.
What I worry about most though, is that if I am experiencing this treatment after being on wikipedia since 2007, surely there are others who are more recent Wikipedians who are suffering even more and have yet to develop the thick wiki-skin necessary to survive here. It worries me because we sorely need these editors here to keep the momentum and continue building this resource that is far from finished.
Sorry for dumping this wp:tldr on youOttawahitech (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
There is too much WP:OWN, and I am talking about projects! I'm not even talking about individual articles. You need to be part of the regular, recognized, and coordinated crew that run a project. Not a cadre, of course, but those, in good faith, trying to maintain the high quality of their areas of knowledge and hopefully expertise. I've yet to be able to encourage a newer editor to 'stick with it' through all the tagging, deleting and general gruffness that comes with project ownership. Bless you and your persistence. I know you don't like to 'get into it' on your talk page because it does take away from content creation. So I won't belabor my comments, but I continue to be amazed that instead of recognizing your incredible content creation volume, many prefer to send you through a gauntlet of AfDs... I just don't get it. The Very Best of Regards,
Barbara Page,   Bfpage |leave a message  02:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
In this particular case I have put a fair bit of work into this article and it appears that not too many others care about this area of Wikipedia. Yes some of the participants of the deletion discussion have some pretty strong views, but it sure looks like few care about condominiums, sigh... Why is this happening me so often? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Article should be kept. Deletion argument has no merit. Lists are a perfectly acceptable navigation tool within WP. They do not make WP a directory or all WP lists would be deleted. Hmains (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of condominiums in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Condominiums (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Pao effect for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pao effect 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/Pao effect 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is only my opinion about the AfD on this article, but methinks that the discussion of the AfD hints at the "Pao effect" happening in the discussion! Please take a look. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  10:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LeBreton Flats, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: James J. Kellaris (September 19)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Worldbruce was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Worldbruce (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Ottawahitech, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Worldbruce (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Worldbruce: i did not create this article -- User:Beckcomm did. So why are you plastering all these banners on my talk page, but have not informed Beckcomm? Ottawahitech (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ottawahitech, AfC notices go to whoever submits the draft, which you did in this edit. If you submit a draft on behalf of someone else, and want them rather than yourself to receive future communications about the draft, you can use a parameter in the submit template like so: {{subst:submit|username}}. I'll leave Beckcomm a note about the declined draft. Worldbruce (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Avraham Hirschson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breach of trust (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of condominiums in the United States for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of condominiums in the United States 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 condominiums in the United States 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. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Pao effect AfD talk[edit]

Hi Ottawahitech. The talk pages of AfD discussions aren't typically watched by editors, especially after an AfD has closed. Comments for the AfD talk page should be to discuss the formatting of the AfD discussion itself, not on the proposed deletion—that should go on the main AfD page. As a result, messages you post to that page after the AfD has closed might not receive a lot of input, and that's ultimately why I closed it off.

There are better places to start a discussion where it would receive more attention. If you have a complaint about another user's conduct, the first step is generally that editor's user talk page. Explain to them respectfully what you feel they are doing. The next step following that is dispute resolution—typically Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for conduct disputes. If you have an issue with the AfD close, contact the closer on their talk page. The next step then would be deletion review. Content or editorial discussion should be posted to relevant article talk pages. Best, Mz7 (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mz7: I am not trying to "receive more attention", if I was I would have posted my comment regarding user:Mrfrobinson's behavior when the AfD was still open. All I am attempting to do is document this editor's behavior, which has been going on for years but which I have been told time and again is a figment of my imagination.
Thanks for your comments above, but are you seriously suggesting that wp:AN/I is the right place to go???!!! Ottawahitech (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
If you've already tried talking to Mrfrobinson and the problems persist, ANI is one of the venues that exists for such situations. An AfD talk page seems like a very strange place to want to air grievances about other editors' behavior outside the context of the AfD -- especially when it's acknowledged to be "off-topic" and the AfD is already closed. If you just want to document behavior, wouldn't your own user space serve just as well? That's not to say what you say about the other user is without merit (I don't know), it just seems like a strange place for it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I really only took a cursory glance at what you posted and haven't yet fully examined the merits of your complaint. I was speaking generally, and here's some more general advice: Be very cautious about accusing other editors of conduct issues. If you've already received advice that the other editor's behavior is okay, I would take that advice into strong consideration. Only approach WP:ANI if you are sure you have a solid case (supported by diffs)—remember, your own actions will also be considered in the discussion. If the community has already decided on a case, it generally isn't helpful to keep bringing it up in hopes of an alternate outcome. Accusations about personal behavior that lack sufficient evidence (e.g. diffs) can sometimes be taken as a personal attack, so be careful. Remember, all of us are here to build an encyclopedia, and we sometimes get into disagreements—that's okay, as long as everyone stays cool, it's exactly what should be expected out of a collaborative project. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

YesY Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Derek Sikua, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Under Secretary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Your tagging of articles for the WikiProject Sanitation[edit]

You have tagged a long list of articles and category pages with the WikiProject Sanitation, e.g. "violence against women in country XX". Whilst the article violence against women is indeed also tagged with this WikiProject Sanitation, it is only relevant "on the borderline" (via the female genital mutilation link). Specific articles about VAW in certain countries are not relevant enough for the WikiProject Sanitation. I will therefore remove those tags. Thanks for your understanding. I am trying to keep the WikiProject Sanitation focussed on its core topic: sanitation. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@EvM-Susana: I did? If so I must have been sleep-surfing. In fact I don't remember ever tagging any talk-page with a Sanitation banner. I searched my last 1,000 contributions but cannot find it. Would you be kind enough to provide an example? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I am sorry. I mean here where I can track new tags for this project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Sanitation_articles_by_quality_log#Assessed_2 I thought I saw your name on the history page of some of the talk pages (and also I knew that you were working on the violence against women lists). Oh wait, I think now I got it right, it was Dimadick. Sorry for the confusion, will speak to him/her now. EvM-Susana (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Your RfA question[edit]

Ottawahitech, I thought I'd answer your question since it isn't my place to respond for the candidate at the RfA but I can see the deleted edits and figure out what happened.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was created by Ed Poor in October 2003. In August 2013, Paine Ellsworth created a redirect at Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. In November 2013,‎ Huntster deleted the redirect page and moved page Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. So, Ellsworth did create the redirect which was later deleted to make way for the page move. Liz Read! Talk! 14:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: thanks for the explanation. BTW I just found another puzzle: [1] -- can any editor create such re-directs -- isn't there some process requiring discussion before this type of thing happens?
There are procedures for category renames, category moves, category mergers and category deletions but not a strict policy about redirects. What exists is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Redirecting categories but redirects don't go through a discussion process. There are over 30,000 soft redirected categories so they aren't uncommon. Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ottawahitech. You have new messages at WP:Requests for adminship/Paine Ellsworth.
Message added 14:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peridon (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Basically the same as Liz said above. Peridon (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: unsigned comments[edit]

Hi Ottawahitech, use the {{unsigned}} template like this (the UTC timestamp is important!): {{subst:unsigned|Example|01:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)}} Graham87 11:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Human resource management women[edit]

Category:Human resource management women, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hélène Pastor[edit]

Isn't Category:Monegasque women in business a subcategory of Category:Businesswomen?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: thanks for stopping by to ask. Have a look at (for example) Category:Women in finance. It contains biographies of women in finance as well as an article: Women in venture capital which would not be a proper entry in Category: Women financiers if such a category existed and was the parent of Category:Women in finance . Am I making any sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)/ Ottawahitech (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)(addition)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karen Rubin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cross-country (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Health professions appeal and review board[edit]

Hello, Ottawahitech,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Health professions appeal and review board should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health professions appeal and review board .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the process for articles for deletion. Unfortunately I find this way too complicated, and don't really have that much time to figure it out. Just wondering if there is anything else I can do to try and preserve content that may help some readers on wikipedia? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of women investors[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article List of women investors has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:LISTCRUFT

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. Gbawden (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gbawden: I don’t believe I have met you before? Can you tell me what is the point of proposing for deletion an article I just created yesterday? You do realize that I can simply remove your deletion tag (I think)? Ottawahitech (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of women investors for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of women investors 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 women investors 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. Gbawden (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nikki Jackson[edit]

Hello Ottawahitech,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Nikki Jackson for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Nikki Jackson for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nikki Jackson 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/Nikki Jackson (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. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Achcham Enbadhu Madamaiyada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Dance teachers[edit]

Category:Dance teachers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Zanhe (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of 60 Minutes segments for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of 60 Minutes segments 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 60 Minutes segments 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. — Cirt (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nigerian Academy of Science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fellowship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Deleted pages[edit]

I couldn't help but notice the message you left on your user page about the large numbers of deleted articles you have accumulated. Yes, while it is an administrator who deletes these articles, it is ordinary editors who must waste countless hours reviewing your articles, searching for sources, digging for notability, and debating the deletion. I have contributed 223 new articles, and had 0 deleted (2 were renamed). Can I suggest you submit your new articles for review first, and not burden other editors who have more meaningful editing to conduct? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That is not very helpful advice and seems just like a ploy to make her feel guilty for some reason. Ottawahitech is discussing deleted edits and I know I have thousands. Every time I tag an article for deletion that gets deleted, that's one more deleted edit. I've tagged hundreds of empty categories for deletion and that is hundreds of deleted edits. You don't know what type of edits are that Ottawahitech is pointing out or whether the pages were ones she created 8 years ago or last week. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The user page seems entirely factual and accurate. It reports facts of 3042 edits deleted and 696 pages deleted based on xtools report about deleted edits and deleted pages linked from Ottawahitech's user page. It does imply arbitrary administrative actions have lost contributions, which is perfectly fair to imply. But I note that the extent of contributions lost is not as much as one might assume: of 696 deleted pages, the deletions included just 65 mainspace articles (regular or redirects). The other deletions were of 69 Talk pages, 428 categories, 126 category Talk pages, and 7 others. 65 articles lost could represent a lot of work lost, but is a lot less dramatic than 696. Anyhow, while Magnolia677 made no claim otherwise, any editor is free to post their opinions about how well or poorly Wikipedia works, on their User page or elsewhere. --doncram 11:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Doncram: Yes interesting. It appears that, at least if the x-tool can be trusted, I have not lost any more articles since you posted your message on 2 November 2015. It appears that I lose categories at a much faster rate. I wish I could remember how to convert an excel table to wiki so I can share some statistics which I have been collecting. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
About categories, i really don't pay much attention to them. But Excel2wiki.net is one Excel to wikitable converter. As i recall it generates a wikitable that is perfectly fine appearance-wise, but it looks hard to edit to refine the wikitable any further. --doncram 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks like my count of lost articles has increased to 68. The number of deleted cats is up to 451 which is 18% of the 2,496 Category pages that I started on Wikipeida. Still have not had a chance to try the converter you suggested above - too busy fighting deletions, sigh... BTW I am surprised that you do not find Categories useful. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

about list of firsts in architecture[edit]

I like your enthusiasm, and I am almost always on inclusionist side regarding historic buildings, but I have to say that I think List of firsts in architecture is not ready to be a mainspace article. I appreciate your contacting me about it. But it appears likely to be the product of just some google-searching or Wikipedia-searching looking for "firsts" and it has come up with a pretty lame list, if you really take a look at it. There are certainly hundreds and thousands and probably hundreds of thousands of "firsts" equivalent to the Hamilton Building being the "first building in Portland designed in the Classical Revival style". There exist many architectural styles, and there exist many cities. Say you're going to cover the top 1,000 cities in the world (which probably each have at least 100 architectural styles within them), that allows for 100,000 firsts of that nature...it is not very special. I am afraid you are unduly, temporarily impressed by the natural and acceptable "puffery" that is commonly found in historic register nomination documents and in Wikipedia articles. I think I have seen thousands, or at least many hundreds, of historic buildings where a "first" claim is made. One I thought was fun was the first two-story building in California. There are just too many claims possible, and your draft list of them seems random, is not certified by any source as being a notable collection.

But about the Pioneer Building (disambiguation page) one in St. Paul asserted to have been the tallest building west of the Mississippi, that deserves coverage in some list of tallest buildings. Looking at "what links here" for it, it does not seem to be included in any such list. Perhaps some variation on List of tallest buildings in the United States is needed, e.g. perhaps to add a section to that article focusing on tallest ones west of the Mississippi, which I agree seems to be a valid class to talk about. (And possibly splitting it out if the section there grows too large.) I believe I have seen claims about various insurance company buildings in Omaha, Nebraska or elsewhere having had that distinction, and/or about buildings in San Francisco or Los Angeles or Seattle or Denver. It is a class that many sources talk about, I believe.

Also the article that you meant to link to, Pioneer and Endicott Buildings, is lacking any claim like that, so it would be a contribution if you could add the claim with support there.

But "List of firsts in architecture" is too grand a topic, and the current version is too weak a collection, so I really think it should be removed by your requesting it to be moved without leaving a redirect, into your workspace. And I would not myself be very interested in trying to discern what are the most important "firsts" to include in such a list, it is just too ambitious.

I hope my comments here are helpful. cheers, --doncram 04:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Women investors[edit]

Category:Women investors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siri Inc., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SRI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate pages[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as List of founders of companies of the United States, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

I have redirected your page, List of founders of companies of the United States, to Category:American company founders, because the list is entirely redundant with the category (it provides no additional information). Please only use lists to present information that cannot be completely covered with an existing category. It seems you've had quite a few lists deleted before; it might be wise to go over the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates to understand when each is appropriate. I'm not sure why you're apparently proud to have had so many pages deleted; it wastes others' time and makes it seem like you don't know (or don't care) about what makes an appropriate page. If you keep it up, you may find yourself blocked from editing. Swpbtalk 18:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What user:swpb has done there is the exact opposite of what WP:NOTDUP actually instructs. James500 (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi @James500: Sorry for taking so long to respond — but I just cannot keep up up with all that is happening. Since user:swpb redirected this page here is a timeline of other related wiki-events:
What an absolute waste of time and resources for me, the other editors who edit this page, the editors who participate in the AfD/CfD, the nominators, the ADMINs who decide what to do with it and lastly DPL bot. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
Of course it's a waste of time; the question is who's fault that is. If the page is deleted, as looks likely, then it's you who have wasted everyone's time, so it's odd for you to be the one complaining. —swpbT 20:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
user:swpb: Would you be so kind and explain why you believe creating a list that duplicates a category is "wasting" everyone's time? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The deletion discussion made abundantly clear why the page was not appropriate. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept it and learn the lesson for next time. —swpbT 16:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

David Teeuwen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Producer, Hosting, Real-time and Radio America
Margit Wennmachers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to World Affairs Council and Amazon
Annika Biørnstad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Scripting
Four11.com (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Video phone
List of firsts in architecture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to NOMA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Margit Wennmachers article still needs your attention. There was one dab link I couldn't resolve. Fleet Command (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Reporters covering gender discrimination[edit]

Category:Reporters covering gender discrimination, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Outlook.com[edit]

Hey. I was watching Outlook.com article and noticed that two of your attempts to add contents to it got reverted. (No comments on it though.) But I was wondering whether your latest change (addition of Category:Microsoft acquisitions) is right. Are you sure the company was called "hotmail.com"? Are you sure there was even a company? (If I am not mistaken ".com" could not have been registered as part of a company name in 1996.) Your source is silent about this. Fleet Command (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alfred Roth (Concordia)[edit]

Hello, Ottawahitech. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Alfred Roth (Concordia), for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Alfred Roth (Concordia) to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, JamesG5 (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Bois Beckett Forest for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bois Beckett Forest 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/Bois Beckett Forest 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. KDS4444Talk 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just discovered that this article which I innocently started on 15 November 2015‎ after seeing it red-linked somewhere on wiki (I think?), and which had been closed as Keep on 1 December 2015, has already gone through a Deletion review, which I was not notified of, and which wasted the time of more than ten editors, some of whom I am sure could use their wiki-time to do better things, sigh... As I said somewhere else: the wp:Deletion industry is taking over everything else we do here. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Elizabeth Weise for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elizabeth Weise 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/Elizabeth Weise 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProjects in The Signpost[edit]

Hi, Ottawahitech,
While you were on a wikibreak, I spent a few months categorizing every article issued by The Signpost (well, up to August). There ended up being more than 4 thousand, which I didn't know when I started. Most of the articles were not categorized at all except the WikiProject articles which had also had valuable redirects to the projects each article covered. It looked like you put a lot of work into it. I was wondering if you would consider spending some of your editing time bringing that categorization scheme up to date (2015). I believe that there are WikiProjects that have had such turnover, they aren't aware that they've been profiled and I think it would be encouraging for them to be aware of older articles.
Everyone has limited editing time and I know you have a number of interests. But if this appeals to you, I think you could make a great contribution, for the Signpost and for the WikiProjects. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks user:Liz for recognizing my past work. I don’t get this often.
As far as resuming this work-of-love I have mixed feelings about it. I love category work, and categorizing signpost articles written by one of the most talented editors we had (and lost), was one of the most time-consuming but enjoyable things I had the pleasure to work on Wikipedia.
On the other hand I must consider the fact that not everyone here liked what I was doing, and several subcategories associated with this work were nominated for deletion in 2013. When I finally located the category which took me months to build, I found that its history has disappeared, so was not able to find the old 2013 deletion discussion to see if I really have the heart to resume this.
Sorry for dithering. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, now that I can look at the deleted contributions and logs for pages, I looked at Category:WikiProjects featured in The Signpost and I don't see any deleted history that could be recovered. Did the category go by another name? I will go looking for the CfD discussion and see if there is someway to recover your work. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually I found the deletion nominations by mike on my talk page, but they lead to a dead end (I think). Sorry I have to goOttawahitech (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Liz:continued: here is what I see on my talk page:
Category:Wikipedia Signpost wikiproject report archives 2007
Category:Wikipedia Signpost wikiproject report archives 2007 which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Mike (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
There are four more nominations posted by the same nominator with the same timestamp on my talk page. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Just found out to my delight that user:SusunW added a Signpost article about WikiProject_Women_in_Red to Category:WikiProjects featured in The Signpost after it was mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikiProject_Women_in_Red. Yes! Ottawahitech (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20[edit]

YesY Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bois Beckett Forest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hemlock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course this can be a waste of time, since this article has been nominated for deletion. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Mongols live in Mongolia![edit]

If we need a WikiProject for Mongolia, how can we achieve it?--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Simple Real Estate Solutions[edit]

A tag has been placed on Simple Real Estate Solutions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

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. Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, user:Stefan2. However I wonder if there was any point in notifying me since Simple Real Estate Solutions was deleted within 15 minutes by user:Sphilbrick and had I wanted to contest this speedy deletion I could not have possibly done so. Just wondering what the urgency was since this was an article I tried to save from a wp:PROD by moving it to wp:Draft hours earlier. I don't remember the particulars, but I believe it was created by a new editor weeks ago - it looks like I should have just de-prodded the article instead?Ottawahitech (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken. I didn't delete an article but a cross namespace redirect which is inappropriate. I realize you are not an admin so cannot see the deleted material but I just double checked on the chance a made a mistake and it was indeed a cross namespace redirect.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Note that Draft:Simple Real Estate Solutions still exists.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem is that when you moved it to draft space which was appropriate, a redirect was automatically created. You probably did not have the ability to suppress the creation of the redirect. That redirect is inappropriate, but not your fault. It was deleted rather quickly as is appropriate and the only question is whether the notification should have been suppressed on the argument that it was a technical deletion. In any event, the main content of the article is not gone and if someone wants to work on it and prove that they can.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that it is useful to notify the original author in as many situations as possible in the event that the original author (in this case the user who created the redirect) opposes the deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree. --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: You said It was deleted rather quickly as is appropriate -- would you be kind enough to point me to a wiki-guideline that says that? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Autodesk acquisitions for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Autodesk acquisitions 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 Autodesk acquisitions 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

E. Peter Raynes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chief scientist
Pfizer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Groton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Guitar Hero people[edit]

Category:Guitar Hero people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. The1337gamer (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: Another category created by another editor has been added to the same deletion discussion on 11 December 2015‎ without notifying the creator and without making an official announcement on the discussion page? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Missouri State Board of Education[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Missouri State Board of Education. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
This is for the 3,181 edits and 732 pages that you edited that has since been deleted on Wikipedia. Hopefully some of those were saved by Deletionpedia (and that the numbers don't grow)!!!
MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 20:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much user: MurderByDeadcopy I know from experience it takes some work to produce one of these. Having said this I am afraid what I really need is one of those, since at last count my account is now 29 edits and 11 pages lighter. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, well that's just sad! Unfortunately, I believe AfD culture is much worse than most editors on Wikipedia realize. It's one of the most depressive spots on Wikipedia. Not only do individuals argue vehemently against topics they know nothing about, editors seem to believe there's some prize for the most deletes. There's a definite backfire effect going on. Not to mention, the incredibly huge number of new editors AfD runs off Wikipedia! It boggles my mind that so many here don't seem to see what's actually going on and that it will eventually destroy the very site that they love. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 18:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Late to the party, as usual but a hearty amen to all the comment above!
  Bfpage |leave a message  22:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@Bfpage: I am slowly discovering we are not the only editors who are sick of deletions. On 9 October 2015 user:Megalibrarygirl started a well-written thread which she named AfD culture at the Village Pump and several editors who have been in the trenches at the AfD boards, such as User:MurderByDeadcopy/ User:SusunW/User:James500/User:Dcs002 have been tirelessly participating in it to this day. If you have the time I believe it is a good read, including some thoughts by so-called delitionists, for example User:Purplebackpack89. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jenny Doan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Retreat
Waste collection (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Garbage collector

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Phabricator is a communication platform used by software developers to track discussion about the development of software. It helps create to-do lists and identifies who is responsible for doing tasks. The Wikimedia Foundation's developers use this and the community can talk with them there.

Application programming interface (API) in this case means what data non-Wikipedians should be able to easily get from Wikipedia with software. In Twitter, for example, any Twitter user can get dashboard and metrics software to see how many people read their content. All corporations use these dashboards to judge value of paid staff twitter communication. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Wow, it's not often that I get thanked for a three-year-old edit! That put a smile on my face, so thank you :-] --Slashme (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Slashme: Did I really thank you for that? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Luciana Zogbi[edit]

If you'd like me to refloat an article on LZ, let me know in six months to a year, when there will (probably) be more references available for an article on her.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: Actually the reason I thanked you had to do with your unofficial test which you outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luciana Zogbi. Here is another good candidate. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I realize pageview counts are not an official test, but my experience has been that they're a fairly consistent test about whether a subject is notable or not. And, conversely, articles with few or barely existent pageview tallies should maybe come on the chopping block more often. I think it would be great if Wikipedia could put more effort into making sure these tally counts were more accurate (not just bots, but real (unique) persons really searching for information on a topic.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@Tomwsulcer: BTW I forgot to thank you for saving Jenny Doan from deletion in 2014. Besides having a good nature and a healthy sense of humour you are also one of the few white knights I have encountered on Wikipedia who helped save from the Guillotine articles that I started. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh thanks, I generally like to rescue articles when I can, fixing them up according to the Heymann standard, but in recent months I've been busy with other stuff so I haven't done as much rescuing as in the past. If one of your articles is in jeopardy and you feel it can be saved, write something on my talk page and I'll see what I can do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I know I'm still missing. It's nice to know you care. Miss seeing you and folks around. :( Syrthiss (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Re your question[edit]

Hi, it's a while back but noting that the "parent category" doesn't exist, I recall that there was a problem whereby some category obsessives on Wikipedia, in their bid to make the world a homogenous place free of complication, had created a American-centric category tree which made no sense in the rest of the world, and a series of CfDs and other discussions saw them unable to defend this (and other similar) views. (One particularly hilarious one I remember being involved in was the change of "port cities" to "port settlements", a portmanteau literally only used on Wikipedia!) The word "colleges" has diverse meanings depending on which part of the world it's used, and outside the US and countries where US English has influence, a college is not something which can be logically grouped with a university due to differences in purpose, audience etc. (In some countries it's an upper secondary school, in others it's a one-year vocational or trades institution, in many jurisdictions they are completely unlicenced, etc.) So yes, it was a dispute between the "standardisers" and the rest of the world. I hope that answers the question - sorry I couldn't be more specific about this particular example (Iraq), but that was the overall debate as I remember it from years ago. Orderinchaos 03:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

On further investigation I understand better the basis for your question - it looks like the US system has regrettably resprouted, but rather than try to replace the world system completely as previously, the two systems now live in some sort of awkward harmony. For whatever reason, the Iraq and Iran categories weren't reached by the former when they came back. As some might say, "only on Wikipedia"... Orderinchaos 03:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your elaborate reply to my question on your talkpage regarding the removal of Category:Universities and colleges in Iraq. I wish I could find the particular wp:CfD you are talking about because the way I remember it, it is a British wiki-admin, not an American, who is adament about keeping the category tree under Category:Universities and colleges, and not separating out universities as a category.
A bit of background: The insistence on lumping universities together with colleges as the parent category has caused me no end of frustration over the years. and when I could not locate any universities in either Iran or Iraq in Category:Universities and colleges I had enough and I decided it is time to start investigating what went wrong. Looks like it is not going to be easy, sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Monette-Horwitz Trust Award[edit]

Hello Ottawahitech,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Monette-Horwitz Trust Award for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This was subsequently speedy deleted as A7 by DGG, and rightly so. It consisted of one sentence which made no claim whatsoever to significance for this award and provided zero citations which might have indicated potential notability—just an external link to its official web page. The reason the link remains blue is that I added a section on the award, properly referenced, to the article on Paul Monette and re-created Monette-Horwitz Trust Award as a redirect. In my view, while there is independent coverage of some its recipients, there probably isn't enough independent coverage of the award itself to justify a stand-alone article. Voceditenore (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know user:Kudpung. As you advised me above I clicked on the Contest button and explained why I thought this should not have been deleted.BTW I am having trouble with my notifications which I intend to ask about at the wp:notification page as soon as I get arond to it. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
no reason not to start it again if w you have the material, but in practice it has proven difficult to establish notability for such awards DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DGG. That's why I went ahead and created a section on the awards (which are essentially small-ish grants) at Paul Monette#Monette-Horwitz Trust and re-created Monette-Horwitz Trust Award as a redirect (see my comment above). Not every item ever mentioned somewhere or other is suitable for a stand-alone article. I've not been able to locate any coverage of the awards themselves or even regular announcements of the winners, apart from one article at the Lambda Literary Foundation announcing the 2010 winners, and that was probably because one of the recipients had previously received a Lambda Literary Foundation award. Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Category sort keys[edit]

When adding sort keys to categories, preference should be to use some derivative of the name of the article. Moreover, avoid using generic terms that would themselves be categories. For example, don't use 'sports' as a key for 2015 American League Championship Series, as 'American League Championship Series' is more descriptive, and moreover the category may later be updated to Category:2015 sporting events in Ontario or some such. Mindmatrix 17:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Another reason, the typical reader will look for 'American League Championship Series' with the entries under 'A', not with those under 'S'. Mindmatrix 17:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Promotion, Federal court and Pay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC) sorryKardinalCypher (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Huang v. Twitter[edit]

If you make an article "Huang v. Twitter", then the new entry at List of gender equality lawsuits will not be liable to removal in accord with WP:WTAF. I do hope that no one would delete the new article.
Wavelength (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC) and 21:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I know you hate wiki-politics -- and so do I. Here is some history of my initial attempt to start this article. Should I ping you when replying? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC) As you can see it was labelled G3: Vandalism by the deleting ADMIN. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
You can use Template:Ping, but I prefer that you alert me by addressing me with my username wikified, thus: [[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]]. I am unable to see the deleted article, but the nine references at User:Ottawahitech/archived/sandbox seem to be sufficient for a substantial article worthy of being accepted (that is to say, not deleted). The March 2015 links at this page do not help me to understand why the article was deleted.
Wavelength (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:Wavelength (is that what you mean by " username wikified"?), this happened at the beginning of the year, which to me is decades in wiki-years, so forgive me if my memory is a bit hazy. Anyway this is what I remember:
  • I was notified the article was CSDed in March 2015
  • a little later I approached the deleting ADMIN and inquired about the reason for the deletion
  • This ADMIN (who used this opportunity to forcefully archive my talk-page in an unstandard fashion against my wishes ) userified my article, again in a way that, I think, is not recommeded.
  • The end result is that the userified article cannot be moved to mainspace (because its history goes back to February of 2014 and includes material that is irrelevant).
Ottawahitech (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, your link notified me (and I thank you), but I meant this: Wavelength. Your previous link has a link to this section, which indicates that the administrator has a strict position on bare URLs. (Please acquaint yourself with him here.) Apparently, he believes that it goes without saying that a bare URL in a reference is no better than a missing reference, so an article with only bare URLs is unreferenced. In turn, he apparently considers an unreferenced article to be a hoax comparable to vandalism.
I suggest that you use the userfied article as a basis for starting a new article with a new history. You can use a completely new subpage, as if all the past were forgotten. I recommend that you convert the bare URLs in the userfied article to links with titles. I recommend that you use the references to produce an article of at least two paragraphs of at least three sentences each. I recommend that you expand the article to that size in your userspace before you transfer it to mainspace. Alternatively, you can develop the article in a file on your computer before you transfer it to Wikipedia mainspace.
Wavelength (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Google Get Your Business Online[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Google Get Your Business Online 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 an organization or company, 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of CFD Category:Founders_of_companies_of_the_United_States[edit]

I have just been notified that this category which I created has been nominated for deletion umm…discusion. I was notified, not by the nominator but by a kind bystander.

With all this extra make-work, I doubt I will have the time to participate, but wanted to thank Softlavender for the extra work he/she had to do to let me know. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

I always appreciate a grammar correction! FYI - Would love to implement a way to eliminate widows!!! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 16:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Concerns over edit[edit]

Although I am unsure about which sandbox in particular, but I most likely removed a Project tag due to the fact that the article was drafted and was not viewable to any users, and therefore needed to be worked on and then the tag would be added back. Lucasstar1 (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of MSMB Capital Management[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on MSMB Capital Management 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 an organization or company, 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. Eteethan(talk)🎄 17:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings![edit]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Empty categories[edit]

Hey, Ottawahitech,
I regularly tag empty categories so I guess I'm the person to ask. I use Twinkle to tag empty categories with a CSD C1 tag and Twinkle says it notifies the category creator but, unlike other CSD categories or PRODs, it actually doesn't (see CSD criteria here Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. Unpopulated categories). The principle is that categories are applied to articles first and then a category page is created. Empty categories shouldn't be created that then filled. But categories are not supposed to "be emptied out of process", that is, the categories should not be removed from pages in order to empty a category and tag it with a CSD C1 tag. Relevant information is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Categories possibly emptied out of process. But it can be difficult to tell if a category has been emptied out of process. The easiest way is if you have a clue which editor might have done so, check their contribution page and you can see a straight list of pertinent articles that might have had the category removed.
I should say that although I tag empty categories, I create twice or three times as many new categories every day. This is through looking at Wikipedia:Database reports/Red-linked categories with incoming links which have red links for categories that have links to them but which have yet to be created. It is not uncommon for me to come across categories that had been deleted because they were empty that now can be recreated because they have been assigned to a page. Since I have the admin buttons, I just go into the deleted contributions and restore the category.
I guess the only advice I can offer is to look to see if a category structure you are interested is already created. The category might go by a different name that the one you think is logical. At WP:CFD, categories are often merged if two categories are different names for the same group of articles. It is always easier and preferable to work with the category structures that exist rather than trying to create a whole new category tree. With the best of intentions, some editors have made hundred of edits inventing dozens of categories which then are deleted and must be cleaned up because they duplicate an existing category tree. It's best to start small, with an area that you know well. OR extend an existing category to cover a new editor (like creating French male actor from Male actor if the category didn't already exist). If you have a question about a deletion you think was inappropriate, visit Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. I hope this answers your question. Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings![edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Disambiguation link notification for December 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of founders of companies of the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dick Jones, Jonathan Schwartz and Gary Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Flow / projectbreakfast RFC[edit]

The discussion there is so tangled that it was hard to see exactly how it was going. I tried reading it as if I were a closer sorting out the !votes. Aside from you, it's 6-2. You gave a strong initial opposition, then made quite a few negative comments about problems on the board, and in particular this:

To make this short, if FLOW will allow us to edit others comments... I see no reason to support it.

I'm not arguing to change your !vote, I just wanted to check whether there had been a shift in your position. Alsee (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi user:Alsee, First of all thanks for all the work you do around FLOW. Even though I am keenly interested in FLOW, I just don't get the time to do it justice (too busy trying to save categories that took years to develop from being trashed by editors who could not care less).
To answer your question: Yes FLOW is terribly buggy right now, but I still want to continue testing it at BF. I believe it is worth the try to save FLOW if at all possible. Looks to me like the team working on FLOW is just not getting the resources it needs becuase top management at WMF does not see FLOW's value? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Flow at projectbreakfast RFC - too depressing[edit]

This whole thing is just way too depressing - its time for me to move on to doing some real work here. For those interested, if any, I have added my final thoughts at: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFCs_on_Wikiprojects_-_a_hijacking_strategy and at: Community consensus reached? -- discussion that will soon be buried in archives, sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I will be appealing the close of projectbreakfast RFC[edit]

I believe the close is fauly and plan to appeal it (if time permits). For more:

Thank you to user: AlbinoFerret for providing appeal information. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: Can we keep this discussion between the two of us here to avoid fracturing the conversation? You have already archived the thread I started on you own page, so this seems the logical place to continue?Ottawahitech (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Thats fine, but now the review has started on WP:AN Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_close_review_of_RFC_-_Remove_Flow_from_WikiProject_Breakfast.3F and discussions in general should happen there. If you have a question, I will try and answer it if you place it here, just ping me. AlbinoFerret 21:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: I think you meant well, but I believe the way you went about it is counterproductive . I did not ask you to appeal on my behalf and frankly, I believe the urgency is not necessary, and there is no need for a process that does not follow the traditional approach. There was no need to skip the step recommended in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE which stipulates:contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review
So can we start over again? Will you withdraw the challenge to your own RFC closure and try to work this out first before involving the community at large? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
No, you didnt ask me to appeal on your behalf, but an appeal can be started by anyone, including the closer. You had already discussed the close with me, and with uninvolved editors on other pages. Under the circumstances the appeal was IMHO the appropriate action because it had left the page the RFC was on already. Had this stayed there and my talk page it could have been discussed more. But I think at this point the review should continue. You are free to join the review and make comments, if I have gotten something wrong, point it out. AlbinoFerret 14:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: You said: you had already discussed the close with me but I don’t recall discussing your close with you. All that happened is this exchange on your talkpage which you archived beforeI had a chance to continue asking, IIRC. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought the discussion was done after a day and no new comments. I tend to like a clean talk page. But you could have still opened a section if you had any questions or asked them here with a ping. AlbinoFerret 18:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

FLOW - Consensus_is_not_working[edit]

Looks like I am not the only one complaining. See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Consensus_is_not_working/ Ottawahitech (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Businesspeople of companies in Canada[edit]

Category:Businesspeople of companies in Canada, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Untagging Categories in Open Category for Discussion Nominations[edit]

Hello,

Obviously you feel strongly against deleting the Category:Women translators and took the following actions:

  • 1. You gave a long opposition the CFD nomination to remove the male translators category here.
  • 2. You removed my tag of the related women translators category here without reverting my edit so I would receive an edit here.
  • 3. You tagged me in a sort of help desk confessional here. (Was there something that lead to this?)
  • 4. You were so alarmed by my suggestion in the CfD discussion that you alerted a WikiProject here.

All of these edits are completely constructive except for #2. If I wasn't assuming good faith, I could interpret that as an attempt to sabotage an open CFD discussion by not having the category tagged for a week as is required. But, you make constructive edits all the time and tagged me in the help desk post.

So let me just ask you here: what are we doing here? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we were editing at the same time. Thank you for your constructive suggestions for making sure the nominations is correctly handled. All of your suggestions are implemented. I'm retagging the category on the assumption that we are in consensus now about the process. (Obviously we disagree about the actual nomination though.) Merry Christmas (if applicable)! RevelationDirect (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Emptying a category out of process with an open Category for Merge nomination[edit]

Hello,

It's not correct procedure to merge a category with an open CFM nomination. As the nominator, I obviously favor that outcome but other editors need a week to weigh in so I'm going to undo those changes to Category:Cleaners. Additionally, it looks like you are interested in ruporposing that same category name to house biography articles (1, 2, 3) instead of occupation articles. If you decide to proceed with that plan, let's wait until after this nomination closes so that we don't complicate things for the closing admin. (I would be concerned that grouping janitors, housekeepers, and industrial cleaners would be problematic but we can discuss that later.)

More information on the category for discussion process is at WP:CFD. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about List of founders of companies of the United States[edit]

Hello, Ottawahitech,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether List of founders of companies of the United States should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of founders of companies of the United States .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Iamoctopus (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Tagging, tagging and more tagging[edit]

You must be a very patient person. If tags were real, you would be squished by now. Checking in to see what you are up to. Thanks for thanking me and giving me support and encouragement....unlike what I see here on your talk page. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@Bfpage: I have another candidate for cat:Over-templated-experienced-editors: User_talk:Jiang#Copyright_problem:_Ti.E1.BA.BFn_Qu.C3.A2n_Ca -- do you think Jiang qualifies (been an editor since 2003 and an ADMIN to boot)? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about the over-templating on this talk page[edit]

Hello, Ottawahitech,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether your talk page is excessively templated and tagged; The discussion may be deleted..or not. Your comments are welcome but likely to be completely ignored by whoever placed the template on your talk page in the first place. Your comments are welcome at talk.

If you're new to the process, a sly remark suggesting that you are inexperienced, feel free to make use of articles for deletion. This is a group (with regularly expected participants) that discuss (not a vote![dubious ]) that usually lasts seven days or however long it takes to get it deleted. Just to add another insult in questioning your experience in editing let me suggest if you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top. Doing so is considered naughty. Thanks,

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

2016[edit]

Happy New Year .jpg
Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
   – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Debt collection[edit]

Category:Debt collection, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ottawahitech![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Ottawahitech![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Cancer deaths by country category[edit]

I submitted the original request and it was exactly like it says - Rename to be consistent with the naming of some other categories in the same tree. What I didn't realize is that there are a group of users who had previously been involved in a "Categories for deletion" discussion related to cause of death which was organized as you describe = submit a small subset first and then submit other subsequent categories from the same tree later for deletion. So, they have all jumped on this band-wagon. I don't know if we will see a reasonable outcome. Someone else described CfD as a mushroom territory: "so many changes occur in the darkness of the shadow of the few who inhabit the territory". I naively just tried to do things by the book. --Big_iron (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

In recent years, the CFD discussions haven't had enough editors participating. I hope you both stick around! Thanks for your contributions. @Big iron: RevelationDirect (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
@RevelationDirect and Big iron: In my opinion wp:CfD is the most dysfunctional process around by far. For starters what is the point of Categories for discussion when ADMINs make their own rules never mind what others say? ..but I am going to leave this for others who enjoy "talk" -- I would like to get back to "creation" Ottawahitech (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
@RevelationDirect: I felt a little guilty rebuffing your invitation to participate in CfD discussions, but I just happened to come across an old CfD in which I did participate and it appears nothing has changed since 2013 - ADMINs still inititiate CfDs without notifying the creators and no one cares about consistency. Since you seem to belong to the group of editors who actually enjoys debating endlessly, I hope you will care enough to try and fix those glaring issues. Cateories are getting such a poor reputation at wikipedia I fear the community will simply shut them down if nothing is done. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Haha, that might be the best/worst compliment to receive. I've worked on making the Category Discussions more accessible to casual editors but those improvements have been more around the edges, unfortunately. For what it's worth I just voted "Weak Keep" on the category abolition discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
@RevelationDirect: When you refer to best/worst compliment I assume you are talking about belong to the group of editors who actually enjoys debating endlessly? If so, I did not mean it as a compliment/non-compliment. There are several editors I highly regard who do nothing but participate in wiki-talk and vice verse. I personally try to stay away talk because the primitive wiki-talk software makes it too time consuming. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Container category[edit]

Please don't add articles to container categories, as you did Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. I've reverted your edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Maple Batalia[edit]

I created Maple Batalia in October of 2011. This article is one of many speedily deleted without notifying me, and now I also discovered it is not included in the list of articles I created. Odd... BTW those doing research on the topic of wiki-deletions may be interested in looking at the article's What links here which is public history that survives wiki-deletions. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It was deleted, userfied to another user, and then deleted again at that location, which shouldn't have happened. I have restored it to maple Batalia and then redeleted it (just putting back the status quo, not a decision on content). It should now appear in your contributions as a deleted article. Fram (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victimology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal agency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:MIA[edit]

Thanks for the note! Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 18:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Doc glasgow at WP:MISS[edit]

I removed the Missing entry for Doc glasgow because this editor is still active with a new account. See the latest entry in his rights log, where the connection was sufficiently recognized for his admin bit to be ‘bequeathed’ to the present account. I don’t know what it took to demonstrate the continuity, but it was evidently enough to convince at least one bureaucrat. (There might be some back-story in talk-page or noticeboard archives, but I haven’t gone looking.)—Odysseus1479 01:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of edit - Article alerts?[edit]

Would you please explain what these edits to Wikiproject Years means? I have no idea what you're getting at. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jc3s5h, I guess you are asking about article alerts? If so have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canada/Article_alerts where the wp:Article alerts BOT has last delivered the alerts to the project at 09:07, 9 January 2016‎(UTC). Please let me know if I have answered your question. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess the link in your edit was supposed to go somewhere, but it is a read link. If the link were correct, maybe I would have understood. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: The link should stay red only until the next delivery of alerts to the project, which should be around 09:07, 10 January 2016‎(UTC). If the BOT fails to deliver please let me know. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
OK, I'll keep an eye out. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Appeal information[edit]

Here is a link to the section on challenging a close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures AlbinoFerret 19:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you have indicated your time was limited I started a RFC review request here [Request close review of [2] Please add your input. AlbinoFerret 20:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing of other editors posts on noticeboards[edit]

I would recommend you undo your edit of my post in the WP:AN noticeboard. You can respond if you choose, but editing other editors posts isnt a good idea and can lead to sanctions. AlbinoFerret 20:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pat Dowell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ordinance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thought you would like this[edit]

An off-wiki discussion of The Ten Best Wikipedia Articles Deleted This Week. The President of Your Fan Club,

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm 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 an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), 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. SirLagsalott (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm. Since you had some involvement with the Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SirLagsalott (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Americans renouncing citizenship in records numbers listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Americans renouncing citizenship in records numbers. Since you had some involvement with the Americans renouncing citizenship in records numbers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Allison Christians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill C-31 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tax Connections[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tax Connections 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 web content, 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. Hot Pork Pie 20:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Defunct power stations has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Defunct power stations, 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. Rehman 07:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Martijn Hoekstra missing[edit]

Yeah. I sent him an email. Thanks for noting that. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your question at the Help desk[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello Ottawahitech. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
Message added on 17:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Here's a relaxing cup of tea for you for being a leader, not a follower! Cheers! MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 15:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Just in time. It is extremely exhausting, isn't it? :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I've seen your name appear a lot on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. I was wondering if you would give your opinion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Clarification of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sia proposal? where I've opened up a concern about a Wikiproject that was created on a whim and not done through a proposal. The founder and original member has since asked a few people to join it, and now there are only two. I personally don't think the WP should exist because the scope isn't broad enough, it was never official proposed despite the founder knowing that there is a system in place for the proposal of the creation of WP's, and as a result we don't know if there is even a need/any interest for it to exist. Thank you.  — Calvin999 09:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Disney collusion litigation listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Disney collusion litigation. Since you had some involvement with the Disney collusion litigation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Chancellors by country has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Chancellors by country, 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. PanchoS (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Vice-Chancellors has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Vice-Chancellors, 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. PanchoS (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)