User talk:Ubiquity

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

Hello there Ubiquity, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --[[user:maveric149|




Updated DYK query On June 20, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boyle Roche, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 02:38

4 years with no edits?[edit]

How did that happen? A talk page with a welcome message from maveric149 is very rare these days. You could sell it on eBay for a hefty sum. :) — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 02:43

Boyle Roche passed as GA[edit]

I have completed my review of Boyle Roche and passed it as a Good Article. Congratulations! This is a fine piece of work, and it's been a pleasure working with you to fix the last 1% or so to bring it to this status. Choess 01:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(/Archive 1)(/Archive 2)


Edits you made to James LaPietra's Page[edit]

Hello. Are you editing James LaPietra's wkipedia page? I can see that you are reverting edits that were made earlier today. What qualifies you to know of this man's life and to make these changes? I removed untrue information that was listed on him. I do not want it put back on his page.

RosinaLa (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Rosina

Edits to[edit]

I modeled this page after the information on the Apple, Inc page - how can I make it less promotional and more factual than it already is? Any advice is appreciated! Writerlauren (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember the details of the page, but your article needs to:
  • Explain clearly why the company is notable. Just because it exists doesn't mean it should be in wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory.
  • Back your claim up with references to reputable third-party sources (not corporate websites, biz directories, facebook and other self-published things), as per the general notability guidelines.
  • Avoid promotional language ("We're the best!", "You'll love our...") such as might be found in an ad or commercial web page.
Hope this helps. ubiquity (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Red Eye Louie's Vodquila[edit]

- I am the cofounder of this company and am trying to make a wiki page for this.

I will add the links once I'm completed and fully understand how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romiearora (talkcontribs) 15:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are the cofounder, you should not be writing the article, as it violates Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. ubiquity (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

- understood. I will see if a blogger wants to make one up as they have all of our public information and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romiearora (talkcontribs) 15:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, but let me point out you will still need to meet the General Notability Guidelines. It's not enough to have a homepage and a Facebook page that says your brand is great; you need to have coverage in reputable, third-party sources. ubiquity (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

-- Understood. We are on major news sources online such as daily mail, NPR, telegraph, cosmopolitan, amazon etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romiearora (talkcontribs) 16:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nancy Love Literary Agency[edit]

Thank you- I didn't know how to delete it and thought that erasing the content would do it. I didn't mean to write an article at all.~~Burton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burton1978 (talkcontribs) 03:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! ubiquity (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi there, thanks for the notification! I'll expand the stub in the next couple hours. I think the article is clearly relevant, we already have tons of pieces on similar societies. Cheers, Leo Fischer (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that you fixed so many issues, I removed the tags, including the speedy tag. ubiquity (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Leo Fischer (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In Regards to the Article "Bridgenex"[edit]

Hello! My article titled "Bridgenex" was deleted for a couple of reasons. I would like to have the information back so I can reference and improve it. Thank you. schiappetta (talk)

I only tagged it for deletion, it was actually deleted by admin MelanieN (talk · contribs). She will be able to copy the deleted article to your user space; please contact her. ubiquity (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Great thank you! schiappetta (talk)

In Regards to the Article "New Media Narratives"[edit]

Hi I am having a bad here. I am the chair of a new program at a very well established school and this is the name of the program. My earlier version got deleted because I used the same wording I used on the program website and someone else said I was promoting a business. Its not a business. Its a program in a school and when I searched for it in Wikipedia, I did not find another page with the same name. This is frustrating for new users. ebk 17:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebkilroy (talkcontribs) 17:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ebk. I tagged your article for deletion because the New Media Narrative certificate is already mentioned in the established article International Center of Photography (the section on The School), and your article provided no references and no new information. If you believe that the certificate is truly notable on its own, please explain why, and provide references by reputable, third-party sources that support this. See the general notability guidelines for more information. ubiquity (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of G11 Template[edit]

I removed your csd for Falk Preussner, it seems the page creator intended it to be an afc article, so I have moved it to an appropriate draft page. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. ubiquity (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Anish John Pg References[edit]

Hi Ubiquity, I wanted you to please request you to take me off the block list. I have added all references and citations to the "Anish John" wiki-pg, as was your initial complaint. Please understand that I was getting a hang of it and am grateful for your feedback, due to which the needful changes have been made ( which can not be saved unless you take me off the blacklist that you put me on). Look forward to your unblocking/response. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janedoe108 (talkcontribs) 01:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jane. I would have done it, but TheMesquito (talk · contribs) beat me to it. You could have done it yourself — the rules of Proposed deletion of biographies of living people permit anyone to remove the tag once a reference has been added to the article. ubiquity (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Anish John[edit]

Hi there. Just FYI the BLPPROD on this article has been removed (by TheMesquito who has faster fingers than I do...) thanks to the addition of one reliable source (the Huffington Post article). Its still lacking in the way of proving notability, but it no longer qualifies for BLPPROD. The author was on IRC asking for help and stated they'll be adding more reliable sources. I'll leave it up to you if you want to take to AfD or wait it out a bit. Since it would seem the subject recently won an award, I think the sources might be out there in the world of Indian news. Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 01:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I just saw your above reply. It would seem everyone has faster fingers than me today... Face-smile.svg Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 0159, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Lol. I'm OK with the article, as long as there are references, and Huff Post is way better than the typical single reference to imdb. I won't be Afd'ing ubiquity (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Riceford Creek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Root River (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) 09:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dakhira[edit]

Per WP:WDAFD, to withdraw a nomination, add a note saying "Withdrawn by nominator" immediately below your nomination statement at the top of the discussion, give a brief explanation and sign it. I will then close the discussion as speedy keep. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 21:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for insertion of such article[edit]

What do you mean by it doesn't meet the criteria? I specifically did this not for the sake of doing it but because I find it important. Please reconsider thank you, and I have attained all this information from the media, ChannelNewsAsia, Straits Times, Chinese Newspapers and etc. If you think that the article has to be deleted, state reasons at my talk page thanksGshq88 (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for discussing this with me. Please read the Wikipedia policy article "Notability (events)" and consider for yourself whether you think the outages you describe meet the criteria, and whether it had the depth of coverage required. Anyone who wants to can remove a PROD, so feel free to do so, but unless you explain in the article why the outages were important, and support that explanation with sources, I will open an AfD discussion, because I really don't think the case has been made that these outages were globally notable. Once that discussion is open, you will be able to make your case, and the matter will be decided by consensus. ubiquity (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to go through such extreme? I mean, the coverage is all over the news, and SMRT was gonna invite companies from other countries to inspect our system. So it will turn into a global matter sooner or later. Anyway, unlike my previous upload due to copyright policies, this was solely created by me with the informations from friends and media. So it is important for any Wikipedians to edit that article to improve it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gshq88 (talkcontribs) 15:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

If you believe that this outage will eventually turn out to be seen as "an event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" and to have had a "significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group," then perhaps you should wait until that has happened. If you believe it already meets these criteria, you should make it clear in your article what that lasting, widespread significance is. To me it seems like just another subway outage, albeit a particularly bad one by your local standards. ubiquity (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

NINECHOIRS/ tagged for quick deletion: ServiInutiles[edit]

It was after reading several other band wiki-pages that I have attempted such and following your actions cannot differentiate between your 'findings' and what I have read elsewhere.

You state there are several reasons why the page is not qualified for posting. I have attempted to explain about what NINECHOIRS is and how it is non-self-promotional contrary to the model of "bands" and "recording artists".

Is there a problem with quoting co-relations with standing Catholic Church Teachings and Traditions? Does qualifying content in this way constitute 'promotion'.

Please, elaborate a little on your "variety of reasons", or kindly point me to where these reasons conflict with the NINECHOIRS page descriptions and sources.

In response to your tagging, I was only able to delete the content, but not the page title, so as to continue to improve the page in my sandbox. Thank you for your assistance. Best regards.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ServiInutiles (talkcontribs) 11:34, 9 July 2015‎ (UTC)

You raise several issues here. First, I merely tagged your article for speedy deletion. I am not an administrator, so could not delete the article myself, but in my opinion the article did not explain why NINECHOIRS was notable, or provide any references to demonstrate notability. I also thought the article was promotional, in that it talked a lot about how great NINECHOIRS was (like an ad) without saying anything substantive about who found you notable or why. There was no need for you to move the page to your sandbox (although I think that was a good idea), and the speedy deletion box has a button that allows you to say why you think the article should not be deleted.
Second, I agree that there are many wiki-pages for non-notable bands. Feel free to tag them. Or let me know which one you mean, and if I agree I'll tag them myself. Wikipedia is not a place where anyone can list their band own band, or any band they happen to like. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia, written about notable things, where notability is defined objectively.
When you put an article into the main space of the encyclopedia, it should be ready. It should be well-written, referenced, categorized. It should clearly state why the subject of the article is notable, and support that with references from independent, reliable sources. It should not copy material from other websites or infringe on copyrights. Your sandbox is a great place to work on it while you get all that done. When it's ready, it will be easy to copy back into the main space. ubiquity (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations and clarifications. [2015.07.11] - ... although your discernment of content seems 'supernatural' considering that you have determined that the facts detailing the creative discipline self-imposed by the nature of the NINECHOIRS written content was indeed objectionable -"in that it talked about how great NINECHOIRS was (like an ad) ..." Salvation History and The Angels of God are "great", not this work, that is why it is entirely non-promotional and anonymous. You find 'no place' for a selfless unprecedented music recording ensemble on WIKI, while classifying it "as like" promoted music bands which enjoy reference pages on the Wiki cite. As for me, I believe NINECHOIRS in a one-off, but, the WIKI COI information makes it clear only a 3rd party may write and only those not compensated to do so. Again, thank you. I am not qualified to write about NINECHOIRS, nor is intolerance qualified to misrepresent what is truly great.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you so much for your time. Jayswobodakeepingit200 (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Contest the speedy deletion[edit]

Hi, you deleted it before i could contest it. I am sure you meant well but this is part of an expansion of Everest history and content. I would appreciate it if you would bring it back so we can have some more opinions on this article. Fotaun (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I did not delete it, I just tagged it. The admin who deleted it was Jimfbleak (talk · contribs), so please contact him to get it back. He will probably copy it to your user space, where you can work on it for a bit before you put it back in the main space. If this is part of an expansion of Everest history, you should probably say so in the article. As it was, it looked just like a list of people providing services (only one of them notable enough to have their own article), and Wikipedia is not a directory. ubiquity (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining this and no problem, I know you were just doing your job. I can see why you saw an issue here, and the main problem was time. It was deleted with probably ten minutes of when I had first made it! Fotaun (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For keeping Wikipedia free of commercial advertisement Fotaun (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
For being a polite Wikipedia teamember Fotaun (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Chuyến bay 706 của Air Vietnam[edit]

Sorry for my artical, I wrote it for vi-wiki, and I've just relized my mistake, thanks for the deletion!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Đoàn Hữu Kiên (talkcontribs) 11:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Đoàn Hữu Kiên (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Letters of Gold by gabrielsturmer[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because we've used exactly the same format, structure and tone as other similar games are using, such as King's Candy Crush Saga article. Any specific items we can remove to make it more neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielsturmer (talkcontribs) 14:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Gabriel. It's not the tone, per se, it's the lack of notability. The Candy Crush Saga article has 22 references, all about Candy Crush. Your article has three references, and only one of those actually speaks to the notability of Letters of Gold. However, I have to admit that I missed that third reference the first time I read the article. I'll remove the speedy tag, since it looks like you have demonstrated notability.
Oddly, the advert tag (which influenced my speedy tag) seems to have been there from the article's creation. Did you accidentally copy it from somewhere? I removed it. ubiquity (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixing Intellectual Property & Technology Forum[edit]

Hi Ubiquity, I'm writing so that the Intellectual Property and Technology Forum page may be exempt from deletion. I am the Intellectual Property and Technology Forum Editor in Chief, able to use the Forum's information where and how I see fit. I have not infringed on any copyright by using the Forum's information page as the basis for the wikipedia page entry. You may see the information used on the wikipedia page is the same as the "About" section of our Forum site page, found here: Please let me know what steps are needed to allow for the wikipedia page's existence. Thanks Baywalker4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baywalker4 (talkcontribs) 12:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Baywalker. There are a number of issues with what you say.
  1. I did not delete your article (I cannot, since I am not an administrator). I tagged your article for deletion, but Randykitty (talk · contribs) actually deleted it, so if you want to reinstate it, you need to talk to him. The admins are usually pretty clear when they delete something, but feel free to ask.
  2. Neither I nor Randykitty not anyone else can exempt your article from deletion if it does not meet Wikipedia standards. In addition to appearing to be a copyright violation, your article was deleted on the basis of its promotional nature and lack of notability. As I recall, it did not meet the general notability guidelines.
  3. If you really are the editor-in-chief, you have a serious conflict of interest and should not be writing this article.
  4. Just because you (someone I do not know personally) tell me you are the editor of a publication (an assertion I cannot verify), that doesn't mean you can copy material from that source as you see fit. Please see WP:MYTEXT.
  5. You may argue that, given time, you would have supplied appropriate references, changed the tone of the article to make it less promotional and removed the copyright issues, but the main article space is not the place to do that. You shouldn't create new articles unless you are sure they meet wikipedia's criteria, particularly notability and verifiability. If you want to practice, there is the sandbox facility and Wikipedia:Articles for creation where you can get a second opinion from a more experienced contributor. You may also want to use the Wikipedia:Draft space.
Hope this helps. ubiquity (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Alice Frost Blower Tilley[edit]

Hi I am not sure if I am adding this message to the correct space, however, I wanted to respond to your speedy deletion request. I have appealed it Alice was a poineer and a feminist and this was a critically important event in women's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth7g (talkcontribs) 17:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That may be, but NONE of that was clear from the article, which, when I saw it, simply asserted a few facts about her life without in any way asserting her notability. Furthermore, the article had no references, and without references a historical article is worthless - how can anyone know whether it's correct, or the author is just making it up? If you want to try the article again, you should start with an explanation of why she was notable, and back that up with references supporting your point. You may feel that, given time, you could have done this, but the main article space is not the place to do that. You shouldn't create new articles unless you are sure they meet Wikipedia's criteria, particularly notability and verifiability. If you want to practice, there is the sandbox facility and Wikipedia:Articles for creation where you can get a second opinion from a more experienced contributor. You may also want to use the Wikipedia:Draft space. ubiquity (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

James Palm by Beatriceshaw[edit] Hi Ubiquity, Thank you for the administration of the wiki page James Palm. I read your note about deletion of the page because of the lack of references and I've now added references. I wonder if these are correct and the page is now ok, or have I misunderstood your message? I intend to, together with other editors, continue to write the bio on this page. Best regards, Beatrice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatriceshaw (talkcontribs) 21:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked at your page. Biographies of living people must have at least one valid reference, and your article now has three, so you're good. I did make some changes to the article, as follows:
  • I removed the references to LinkedIn. As this material is self-published, it's not usually considered valid, and you didn't seem to be using it to support specific facts but instead just as a pointer, which is definitely not permitted.
  • I removed some references to company home pages because they did not mention the Mr Palm, so were again just being used as pointers to outside web pages.
  • I removed two wiki-links to non-existent articles on Swedish Wikipedia. If and when these companies get Wikipedia articles, you can reinstate the links.
  • I changed the link to the Swedish version of Lund University to the English version. This is English Wikipedia; links should be in English wherever possible.
Let me know if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the explanation and the editing of the article. I'll be more thorough and precise in the future. Best regards, Beatrice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatriceshaw (talkcontribs) 10:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you have added an "Articles" section to your article. Take a look at other biographical entries and you will see this is very unusual. If the articles are about Palm, you should use these sources (references) to provide substance for your own article, and then remove the "Articles" section. If the articles are not about Palm, but perhaps his companies or related things, they don't belong on the page at all.
By the way, when you reply to this, or leave a note or a comment ANYWHERE on WIkipedia, don't forget to sign your entry by adding four tildes after it (~~~~). This will make it a lot easier for people to reply to you, or to know who made which comment. ubiquity (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Frederick Wiknic 2015[edit]

In one of the previous years you either attended or expressed interest in attending the Frederick Wiknic. I'd like to invite you to come to this year's Wiknic, which will be held on Sunday 2 August 2015 at 12:00 PM at Baker Park in Frederick, Maryland. You can find more information on the events meetup page. Zell Faze (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Italia Independent Group[edit]

Hi, thanks for your message. I wanted to explain before resorting to 'contest'. I created the page because it's an Italian holding company listed in the stock exchange and it's the owner of one of the most important sunglass manufaturer in Italy. If there's a way to improve the context, by adding information on stocks and divisions let me now. Jackyska (talk)

Thanks for discussing this with me. Please check out the Wikipedia policy on what makes an organization notable. I don't believe that simply being listed in the Italian stock exchange makes a company notable. Being one of the most important manufacturers of sunglasses WOULD make it notable, but currently this does not appear in the article. If you add that, and a reference to a reliable, independent source (for instance, NOT the company webpage) supporting the claim, I will withdraw the deletion tag. ubiquity (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"no context"[edit]

I declined to delete DW-6100 as no context, because that only allows deletion of articles where you literally cannot tell what the subject is. Since A7 doesn't cover products, I suggest prod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs)

When I tagged it there really wasn't any context. But thanks for the explanation. ubiquity (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

William Costin[edit]

Could you please re-do your edits on William Costin to reflect that there should still be an AfD template there? Thanks! Jd027 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, just noticed that. Sorry. ubiquity (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


Dear ubiquity, i would kindly ask for the recovery of this page for further reasons . as previously noticed, the page had been deleted due to its performance of advertisement for a certain company . i apologize for that , it was indeed a mistake that should be corrected . i would like to either edit the page here on wikipedia or either receive it from you on my email . as you can see this was a page intended to serve a huge purpose in delivering messages and information on the bedwans and how people support them and belong to them through their creations , whether it was in a business or through creativity. i would kindly politely ask for the recovery of the page or for it to be send to me on my email for future editing and revising .the page was made with a lot of effort and i am willing to double that effort with great dedication and hard work, thank you very much }} you can email it at i would love to hear from you as soon as possible :) Sarakhalaf (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sara. I did not delete your article, as I am not an administrator. It was deleted in May by Smartse (talk · contribs) and more recently by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). If you want the article restored you will need to contact one of them. Good luck.
When you re-work the article, please explain clearly why the subject of the article is notable, and please have reputable, independent references that support what you're saying. I'm sure the organization does wonderful work, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to inform people about the marketplace. I do not remember your article, but since it was deleted twice for being an advertisement, I am guessing that it seemed to much to be trying to publicize its subject, and too little to be trying to document something that had already achieved notability. The difference is sometimes one of tone, but usually one of references. If you do not have reputable, independent sources (such as newspapers and journals) providing coverage of your organization, it is probably not notable by Wikipedia standards. ubiquity (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Chantel Jeffries[edit]

Hi Ubiquity, I am still working on the page to make it credible and to site all of the sources. I do have reputable, independent sources such as online newspapers and publications providing coverage of the subject, so I believe it is notable by Wikipedia standards. If I could have more time to work on it, then the article can prove why it is important enough to be included on the encyclopedia. Can you please advise on how I can get more time to work on it? Amandaampr (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Amanda. It looks like you tried this article twice, on July 9, when there was a deletion discussion which led to its deletion, and today, when it was speedily deleted by administrator NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). You might want to re-read the deletion discussion, as it seems clear that the subject is not notable by Wikipedia standards. However, if you want more time to try to demonstrate notability, the thing to do is to create the page either as a private user page (User:Amandaampr/Chantel Jeffries) or as a draft (Draft:Chantel Jeffries). Then you can spend all the time you want on it, and when it is ready, copy it back to the main article space. If you need a copy of the original article to start from, please contact NawlinWiki. ubiquity (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Work Sharp Tools[edit]

Hi ubiquity, I've written this article twice now and you keep flagging it for inflammatory and promotion language. I believe the piece is written from a neutral tone. What specifically would you like to see changed in this post so it gets accepted and published? I want to make sure the language is neutral so your advice will be greatly appreciated. Best wishes- User:Rbellinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbellinson (talkcontribs) 16:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Rbellinson. I see that your article was deleted twice today, by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs), once for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" and once for "No credible indication of importance." It is true that I flagged it, but as I am not an administrator, NawlinWiki must have agreed with my assessment before he deleted the article. I don't recall it in detail, but I think the problem wasn't tone or language so much as lack of reliable independent sources to show that the company met Wikipedia standards for notable corporations. Wikipedia is not a directory; just because your company exists doesn't mean it is notable enough to have an article here.
If you think your company is truly notable, I suggest that you explain what makes it notable in the very first paragraph, and back that up with solid references (not the company home page, linked in, Facebook, a directory or a press release). You should also leave out material that does nothing more than list your products and services, as this is essentially promotional. If you want to work on the article outside of the main article space (for example, in Draft:Work Sharp Tools or User:Rbellinson/Work Sharp Tools), I will be glad to take a look at it again. I hope this helps.
By the way, please sign your notes with ~~~~, not just with a link to your User page. The full signature you get with ~~~~ is what makes the automatic response notification system work. ubiquity (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Self deletion proposal[edit]

Someone else marked it for deletion before me. I marked it to be discussed for deletion. Because it was like I created an article I spent 2 hours writing, and somebody marks it for speedy 2 minutes later, and I'm like WHAT? And I got mad because he clearly didn't spend the time to read it at all. He looked at it for 10 seconds and decided it was to be deleted. I don't like that. EdytaGocek (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I sympathize, but if you write an article with no references at all, you shouldn't be surprised if someone tags it for speedy deletion. That said, you can always respond to a speedy tag. Admins are only supposed to delete the most obvious, non-controversial violators. If your article was speedily deleted in the past, this is a clue that it is very seriously wanting. If you want the article to survive, you should provide some decent references. Otherwise, how can anyone judge notability objectively? You might even be making it all up (not that I'm accusing you of this, I'm just trying to explain why verifiability is so important). ubiquity (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hesham Nazihl[edit]

Hi, The referance for Hesham Nazih page been added, can you please remove your Proposed deletion for the page, you can check it, we were still editing it Hishamabdelkhalek (talk) 09:09PM, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy to do so. You could have done it yourself, it's not like a speedy tag. If you read the text of the notice, you'll see that anyone may remove it once a single supporting reference has been added. And time is not a problem either, you would have had an entire week to add that reference. ubiquity (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks once more for all the clarification, I am just update our work releated pages as I am not a contributor for other pages. But thanks for the clarification. Totally appreciated. (talk) 11:34PM, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Self Deletion[edit]

You wrote:

You are also attempting to write an article about a book of which you are a co-author. Please see Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. If your book is truly notable, you won't need to write an article about it, as someone else probably will. ubiquity (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the page about a book that the co-auther wrote. I am not either of the authors. I was the "someone else who probably will"... You are tactless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lineman33 (talkcontribs) 22:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for my misunderstanding. ubiquity (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Theodore (musician) deletion[edit]

Hello, The reference for Theodore (musician) page has been added. Also, I am the administrator of all his media, including his official website, that's why the texts are similar. Can you, please, remove your Proposed deletion for the page? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoth (talkcontribs) 16:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The page doesn't seem to have changed since I asked for a deletion discussion, except for you trying to remove the notice of the discussion (please don't do this again; it serves no purpose, since the discussion will continue, and it violates Wikipedia rules). Please read the general notability guidelines. You need to demonstrate the notability of your subject with significant coverage from reputable, independent sources, not the subject's home page, youtube pages, facebook entries, or other self-published materials. If you can do this, the article will not be deleted.
As far as the use of copyrighted material goes, please see WP:MYTEXT. Aside from the legal issues, the material you quote was from a promotional source, and probably needs significant change before it is suitable for an encyclopedia article.
Please feel free to participate in the deletion discussion. ubiquity (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Couples Resorts[edit]

What are the variety of reasons? This is vague and I can't possibly fix them without knowing what is wrong.

Nicolerich123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolerich123 (talkcontribs) 19:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read the general notability guidelines. You need to show your subject is notable through significant coverage from reputable, independent sources, not press releases, publicity and promotional material. If you feel that I have misjudged the quality of your references, you can contest the speedy deletion (press the button in the center of the pink tag and give your reasons). I am not the person who makes the final decision. ubiquity (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cablefree deletion[edit]

I have looked at similar companies and kept the same idea and they seem to be still listed. Please advise on content and how I can change. Also, there are a few universities who are working on this company and will need references for their articles and information about the company - Do let me know how I can improve content, I'm fairly new to this and have read the guidance but still don't seem to have gotten this correct! *Be the change you want to see* (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that there are other companies listed in Wikipedia that shouldn't be. If an article does not explain why a company is notable, and does not provide adequate references for verifiability, you may want to start one of several possible deletion processes.
As to your own article: I reviewed it using a cached copy, and didn't see a clear assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory, and just because a company exists doesn't mean it should have an entry. What's special about CableFree? How does it differ from the other hundreds of ethernet suppliers the world over? You need to identify this, and then support it with reputable, independent sources - not home pages, directories, press releases, white papers or other self-published materials. Please take a look at the article on Verifiability, especially the sections on which sources are good and which are to be avoided. Use the <ref></ref> tags or {{cite}} template, or the Cite pull-down at the top of the edit window, to include your references in the text, so it will be clear which sources support specific claims. Having eight paragraphs of unreferenced statements, and then a pile of 17 references with no indication of what text they support, is not helpful.
You almost certainly do not want to copy material from the company's website, because that material is designed to be promotional, and usually has neither the tone or content required by an encyclopedia. Likewise, although you can link to the company's website, you don't want to include other promotional links like a link to the news page. If readers are that interested in your company, they can visit its website.
Finally, as this stuff takes time, please do your work outside of the main space. It looks like you already have a copy of the article at User:Millsbi/CableFree, so work on it here. When an article appears in the main space, it should meet all Wikipedia standards of notability, verifiability and style, and be ready for the review and scrutiny of other editors. If you continue to work on the version in your user pages, I'll be glad to take a look at is as you go along. Let me know if and when you'd like me to look at it.
Hope this helps. Good luck with your article. ubiquity (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done as asked and changed content, yet it has been marked for speedy deletion... help *Be the change you want to see* (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake, and I see someone has already reverted it. ubiquity (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, someone has just marked it for deletion again, is there anything I can change. I've been working on it all day :( *Be the change you want to see* (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to pester, but I think it's fixed now. Sorry, I'm not very confident with all this! *Be the change you want to see* (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see someone else tagged it and someone reverted. Speedy deletions are supposed to be non-controversial, so at this point I would say it no longer qualifies. That said, I think you are still failing to point out what makes CableFree notable. The lead paragraphs say things that could be said about any WiFi provider. Later on in the article I see that they pioneered this and that, and were the first to do such and such. THAT'S notability. Unfortunately, I don't see any references for those items. In my opinion, the article is still mostly a promotional piece about a non-notable company, because there's nothing there to suggest that CableFree has been recognized as notable by anyone but themselves. Whoever is reverting the speedy tags says the company is "reputable", and I have no doubt of that, but "reputable" is not the same as "notable." I personally don't feel strongly enough about this to start a deletion discussion, but if someone does, I think the article won't survive. ubiquity (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
2,861 patrolls in the last 12 months! That's very, very, good! Keep up the good work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Avimeter AVM132[edit]

Go ahead; I forgot the / to keep it in my sandbox! I think I've also stumbled on an existing page but my version is now back in the 'box.TSRL (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. ubiquity (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP prod[edit]

Sorry for declining. Our blurb clearly states that "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form". The article has a source, just not a reliable one. AfD is your best option. --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick Delete, DJ Enigma[edit]

I left a note or talk about why I wanted the page to stay.. if not, could you just delete it 100% without trace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoopoi (talkcontribs) 19:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Whoopi. I am not an admin, so I can't delete your article. I tagged it for speedy deletion because I felt that it didn't meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability. If an administrator agrees with me (they'll see your comment too), they will delete it, and that will be end of it. Otherwise, the deletion tag will be declined, and it will stand. In that case I will probably begin a more formal deletion discussion, since neither reference actually mentions "DJ Enigma," and since Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. This will allow interested parties to arrive at a consensus about the article, over a period of about a week. You don't need to take any further action if you don't want to, or you can contribute to the discussion if you like. If you want the article to survive, you should try to find some references that specifically mention DJ Enigma, as opposed to the places where you appeared. These references do not have to be online, so if you had some press coverage and saved the clippings, it's fair to use them as sources. If you decide you DON'T want the article anymore, you can just blank the page, and someone will delete it. ubiquity (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, Jassi Sohal[edit]

hello Sir, I'm Create a article on Jassi Sohal. he is famous personality in our community. why are you delete this page? if you need references tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanmuhar (talkcontribs) 20:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If you have reputable, independent references (not the subject's own website or facebook page), by all means provide them, not to me but on the page. As the article appears now, it seems very promotional and not very encyclopedic, without a single real reference. If he's as famous as you say, it should be easy to fix this. ubiquity (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Marshall Ferguson (Sportscaster)[edit]

Hello there, I am writing you in hopes to receive assistance in citing the above listed page. I am just learning wikipedia and wish not to have the article deleted. I have added a couple citations to show my good intentions as I work on learning the intricacies! Please let me know that my page is safe so I can continue to build it.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by McMaster-Historical (talkcontribs) 17:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

To avoid the kind of deletion I was proposing, all you have to do is provide a reference, which you did. I cleaned up the article for you, and removed the second reference, since it didn't mention Ferguson. Wiki-linking to Quinlan is better in any case. Good luck on Wikipedia! ubiquity (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion: Waves4Power[edit]

Hello, I was curious as to the specific reasons why speedy deletion would be necessary. I have gone back and weeded through a few sections that were iffy. I hope I can rectify concerns that you may have. If you wouldn't mind assisting me with this, I would be grateful. I am a student at the University of North Florida trying to complete a project that this is an integral part of. Thank you CourtneyDawson (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Courtney

Hi Courtney. The article was deleted (by Diannaa (talk · contribs), not me) because it infringed on copyrighted material from the waves4power website, and because it was basically an ad for them rather than an encyclopedia article. Consider your lead sentence: "Waves4Power is developing offshore wave energy systems - using the free energy in ocean waves to generate electric power." Does that sound like an article you'd read in the Britannica, or like an ad you'd see in a magazine? In general, it's a bad idea to copy from corporate websites, because these are designed to be promotional rather than encyclopedic, and because they rarely maintain a neutral point of view.
In your lead, you should explain what the company does and why it is notable. You should back these up with independent, reliable sources -- not company websites, white papers, press releases or other promotional material. If these guys are doing something notable, where is the press coverage? Obviously, waves4power thinks highly of themselves, but who else does?
The main article space is not the place to address these issues. If you need time to gather sources and write the article in your own words instead of those of waves4power, work on the article in a draft (Draft:Waves4Power) or in your own user space (User:CourtneyDawson/Waves4Power). If you send Diannaa (talk · contribs) a note, she can copy the old article to one of these locations to use as a starting point.
Hope this helps. ubiquity (talk) 02:29, 5 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 Julián Muñoz, 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) 11:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

speedy deletion: Tenzing Travel[edit]

Hi there, i wanted to contest the speedy deletion for the Tenzing Travel page. Is the awards page too promotional? Could you please explain why otherwise?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deroodylan (talkcontribs) 13:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Deroodylan. To me it seems like just another travel agency, without the kind of coverage required by WP:NORG or WP:GNG. I agree, with the awards section gone it seems less promotional, but it still doesn't seem notable, and to me the inclusion of non-notable organizations in Wikipedia is automatically promotional (that is, it's not notable but you're trying to promote it as notable by giving it a Wikipedia article). That's just my opinion, of course, and I'm not an administrator, so we will have to wait to see what one of them says. ubiquity (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I see, didn't know that Wikipedia was commonly used as a "promotional" channel. Does the addition of international articles or national articles lessen the threat that it's an promotional piece?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deroodylan (talkcontribs) 14:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Anood Al Obaidly[edit]

Hello! I want you to have a chance to revise the page you considered for deletion. I think the page is better now, and not to be deleted. Page of Anood Al Obaidly donalmikel —Preceding undated comment added 08:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I still think the article should be deleted, and I will explain why in the deletion discussion. But please understand that the proposal for deletion is a discussion. Other people will join in and judge the article for themselves, and a consensus will be arrived at. It will not be any one person's decision. ubiquity (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Secure Trust Bank[edit]

Hello, thanks for letting me know. Had I known that would happen I'd have found something else to direct my efforts towards for the past fifteen minutes instead! Cloudbound (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Lets chill. This Wikipedia patrol is more complex than i thought. Action Hero Shoot! 16:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Action Hero: Thanks! In light of this, I hope our little skirmish over Oliver Nias hasn't made me seem churlish. ubiquity (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Bank BelVEB[edit]

The subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia because of this is just translation of the page : — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katouski (talkcontribs)

@Katouski: The article which was deleted, twice, neither indicated the importance of the bank or demonstrated its notability with references. I agree that the Russian article, when translated, would be a useful article. But once an article appears in the main space, it is expected to be complete. Why not work on it at Draft:Bank BelVEB? When it's ready, you can put it back in the main article space. Let me know if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Previous I didn't know, how to create a draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katouski (talkcontribs) 17:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Another good page to work on stuff before it's ready is a user page. In this case, it would have been User:Katouski/Bank BelVEB. All you have to do to create these is type their names in the search window, and then, when you're told the page doesn't exist, click the link to create it.
By the way, since you're new here, I'll also add that, when you leave a message on a Talk or User Talk page, you should "sign" your message by typing ~~~~ at the end. This will create a signature so everyone will know who you are and how to contact you. Good luck! ubiquity (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I can do nothing but appeal[edit]

I don't think is a suitable behavior to closure my new page while I haven't finished editing it. What I have edited is just a part of the page and have concrete source rather than my own opinion, besides, there are a lot of other things such as his achievements being left. Thanks to your privilege, now I can't continue to editing my page, do you think it's a real man-made obstacle to make the Wikipedia a really encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chacspy (talkcontribs) 13:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Chacspy: I re-read a cached copy of the article Jin Jianzhong. It said nothing about why the subject was notable, and deserved to be in an encyclopedia. It had no references to demonstrate notability, or to provide verifiability. It was mildly defamatory, talking about how boring he was and providing irrelevant stories about his interactions with students. It clearly did not belong in Wikipedia.
I have no special privileges here. Anyone can tag an article for deletion, which is what I did. An administrator - DGG (talk · contribs) - agreed, and deleted the page. I see you have already contacted him.
Wikipedia is not a place for reviewing teachers, or putting up random information about people. If you think Jin Jianzhong is notable, and really belongs in an encyclopedia, write an article explaining why, and citing sources to prove you are not the only person who thinks so. Keep your language and tone neutral. And don't do your work in the main article space. Articles are supposed to be already ready. You can work on the article in Draft:Jin Jianzhong or User:Chacspy/Jin Jianzhong. When the article is finished, you can move it to Jin Jianzhong. But be warned that you will probably be blocked if you come up with another article that does nothing more than complain about his teaching.
In the future, it would be helpful if you sign your correspondence with ~~~~, and provide the name of the article you are talking about. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For how much time the deletion tag will remain at the top?[edit]

I created a web page but wiki didn't find it important enough and put up that deletion tag. I have mentioned in talk section the importance of the page. I re-created the page but the tag is still there?> How much time will it take to be removed? A website related to the same organization for which I am crating the page is going to be released next month andI really need the page before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitinraajsinha (talkcontribs) 17:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nitinraajsinha: It is not the same tag. This time, your article was tagged by Qwertyus (talk · contribs). Just because your organization exists does not mean it is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory, or a site where any other site may be listed. Unless you can show, with independent, reliable third-party sources, that your organization is notable, the article will continue to be speedily deleted.

Re: Orlando Eye Institute[edit]

I will continue working on the article. There is more information to add to both biographies, especially from this source. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have expanded the article a bit more and posted additional sources on the talk page. Do you still feel the speedy deletion tag is appropriate? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid the article was deleted, by DGG (talk · contribs), before I had a chance to look at it. ubiquity (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You'll see my comments on the user's talk p., and my talk p.,. here. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I have asked him to return a copy of the article to me. I would have preferred the article go through an AfD discussion so I could learn why the article was problematic. COI aside, I thought the article met WP's GNG criteria and I would like a copy of the article so I can continue to work on it or at least save a copy offline for future reference. Hopefully DGG will do me the favor. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, but I think DGG's reasoning was pretty clear, and I totally agree with him. I hope you're not wasting your time. ubiquity (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
How can you agree with him when you haven't seen the expanded version of the article? (Sorry, I don't mean to sound accusatory, I am just curious.) ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I read what he wrote to you at User talk:DGG#Re: Orlando Eye Institute. He said "the 2-physician medical group is simply not notable, and no matter how well you write it, it will still not be notable." You could make it less promotional by removing all the fluff in the biographies about why the docs wanted to be eye docs and how they like yoga, but unless these guys are doing ground-breaking work such is HIGHLY unlikely to be done in a private practice (and work which you neglected to mention in the version I saw), I don't think you'll be able to demonstrate notability. ubiquity (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Here was my thinking: the business has received coverage, as have both founders/partners, who also happen to be married, so I figured a single article could support content related to all three subjects. So often at Wikipedia we are merging content up into parent articles, so I figured the OIE article would be the parent article with info about the company's history as well as the achievements of its founders. Biography articles often have "Personal life" sections that discuss an individual's hobbies, hence why I included the hiking/yoga blurb, since it was applicable to them both. But, I would have been willing to remove the extended "I love being an eye doc" quote and the personal hobbies if requested. Even if I were to also remove the two sentences supported by the U.S. News & World Report directory, which DGG said were problematic, there is still plenty of information about the two founders and the company itself. The medical journals were included as Further reading, in case readers were interested. COI completely aside (I've been around WP a long time and don't need a lecture about COI editing and how it clouds judgement... I recognize that and have been successful in promoting COI articles to Good/Featured status before), I think the founders' careers have been covered by multiple reliable sources and meet WP:GNG criteria. Once I get a copy of the article back from DGG, I will see if there are further improvements that can be made. Thanks again for taking time to respond. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ubiquity, I have reposted the article at Draft:Orlando Eye Institute. Truly, I do not mean to be resistant or even disagree with your or User:DGG's decisions. I merely was disappointed by how quickly the article was deleted and I felt as though I did not have time to address specific concerns. So, I am posting in the draft space so that the article can be discussed further and I can learn how to be a better editor. Please do not take offense, and I I would very much appreciate your feedback on the talk page if you have time and interest. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, but this is a very busy week, I probably won't have a chance until next Monday. ubiquity (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

HostPapa speedy deletion tag[edit]

Can you please put a hangon tag on our article after your speedy deletion tag? We understand your concerns and will work to address them; we need 3-7 days to fix. Thanks HPCAgreen (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)HPCAGREEN

That's fine, but articles in the main space should be ready, and should meet all Wikipedia standards for notability, verifiability, tone, etc. Why not move the article to Draft:Hostpapa or User:HPCAgreen/Hostpapa and work on it at your own pace? When the concerns are addressed, you can move it back. ubiquity (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ravi Subramanyam[edit]

Hi, regarding deletion of this article, i'd like to say that Ravi Subramanyam has featured as an umpire in lot of notable matches which include women's T20 internationals, Indian premier league and Ranji trophy.So I believe should not be deleted.srini (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Douglas Witt[edit]

This is an article about my late grandfather who was a martyred missionary to Mexico. There are thousands of people who know this story and I believed that this could be a useful article for those wanting more detailed information. His son, Marcos Witt, has his own wikipedia article ( and since individuals and persons such as Jim Elliot have their articles up, I thought it would be appropriate to make one for the late Jerry Douglas Witt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikawg (talkcontribs) 17:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mikawg: You could be right (though the fact that the son is worthy of an article doesn't automatically imply the father is). You need to do two things. First, the article really doesn't make clear why you think Mr Witt was notable or significant. You should explain that in the first paragraph. Second, you need to provide references to sources. Sources provide verifiability and demonstrate notability. If you need some time, to gather your references, I suggest you move the article to Draft:Jerry Douglas Witt and work on it in draft mode until it's ready, after which you can move it back to the main space. ubiquity (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Barrion's Restaurant[edit]

I agree that this was a deep fried spamburger with a side order of guff, but not beyond copyediting....I've hacked ou the muck I hope & removed the speedy.TheLongTone (talk)

Japan Finance Corporation[edit]

Hi Hi Ubiquity, I noticed that you edited Japan Finance Corporation. This article had an "In use" template on it. Kindly do not edit articles that have that template. This is to help avoid conflicts. Zotezangu (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2015 (GMT) {{In use}}

Charles Perry (Food Historian) Page edited[edit]

Citations have been added for Perry's articles at Rolling Stone and the LA Times. Is this sufficient? RichardFoss (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)RichardFoss

Oh, totally! You could have removed the tag yourself as soon as you provided a single reference. However, I did it for you, and also cleaned up a little and provided you with a category. Good work! ubiquity (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello Ubiquity. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3),or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created, as you did at Sean Sullivan (actor). It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Likewise for Adorable Media. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind. But if it was marked patrolled, that must have been a side-effect of the reviewing template, as I did not explicitly indicate I would patrol them. ubiquity (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
"Patrolling" means inspecting new pages, regardless of whether you set the Patrol flag. I wasn't paying any attention to whether you'd done that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Cecile Emeke page edited[edit]

Hi ubiquity, I added references to the Cecile Emeke page you flagged. I hope this works for you. Best, TakeAnEthnicStudiesClass — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakeAnEthnicStudiesClass (talkcontribs) 02:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Marthina Brandt[edit]

Now there is some references in the article, is it ok now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odirjmm (talkcontribs) 16:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Good work! ubiquity (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Great work in keeping the truth up about Queen Ethelburga's - I suspect it could be an on-going issue. Drschluber (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Topaze (play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway (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) 10:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Georgina Emma Buchanan Earl[edit]

Please look again.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)