User talk:Deb/Archive 11

Reply to your Thereza Rowe's related message

Dear Deb,

Thanks for your early reply. Sure, I've read the guidelines for new contributors. For the notability, I've added a link to her Twitter account. Since she already has around 3230 followers, I thought of doing a small article about her and her work. But I thought as well that citing the number of Twitter followers to explain her notability wouldn't be very encyclopedic and would be partially violating the rules about copyright since I'm "advertising" a social-network website. So what I did was to just add the link to the External Links section and base the article on a very small resumé of her activities. Since it's difficult of explaining the notability of an artist, I've made then a very small article and left it to be completed with further information when I would find proofs of her notability. Please excuse my difficulty for finding good sources but you can check, she's worth an article. Awaiting for your confirmation of the possibility of an article and if you think my reasons don't match the criteria of Wikipedia, then I will proceed to a deeper research of information. Truly yours, Thecameraguy12345678 (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thereza Rowe's article deletion

Dear Deb,

I am here to ask you the reason of the deletion of the article Thereza Rowe at 16:41, 1 January 2012. The reason mentioned was that the article had no explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content). This is clearly not true since the first line was Thereza Rowe is a Brazilian-British illustrator based in London. I'm awaiting your explanations and will re-upload the article with a few changes. Thanks for your attention. Thecameraguy12345678 (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Plantscape Inc. article

Hello Deb,

I have removed the proposed deletion tag from Plantscape Inc., which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I researched a lot and added some reference links and removed uncited data. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or kindly help me out to make it better. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravikrishnani (talk • contribs) 13:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Mon Ilagan" article

Dear Ms Deb

Thanks for checking out my article. Unfortunately, it came off as unambiguous advertising or promotion. I am afraid that this is often the case when dealing with multi-awarded politicians and media personalities. I toned down the article a little bit and instead of publishing it right away, I have put it up for editor review in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mon_Ilagan

I hope you can find time to read it and perhaps share your thoughts as to how I can make it wiki-worthy. I look forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks Lester Cavestany — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestercavestany (talk • contribs) 10:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Oglaf" deletion

You (moments ago) deleted my article titled "Oglaf", for "No explanation of the subject's significance" despite the fact that I had shown both in the article itself and on the talk page that the artist of this comic had a large wikipedia article based on her previous work, and that this particular work was well known, and offered to make any appropriate changes. The article was deleted two minutes after I made this point in the talk page. Can you explain this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokefilledroom (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no mention of these things in the article, and it was nominated for speedy deletion by another contributor (having previously already been deleted by another admin for the same reason). Deb (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

First line of the article: "Oglaf is a webcomic by Trudy Cooper"; how can you say it didn't cite that the author had previous notable work? I then further explored its relevancy in the talkpage. The article that mine linked to including this information: "The creators of Platinum Grit were recipients of the 2005 Ledger Awards for Writer of the Year, Artist of the Year, and Webcomic of the Year. In 2006 Cooper won the Ledger for Writer of the Year. Platinum Grit has attracted a loyal readership and critical acclaim from within the Australian comic industry. Its readership has grown and expanded internationally since the comic became available online", It makes it pretty obvious that she has some notability. I didn't want to directly include those accolades in the article, since they weren't for this work. If you'd like, I could re-write the article including the information that the artist had won these things and talk about her previous work so it's more obvious for administrators that it warrants a page. As I said in the talkpage, if there's anything wrong with the article itself, just inform me and I'll attempt to fix it.

As far as the first deletion of the article goes: I discussed the issues and differences between the first article and this one were addressed in the talkpage (that one not having the citations this one had), and I attempted to speak with the original deleter and have his authorization to re-write the article, but he never responded to me.

What else could I have done?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokefilledroom (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked again. There is no article for Trudy Cooper, and the article for Platinum Grit is poorly referenced - though it does at least make a plausible claim of notability. But the fact that one webcomic by this writer may have won awards doesn't in itself make another one notable. Twitter is not acceptable as a third-party reference (except where you refer to a Twitter quote in the text) and the other reference you gave is not from a "reliable third-party source". I know that this is frustrating, but I would advise that you rewrite the article explaining what it is about this webcomic that is notable. At the moment it is not at all apparent. Deb (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Universal Kickboxing Council

Hi Deb, I saw you deleted the page for the Universal Kickboxing Council for advertising. This is a new sanctioning body. If this is advertising then every page and person on wikipedia would be considered advertising. In no way did it advertise anything whatsoever and talked only about the organization and what it is. This is in no way advertising and should be placed back up immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidcohen (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleting "Blitzprog"

Hey Deb, I saw you deleted my article "Blitzprog" because of G11, where did you even find the promotion of a product? Maybe you want to delete Python_(programming_language) due to G11 as well then, as it includes as much promotion as my article? Now seriously, I have no idea what the real reason for deletion was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduard Urbach (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the response. --Eduard Urbach (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting "Cwrsync"

Hey Deb, I just saw that you deleted my article "Cwrsync" cause of G11. I am the maintainer of free software Cwrsync and the I've used text from my official Cwrsync web side at http://www.itefix.no/i2/cwrsync. So I have no idea what the reason could be for deletion. Hoping to fix the problem! Best regards.

Tevkar (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Deb. I have now created a new Cwrsync page according to the feedback. I hope that it will purpose Wikipedia's mission better.

Tevkar (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10

New WikiProject Novels initiative

We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Public Relations Consultants Association

Hi Deb, I created the page which was deleted which I hoped could have been a stub starting point for building up a better and more detailed article about the organisation. Could you offer some advice on how I could have made it better and have avoided deletion? Davidkuczora (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sassoon

My pleasure. That same BBC archive has come fascinating other audio recordings - with Agatha Christie, Hitchcock, Ghandi and many others. Short snippets but it's good to hear their voices close up. Have a good week. Best wishes Span (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Informatics Institute

I don't understand why you deleted Informatics Institute. It's one of the largest computer science institutes in The Netherlands. Other Dutch computer science institutes, such as Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica and the Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (the latter within the same university!) have pages as well, for several years, as do many other computer science institutes elsewhere on the planet. Please undelete.

If I compare Informatics Institute to other computer science institute articles, the part missing is the history part. Does that make it promotion instead of a neutral article? Not in my view. It makes it a stub. Mderijke (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Idiot Boxers

The page you just deleted related to another article that was an orphan page. How is that supposed to change of wiki admins just delete every page that is created, especially if they aren't even finished yet? I was in the process of editing when you deleted the page.--Sonic43 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

What conflict of interest? I don't know anyone associated with this stuff. I'm just a fan and figured if SModcast and Nerdist have wiki entries, they should too. Congrats and deleting two informative posts, with references per WIKI guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic43 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, look at the posts for SModcast, Nerdist, and /Film. There are ZERO references for the history of their creation. I guess you should delete those too then. But you won't, because Wikipedia is a slave to popularity I guess.--Sonic43 (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I was so blinded by the concept of Wiki that I didn't think it had been corrupted by the predilections of its admins. I guess its just human nature to dismiss things you don't agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychicattorney (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Zelder Paradox

I hope this is the right place to ask about the article on the Zelder Paradox. The article was deleted with this comment: "Not enough context to identify article's subject:virtually incomprehensible" I thought the article followed the style of other articles on paradoxes and theorems in economics, and I included three references from peer-reviewed publications. The article is not about me or my publications. Can you explain your reasoning a bit more? Barkrich (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I could add references that cite and discuss the ZP, spell out the meanings of the terms you have mentioned, and add links to other Wikipedia articles, such as "Public Goods." If I do, would you reconsider the deletion?Barkrich (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the article and placed it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Barkrich/Zelder_Paradox Could you have a look and let me know what you think? Thanks. Barkrich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

Great, thanks for your help and I'm glad you like the changes. I've noticed in articles on other paradoxes and theorems that the authors do not always have articles about them. Perhaps someone will write one about Zelder. I'll post the article and see what happens. Thanks again.Barkrich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

Comment to me

Deb, I apologize for any role I've had in creating bad blood between us. Let's put any past personality clashes we've had aside. I hold you in respect, and I wish to engage with you courteously if you'd do me the pleasure of reciprocating. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That was what I was trying to do. You are an admin now, and you need to be more careful about your actions. You can't play games. Deb (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You are an admin now too. Your comments towards me both on the naming page and on my own page were aggressive and offensive. It would have been better if I hadn't referred to you, GoodDay and Pat as a 'tag team', but I have since refactored that. If you understand that an article moved 4 months is well over the time usually regarded as necessary for stability, you'll understand why I disapprove of people with one view trying to circumvent the related Wikipedia process through edit-warring. While you may not share my understanding of this, this is why I disapprove ... it is not 'play[ing] games'. Start afresh? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

PersonData Template Fixes

A handful of Wikipedia pages have indisputably incorrect data in the PersonData template, which is intended for data extraction, and I'm trying to fix these for extraction from future data dumps. Some bots have entered the same date into the "DATEOFBIRTH" and "DATEOFDEATH" sections, including some articles for living people, and sometimes they include the age template even though the Wikipedia:Persondata article says to not use templates. Upon closer inspection, your fix on Katherine Tudor (1503) appears correct; I simply took the value "10 March 1503" from the infobox, which I surmise is incorrect given the reference to her mother's death on 11 February 1503. MikeGurlitz (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not my intent

I'm sorry deb. Friends? You deleted my entry stating that it was "promotional" this was not my intent. What words should I change to mitigate this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellach8 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

Deletion request

Hi there. Could you please delete this sub-page? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Ardanaiseig Hello, I was still editing my page and you deleted it saying it was promotion:( I thought it provided valuable historic information. Can you tell me what you seen as promotional and I will remove it:S

Disagreement!

I disagree with the deletion of my page MHR! It was no more advertising than any other page on wiki- see Capital FM and pretty much any other page on here!!!!!!!!!!! Cardifferish (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting Wildfire at Midnight

Thank you for starting Wildfire at Midnight. I keep making these navboxes hoping that more people will write the articles for the authors, and seems like it is working. Great job and thank you, Sadads (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

why did you delete my page on Dr. Howard C. Samuels? it was not an advertisement in any way, can you please explain?

it was not an advertisement in any way, can you please explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackchambers (talk • contribs) 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Grosse Teub is not a hoax

It is a common phrase used in Geneva. Please do not delete the page again. If you need more evidence simply review the photo that was posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudetat (talk • contribs) 20:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

David Horvitz

Horvitz is clearly a significant artist. Many shows, exhibitions, and the 241543903 thing on its own would do the trick. Is it because of his Wikipedia based art? Alan Baring Brown (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's because of the lack of evidence that he's notable in the article. Deb (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What is required for notability? the 241543903 thing is clearly notable, as is the Wikipedia experiment. I mean, there are hundreds of minor porn stars on Wikipedia, why not a performance artist who now has many exhibitions, and a significant reputation. If I listed the exhibitions, would that help? Alan Baring Brown (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. Deb (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You will have to be very clear about what 'possibly' means. Thanks Alan Baring Brown (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I recreated the page. I will add a list of credentials later. By all means delete, but if you do, can you please tell me where I can challenge this? What exactly is the text for notability, other than obvious notability?Alan Baring Brown (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Add the credentials now, please, because if I don't delete it, someone else will. Deb (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I will do that, but I am confused by the 'self published' bit. See Random House. Alan Baring Brown (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why not put something on the article's talk page? Deb (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have mentioned two galleries (he has exhibited at many more), and given references to the two published books. I hope that is enough. Thanks for your consideration. Alan Baring Brown (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Howard C. Samuels

Can you tell me why you keep re-naming my article "Howard C. Samuels" When it needs to be "Dr. Howard C. Samuels"? I 1st created the one without the "Dr." by mistake, and whenever I try to move the article to the correct title, you move it back? Why do you do this, and how can I correct this mistake?

Thanks Jack Chambers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackchambers (talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackchambers (talk • contribs) 21:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gaston Roelants

Owing to your status as an active wikipedian, I'm not yet reverting your edit to this article. But what sense is it to move his birth location from the birthdate position in line one, to the top of (a newly formed) paragraph 2 which then (continues from the former paragraph 1 subject) takes off on a subject entirely unrelated to his birth? Trackinfo (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you have seen fit to go through a bunch of articles I have initiated, but every one that you have reworked in this fashion, he flow of the article is completely interrupted by the edit. We start most articles with the name and their particulars, if known. Then we explain why this person is important. To rip part of the particulars of their birth location, their origin, out of the parenthesis and placing it into the position of the second or third sentence in the article without any thought is destroying the look of these articles. When the total article, what is significant or publicly known about these people is only good for 5-6 sentences, there is no new place move this to improve the article. Hamstrung to maintain the format you are imposing, for most of these, I can't help. Your edit IS the problem. Most important, its unnecessary. Please find some other articles to mess with. Trackinfo (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You referred to an infobox. Several of the articles you edited Gaston Roelants Philipa Raschker Merlene Ottey have no infobox. They might qualify to have an infobox, but you and no predecessor has seen fit to create it. Houston McTear has an infobox, but its still a short article, barely above a stub. What your edits are doing is creating are sentences like: "McTear was born in Okaloosa County, Florida. He recorded an 9.0 mark in the 100-yard dash as a high schooler at Baker School, in Baker, Florida, . . . " and before I added to it "Raschker was born in Hamburg, Germany.[3] She has amassed 68 Gold Medals at the World Masters Athletics Championships . . . " Essentially you are leading the paragraph with something that is unrelated to the rest of the paragraph. Thats just not good english. Unsolicited, User:Epeefleche agreed with this contention. You are spending your time doing edits that are unnecessary and I feel, destructive to the overall presentation of Wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help me to restore the page DaruDar

I wanted to make the translation from russian wiki article Дару~дар into English but the new page Darudar was deleted very quickly. And it was late to add the translate tag {{Expand Russian}}

It can now be found at User:Karaboz/Darudar. Deb (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Admins are a joke

I saw one deleted page where your moronic lacky's (the crowd who calls for deletions) claimed someone was self published when they had authored a dozen books, some of which were published by fucking Random House. You have turned the Wikipedia concept into a joke, and perhaps have turned it into a tool of the corporate media in suppressing dissenting points of view from what has become the worlds encyclopedia. Psychicattorney (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Still no idea what you are talking about - even if you were to rewrite it in comprehensible English. Deb (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is probably a little deep for you to grasp...Psychicattorney (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure. Someone who thinks that the plural of "lackey" is "lacky's" is clearly on a different intellectual plane. Deb (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

An ad hominem attack? Well you have succeeded in changing my hostility to pity. Blaming you for your bias would be like blaming a chimpanzee for stealing bananas. Psychicattorney (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems the editor is bothered by a three year-old AfD discussion. ^Bongo_matic 08:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes - one that I wasn't even involved in! Deb (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Deb. You have new messages at Talk:Goat milk cheese.
Message added 01:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deleting "Conny Czymoch"

Hey Deb, i just saw that you deleted my article "Conny Czymoch" cause of G11. This is article was just a translation of the german version which already exists without any complaints by admins. Are there any facts I have to change for the english version? The article is written as similar as the article about "Maria Bartiromo". Thx for your answer! Ollibrecht — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollibrecht (talk • contribs) 10:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer Deb. The main links where the most important informations are verifiable are http://www.dw-gmf.de/conference_2010/5264.php, the website of the german tv channel Deutsche Welle TV. This website is also in english and highly independent, not a promotional page, just info.

The second website http://www.phoenix.de/content/702.htm (sorry, just german) is the site of the german tv channel Phoenix, one of the most important News Channels in Germany. Also third-party and not promotional, including the complete CV of Conny Czymoch.

By the rest of the sites, I can imagine that it might seems of promotional pages, but there are just a plus on reference, not the base for the information. Please give me a feedback if these informations can change your decision. Conny Czymoch is a very popular news anchor in Germany and wellknown, so I think there exists a high relevance for this article.

Thx Ollibrecht — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollibrecht (talk • contribs) 13:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Deb, thx for restoring the article, I already changed some references. Is it ok to continue the discussion on the discussion page of the article? Greets from Germany, Ollibrecht — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollibrecht (talk • contribs) 11:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. Deb (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pokeware

The page is for a software company in New York. I am not sure what you think was useless about the information. Perhaps we should delete the Google page as well? Please help me understand your issue with the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sthompse (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles on Spooks Characters

Hi, Deb--

I'm a real newcomer to participating in Wikipedia, and a relative newcomer to the show Spooks/MI5. I have a question I hope you can answer. I've been making edits to some articles on former Spooks characters, like Zafar Younis and Danny Hunter, trying to move them away from "in-universe" style and add references. But once this is done, who decides when or if the tags (?) at the top of an article--I mean those banners that name its problems--get removed? Likewise with categorizing an article as a stub, which seems pretty inconsistent (the articles on Zafar Younis and Danny Hunter are called stubs, but not the one on Helen Flynn, which is shorter).

There doesn't seem to be much activity around articles on these older characters (not surprising, I guess). I noticed you were making edits on a couple of them this past fall, which is why I'm getting in touch with this question. I'll also contact a few other folks making edits on character articles in the past year or so.

Thanks, Anmilgan (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Deb: Thanks so much for the swift and helpful reply--and for removing those tags! Anmilgan (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of The Saint, Asbury Park, NJ

Hi Deb, You deleted The Saint, Asbury Park, NJ at 12:00 today while I was trying to make improvements. Surprised, I didn't know what to do, so I reverted the page and it lost its history. I would like that reverted if possible. It had only been marked for deletion at 8:03 am today. The Saint's role in the music scene is documented with credible sources (even the NYT). I actually tried to find negative information on The Saint, but only found that it was small (noted that) and a dive (but that was only verbal, so I couldn't use that). It's a rock n roll club. Most are dives. I would like some more time to make any requested changes. I have already deleted some statements. Let me know what else you would like changed. Thanks. Smm201`0 (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I have already deleted some positive content, but the problem is that I am basing the article on credible sources that so far only say positive and neutral things. I can't even find any articles on ABC violations for this place. I am trying to report what my sources say in an accurate manner. Can you be specific about what else you would like to see removed? I may have removed enough at this point. Thanks. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Rozga

Hi Deb,

I'd like to request undeletion of the page Margaret Rozga. She is a colleague of mine and was a key movement in the Milwaukee civil rights movement. Her late husband has been the subject of a wikipedia article for some time, and we will eventually be linking her page to his. She is also a published poet. As she retires, several of us are collecting information to be added to her page. I recall seeing a message about needing more sources, and we have been in the process of gathering this. We are simply moving a bit slowly, as we have been asking others who know her work and contributions to identify source materials and links to use. This is not a promotional page, but one describing her contributions/--Ctaylor64 (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• I believe that Deb forgot to remove the speedy tag when restoring the article so it came to my attention. It is certainly not ready for the (article) namespace yet so I have moved it to User:Ctaylor64/Margaret Rozga. In cleaning up, please use the <ref> system to put all external links at the end of the article and make sure that you include links to significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, when you think it is ready, rather than moving it yourself ask Deb, myself or any established editor to approve it and move it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Good move. Deb (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Deb - regarding Multiblitz deletion

I am the original author of the article Multiblitz and promoted the brand maybe a little too much. Nevertheless, the article about one of our competitors Profoto shows strong similarities, if not less content. I would appreciate you could take a second look and maybe give me the opportunity to change it and bring it into a proper article form. The brand and company Multiblitz is well worth of an Wiki-article - probably written by an inexperienced newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wulmserine (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Can you give me an example on the third-party reference and a hint what I can change. Also, is there anyway I can get the source code of the article. I'd like to make the article objectiv and work.Wulmserine (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot Deb. I will work on that and make it Wiki-worthy. If ready, do I just set up a new Multiblitz wiki page? Wulmserine (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Deb, I worked on the article and tried to be as objective as possible & added references. Can you please do me a favor and take a look. User talk:Wulmserine/Multiblitz --Wulmserine (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Players Championship

Thank you for your well-intended edit of the 2011 Players Championship page. The championship is actually a curling competition, not a cycling competition as you put. Thanks anyway! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the category. Just goes to show the importance of context. Deb (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page about Kevin Hufnagel?

Why did you delete the page about Kevin Hufnagel? He is in major bands such as Dysrhythmia and Gorguts, currently signed to Relapse, has released tons of albums etc.

Readin previous comments, deleting articles for no good reason seems to be a common theme in your presence here. Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you are ready... Kingofthosewhoknow (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi,
WP:Notability (music)#C6 lists "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" in its may-be-notable criteria, and again "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article".
Kevin Hufnagel seems to pass those indicators, and the three listed notable bands and several album releases are certainly enough to pass the lower "indication of importance" threshold asked for by WP:CSD#A7. Please undelete that article, and bring it to AfD instead if so inclined.
Cheers, Amalthea 07:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article did not contain the references and links required to make an assessment of notability. Deb (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article named three notable bands, and stated the claim that he is famous for being a part of them. Notability is not a requirement to pass A7. References or links are not a requirement to pass A7. Amalthea 11:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. But I have no problem with you re-creating the article, as long as the necessary links and references are in place. Deb (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I believe this is a considerable misalignment between community standards and yours, and have opened a deletion review to get additional opinions – see WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 6#Kevin Hufnagel please. Amalthea 12:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Recensio.net

Hi, you speedied recensio.net as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Can you please explain why you would classify a pretty decent description of a scientific, non-profit project hosted by a Top5 European research library as a G11-case? I would have understood a deletion request based on notability issues with a new project, but I would still have argued against a deletion based on that reasoning. But seriously: G11 seems a bit over the top. Can you restore the article please and start a regular deletion request? Or just restore it? TIA --h-stt !? 14:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC) (PS: I'm not involved in the project in any way, but I nursed the German language article a bit as I've been involved as a German Wikipedian with the Bavarian State library before and was asked to take a look at the issue)

ping --h-stt !? 12:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I have now made several changes to the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Histoa/Recensio.net). How do we proceed from here? (Histoa (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

Any answers? Do we have to go through official channels or can we resolve this here? --h-stt !? 16:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Vernon Wray

why you deleted the article about Vernon Wray?--Marekkoudelka (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Isaiah Nielson

Hi - the article that you deleted just recently has been re-created. Can you delete it again. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Mud and Blood 2

Firstly, though I am not an experienced Wikipedia user, aren't you supposed to allow some time before deletion, as well as a discussion? Because that seemed rather sudden- I check it yesterday, fine, I look back today, gone.

Secondly, the page was not unambiguous advertising or promotion. It was deliberately designed not to do so, and underwent many re-writes to make sure that this was so pre-publication. We also had a look at other, similar game pages, such as Crush the Castle and GemCraft to make sure that ours would be of a similar style and content, and hence would not be deleted. I believe that ours was of equal value, and was significantly more in-depth, which should have also contributed to it being kept.

Therefore, I request the restoration of the Mud and Blood 2 page. Or the subsequent deletion in a similar way of the aforementioned pages (Crush the Castle and GemCraft) and any others a little searching may dig up.

My regards. -Branabus —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC).

What the crap? we worked HARD on it not for it to be deletedThebomb23 (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with both of them on this, I personally worked on that page, fix it...chooxh1259 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chooxh1259 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll answer the one of you who bothered to be sensible and civil. No, Branabus, there is no rule that says you have to inform contributors before speedy deletion of an article. This article was written like an instruction manual, ie. to encourage the reader to use the game, with a few additional comments about the creator and how he thought it up. That is promotional. I could move it to your namespace for improvement if that's acceptable to you. Deb (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Accepted. I apologise for my compatriots' actions, however, I would personally contend that given the amount of time we spent trying deliberately not to do that, it is only natural. It must also be noted that the article will probably go stub-wards without the extensive section on gameplay, which was what was causing the 'advertising' issue (plus the section from the developer, which we felt describes Mud and Blood to a 'T'). However, almost any re-write is worth it to get it the recognition which I feel it deserves. -Branabus 07:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I sorry as well, my actions where plainly irresponsible, i was frustrated with the delting of that page me and my comrades worked so hard on, plase excuse my actions.~~chooxh1259 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chooxh1259 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The guys there worked hard on it, so to just delete it without post in the talk page first about how to make improvements sounds, no offense, rather rude.

Would you please give us another chance at this? --99.107.241.102 (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, guys, I have restored it as was. Sorry for the delay - I've been without web/e-mail the last 24 hours. Please try and improve it - at least add some references. Deb (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Deb! Now, let's try and make it stick... -Branabus 17:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind looking through it? I've had a go, removed the 'About the Developer' section as irrelevant and added some citations, but I'm not really sure what to do next.

And please don't say that perfection is when there is nothing left to take away... :D -Branabus

Villa Giulia

Hello,
Villa Giulia (Palermo) specified name and location of the park, and included two interwiki links. It is a well-defined topic, and not eligible for WP:CSD#A1. Can you please restore it?
Amalthea 12:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment. Deb (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need to go to deletion review with this? It clearly did not meet A1 criteria and will inevitably be overturned. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment. Deb (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not my assessment, it's the community's and you are at odds with it. The only viable reason for deleting an article under A1 is "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article". The article states the following:

• "The Villa Giulia is a building and park in Palermo." (note Palermo is linked)
• It includes interwiki links to corresponding articles at it.wikipedia and de.wikipedia (both of which are much more detailed and include photo galleries)
• It includes the categories Category:Buildings and structures in Palermo and Category:Gardens
• It includes a stub template noting it as a "Italian building and structure" stub

Are you saying that despite all of this information you were unable to to "identify the subject of the article"? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Are you saying that despite all of this information you were unable to to "identify the subject of the article"? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)"

I think you are confusing "subject" with "topic". The subject of an article is the specific thing the article is about, not the general topic such as "buildings" or "parks".

To begin with, it is impossible to tell from the article whether Villa Giulia is a house, a hotel, an ancient monument or some other kind of "building". It is also impossible to tell whether the "park" is part of the same complex or something completely unrelated to the building. I take it you would have had no objection if I had deleted this article as not offering any evidence or claim of notability.

Cross-references to another wikipedia are of no use in clarifying the subject of an article unless one happens to be a speaker of the language of that wikipedia, and are therefore irrelevant in this respect. Deb (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You are vastly overextending the strict interpretation of A1 and relying on semantics in order to defend the deletion. And to answer your question, yes, I would have objected if you had speedily deleted the article as having no evidence of notability because once again you would have deleted it on a false premise - A7 does not cover buildings and geographic locations. The fact that you even mention 'notability' as a speedy deletion criteria when WP:CSD makes it clear that A7 is a lower standard than notability shows me that you really are at odds with the deletion criteria and are using your own interpretations to delete articles that don't meet current criteria. That is a huge problem Deb. I will be bringing Villa Giulia to deletion review and will post the link once its up. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing it and am more than prepared to defend my action in this case. Deb (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Deb, that in no way met the criteria for A1. Please restore the article to avoid a week of needless drama at DRV, which is certain to overturn your decision. Courcelles 17:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Further, I've looked through your most recent 100 logged actions, and I'm greatly concerned about how you are using the speedy deletion criteria.

1) Wakil failed A1, in that the first sentence, "A Wakil (also spelled Vakil) is an Urdu(?) word closely meaning an Advocate." told what the article was about. No speedy deletion criteria fits.

2) Curse of the Boss. Deleted by you as A1. Plenty of context, not notable, but not speedyable, this needed to be PRODded or taken to AFD.

3) Special:Undelete/Fesenkov_Astrophysical_Institute. Deleted by you as A7, appears to be a notable observatory and institute of the Kazakhstan government.

4) A College, deleted as A1, despite identifying its city.

5) A village as an A1?

6) Matt Lawrence is not an A7 as he has played professionally.

7) [1] is a team in a notable league, enough to get around A7.

8) [2] Same as 7.

9) [3] was a deletable article, but under A7 not A1.

That's what I found in your 100 most recent logged actions, back to 11:51, 1 April 2011. (Not your hundred most recent deletions) 8 things I would not have deleted, and would expect to easily be overturned at DRV, and one using the wrong criterion. And I didn't check but around 30 of those logged actions. I'm troubled with this pattern. Courcelles 18:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you've really worked hard looking for things to disagree with, haven't you? On nos 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9, I would refer you to my answer to Ponyo. Do not confuse "subject" with "general topic". Look at the example given in the deletion policy as an article deletable under A1: Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." Under your interpretation of the policy, this article would be acceptable because it says that it is about a man, that he is funny, and that he has a red car. I do not think you are correct in this. Some of your other observations have some merit, but, as I have said many times before, I do not respond to harassment, bullying or wiki-stalking. It is open to you, as an administrator, to restore any article that you feel has been wrongly deleted. I work hard to try to keep the backlog of patrolled pages down to a manageable level, and I take the trouble to improve far more new articles than I delete. Deb (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Deb, when other editors and admins point out that there is a problem with the way you are using the admin tools, that is not bullying and wikistalking. You are deleting articles out of process and it's being pointed out that your interpretation of the CSD criteria is flawed. If you cannot see how it is flawed, then you need to step back from speedy deleting articles altogether. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Villa Giulia (Palermo)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Villa Giulia (Palermo). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Deb, please userfy the article to Ponyo's userspace and provide a link in the deletion review. Not being an admin., I can't see it. CycloneGU (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

As commented in the deletion review, thank you for that. I have provided some information to Ponyo to help him write a better and more interesting article, namely the Italian Wikipedia translation (of course NOT authorizing a word for word copy) and the source that it uses (linking him to that translation as well), and added them in the review. Therefore, while I'm not sure it meets the definition of "incoherent text or gibberish" because of the exclusion of "poor writing" and "coherent non-English material", it is nonetheless a proper deletion in my eyes. I know in answering speedy deletion requests your job is not to look for ways to improve every single article, and I went out of my way a bit to find this one. If nothing else, the user bringing this to deletion review actually found him some sources. =) CycloneGU (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was not User:Ponyo who created the article but it was him who brought it to deletion review, I believe. Deb (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That might be my mistake, then. Let me see if I can find something in the article history. CycloneGU (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Okie, the article history is not intact, I see you copied the deleted article to a new page. By undeleting the original article and moving the page, you retain the article history. CycloneGU (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Okay, I'll do that again. Deb (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

All right, I've seen the undeleted original and identified the author as Neddyseagoon, so his userspace might be a good place to put it. Would you like me to move it? CycloneGU (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please - I'm about to have dinner. Deb (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Now located here. Thanks for the help with this. =) CycloneGU (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

DRV closed, however without resolving the appropriateness of speedy deletion in this case.
You won't see me argue that this sub-stub was a good article. I personally find one-sentence articles like this largely useless and don't think that Wikipedia is any poorer with it deleted. The creator here is experienced enough that we won't drive him away with deleting this article, so that's not really a problem either. But I am still certain that your interpretation of A1 is not the consensus opinion, and I'm unhappy that we couldn't establish that.
In my opinion (and, again, I believe this is consensus opinion), the A1 criterion was established to delete articles that are impossible to expand because the topic is undefined – a third party can't even begin to research the topic, like in case of "He is a funny man with a red car and he makes people laugh". See also WP:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations#A1. With the article under discussion, the topic was very clear to me: A park in Palermo named Villa Giulia, and two clicks away was a press release of the Palermo municipality with a quite decent description and historic information about it. Any editor could research and expand it.
A meta perspective: speedy deletion is supposed to allow admins to delete articles matching a few narrowly defined criteria that are known to have broad community support. Speedy deletion is by definition supposed to be uncontentious (on a community level, some editors will always disagree). With three admins here saying they disagree with your interpretation, I think it's fair to say that this one was not uncontentious. If you believe we are all wrong, I would ask you allow me to get more opinions at WT:CSD. Another possibility would be that you only /tag/ articles that you would delete as G1/G11/A1/A3/A7/A9/A10 to get a sense for how others apply the SD criteria, at least for a while (I know some admins who generally do that, to get a second pair of eyes on articles where applicability of the SD criteria are up for interpretation).
Amalthea 12:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that further discussion at WT:CSD is necessary to clarify the use of A1 deletion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The rules on deletion and speedy deletion have changed countless times since I became an admin, to the point where I often wonder whether it is worth the effort of trying to keep up with them. When I find that I am mistaken about the current status of the deletion policy and/or guidelines, I admit to it. In this case, I do not believe I am mistaken.

If you find it a profitable use of your time to tinker with the rules or to take a hectoring tone with other admins who don't happen to agree with your interpretation of them, by all means continue to do so - though, naturally, I would prefer it if you would take your private discussion to another talk page rather than using mine. I will, in the meantime, be busy making edits to articles and patrolling new pages. Deb (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No offense meant as I was merely helping out on the discussion itself providing foreign Wikisources, but the tone of that post comes across to me sounding negative and pessimistic, even if you do not intend it to. Not being an admin. myself, the only thing I could do with delete criteria are learn what each one does and tag what I think are deletable; I will not always be right, but even if I were an admin., I'd probably only tag some types of pages if no one else has tagged them yet, and have a second pair of eyes make the decision; I'd only be deleting myself anything obvious (i.e. previously deleted pages, copyvios, etc.) and anything not so obvious already tagged by another user whose assessment I agree with. While every editor, and even administrator, edits in different ways, I do not argue the potential merits of a discussion at WT:CSD regarding the A1 criteria so that all admins. can be fully aware of what is covered and what isn't with examples. This isn't a suggestion of wrongdoing on your part, it's just a way to help improve the definitions of an A1 speedy delete criteria so that all administrators are on board. Otherwise, everyone will always have their own interpretation and disagreements will keep happening.

Further, it's not a private discussion between them. Amalthea posted this as a message to you, and Ponyo just happened along and agreed with him. It's no more private with me involved; heck, I'm not even an admin. and getting involved.

As a final note, I've started working on that article now from the April 17 discussion. Not a bad start, but could use more work before returning to the mainspace. If the editor who created it shows no interest in working further on the article, I may move it to my namespace if it's not ready for the mainspace at that point. CycloneGU (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well done. And you're right, I am negative and pessimistic about some aspects of the deletion process and our guidelines in general. The original idea of wikipedia was an encyclopaedia which anyone could contribute to and which had as few "rules" as possible. Because of the explosion of contributions after the first couple of years, a need for control developed. Unfortunately, this has led to the creation of a huge web of complex rules, which the most conscientious admin would have difficulty keeping up with. For example, for years it was so difficult and time-consuming just to nominate an article for deletion that most contributors shrank from doing so, which as far as I remember is why speedy deletion was invented. Most admins now concentrate on one or two areas of expertise, and even this can easily eat up all your time. I came here to create and improve articles and I freely admit that I prefer to concentrate on that aspect. Many other administrators take a different line, but that's their business and I choose not to get involved with them. Deb (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Your block

I changed your block because it should of been indef. Most of the edits were vandalism. Just a FYI.--Bsadowski1 10:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Collegium Invisibile

Hello. Thanks for your interest in the article. To be honest, if you hadn't put the reference and nobility templates, I wouldn't have probably pull myself together and complete the work. Please have a look whether everything is fine and if it is, remove the templates. Unfortunately all sources are in Polish, but that's a matter I cannot help. I chose online articles from newspapers or universities so that at least you're able to verify that they do exist. By the way. On the Polish Wikipedia, as a musician, I usually submit biographies of wanna-be eminent musicians for deletion. Some of them, although deleted from our Wikipedia due to notability close to zero, are still active and advertising themselves on enwiki. I don't know deletion process on enwiki, so I just thought - could I send you some from time to time some links and you would complete formalities? Regards, Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• With notability there's the problem of NPOV words, as the society in itself is quite exclusive and it's easy to overdose flattering expressions, especially when I'm not a native. I think the notability should be clear e.g. from the list of fellows itself (4 former ministers) or the head of the science board (ex oficio Rector of the Warsaw University). Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for the offer, the vigilant eyes of a native are always welcome when it comes to writing new articles. And could I send you some names suggested for deletion from time to time, or you'd rather not take part in this process? (If not, that's not a problem, it was just a mere thought.) Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Centre for Economic Performance

Could you explain the following?

18:18, 28 February 2011 Deb (talk | contribs) deleted "Centre for Economic Performance" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

The CEP is an renowned institution which is mentioned in many articles and what I wrote was a neutral - admittedly somewhat short - description. I certainly can't see why it would be unambiguous advertising. Mondpanther —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondpanther (talk • contribs) 14:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it to User:Mondpanther/Centre for Economic Performance so you can work on improving it and add some references. Deb (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondpanther (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting Andrew Hussies page

I'm a fan of problem sleuth but he doesn't deserve a wikipedia page, I think you should also delete some of his comics pages, like whistles the clown. Nex Carnifex (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistles_(graphic_novel) Nex Carnifex (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Octane render

Hello. I saw that our article on 'Octane render' has been deleted, on grounds of 'Unambiguous advertising or promotion'

The wikipedia page on 'octane render' was just to document the features, technical specifications, user interface, and rendering samples- so that it is made available for ready refernce (thru wikipedia) and is well documented in an encyclopedic manner- without any bias or commercial intent.

It was not meant for advertising or promotion, and is done by some members of user community without any commercial intent whatsoever. Octane render is in fact a ground breaking software, and even the first of its kind ever to be released for public- which works exclusively on CUDA- Nvidia platform. It works on GPU (graphics processing unit) instead of the traditional CPU for rendering. On the other hand, there are over 14 other wikipedia pages under the category 'Rendering systems' of which Octane render was also a part of (before deletion). All these rendering systems are also documented in a very similar way- octane render was documented. Showcasing their render interface, the features (which are different from one another), update history, rendering samples etc. This provided a good ready reference (and formal documentation) to any new user to choose from these 14 plus rendering engines, or even a researcher in this subject of 'rendering systems'. This is the category, of which 'octane render' was a part of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rendering_systems (This has following other rendering engines: Brazil R/S, False radiosity, Flamingo (raytracer), Fryrender, Holomatix Rendition, Indigo Renderer, Fryrender, Kerkythea, LuxRender, Maxwell Render, Mental ray, PhotoRealistic RenderMan, Picogen, V-Ray, YafaRay ) You can check all these links under rendering systems- and will find that the way 'Octane render' was described and documented in a similar format as other render engines, is not intended to be 'undue udvertising or promotion'. I have already requested for 'undeletion' of this page on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Octane_render at 13:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I would kindly request you to undelete the article, after considering the above. Thank you so much in advance. Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhail spa (talk • contribs) 04:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Deb, Read your message on my talk page. I agree with you that the article needs revisions- (and of course the title should be Octane Render) Myself and other forum members- who created this article will strictly follow the wikipedia guidelines which you have mentioned in the message. (Wikipedia:Advertising#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). Could you please undelete the article and make the text available to us, so that we can amend the content (as well as the title). It would really save hours and hours of collective work gone into it- that too by multiple contributions by various forum members across the globe in different time zones. Agreed that wikipedia guidelines should be followed strictly, but we should get a chance to amend the article in the first place. Maybe a tag warning deletion would have prevented this. If you could help us by undeleting this article, we would be able to make amendmends to it as per above mentioned guidelines. (most of users contributing towards this page are first timers. we will ensure amendmends are done by a nominated 'admin' only) Thanking you in anticipation. Regards, Suhail spa (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for being kind enough to provide the text of the deleted page. We will work towards 'wikifying' it more- as per guidelines. (though all images attached to the page are already under 'orphaned' category, so need to move quickly on this to salvage whatsoever) Regards, Suhail spa (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi.. As per the guidelines given by you in the previous posts, we have been updating the page for a while now. We have added appropriate citations and references, and removed any 'claims' which cannot be supported with a proper reference. Have also changed the overall 'tone' of the article- to make it more unbiased and neutral. Here is the update for you- just in case you can find some time to have a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Suhail_spa/Octane_Render Best Regards, Suhail spa (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have answered here: User_talk:Suhail_spa/Octane_Render. Deb (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Deb,

Thank you very much for going thru the article, and for your comments. It is much appreciated. (Yes, the software is in beta stage, because it runs on CUDA platform- which itself is quite new and is updated more often by NVIDIA, posing a challenge for the developers everytime the CUDA build is updated. But still, the software is the first one to be released for public- that runs exclusively on Graphics Processor thru Nvidia CUDA) Thanks again.. Best Regards, Suhail spa (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

interview request

Hello, My name is Natalia Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of the motivation of users to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, as a user, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. Your real identity, and wikipedia account will be kept confidential through the paper. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 6st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN, Google Talk or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel. Thank you, Natalia Olaru Email: natalia.ioana.olaru@gmail.com --MulgaEscu (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How about IRC or email? Kind regards, Natalia Olaru --MulgaEscu (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Perfect, I will email you the questions by the end of the weekend, thank you, Natalia Olaru--MulgaEscu (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wessex children NPOV

Hullo there. I have opened a new discussion about the styling of HRH The Earl of Wessex's children: here because their articles are currently in violation of the NPOV policy. Do please drop by and have your say (and feel free to pass on the word to other concerned parties!) DBD 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul Rhys

The article Paul Rhys has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article lacks Reliable Sources to Verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Happy Editing! — 141.156.222.164 (talk · contribs) _{15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)}

Discussion at Talk:Tudor dynasty#Move?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tudor dynasty#Move?. OCNative (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Me2day

Me2day is real web content. Tsuchiya Hikaru (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael Aondoakaa

I partially undid your last change to this article, restoring birth date to the first paragraph after the introduction. In my view, the introduction should be strictly a summary of the key points in the rest of the article. It should have no information that is not presented in more detail later on. Without that discipline, the article is started down a slippery path to a point where the introduction is not just unrelated to the article but contradicts it. I think this is fundamental. The intro should have nothing that is not in the body of the article. Repetition does not matter: WP is a reference work, not a place for elegant writing. Thoughts? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It is duplication, but that is o.k. A Wikipedia entry is more like a business report or newspaper article than a short story. There is no suspense. The first sentence or paragraph gives all the essential information, which may be all the reader wants, and then the rest of the article expands on that. As the article grows and sections become large, it is also good practice to have a summary sentence or paragraph at the start of each large section. That helps the reader who is just skimming. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't personally agree, or at least not in terms of details such as dates of birth and death. I really can't see any value in repeating those. Deb (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Mary Boleyn

Hi Deb, your input is needed at Talk:Mary Boleyn in the section Lady Mary Stafford. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Deb. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hello Deb, from reading Talk:Mary Boleyn#Lady Mary Stafford? your comments and actions could be interpreted as having protected the article to keep your preferred version. Even if this is not the case, you may wish to avoid giving this impression in future, by declining to make administrator actions on articles you are involved with. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Martin, that's why I asked the user who was involved to make the change herself. Deb (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to make a big issue of this, but to be honest I do not see the distinction between asking another editor to make an edit and then protecting, rather than doing both actions yourself. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the article, you'll find that I have played very little part in editing it. On looking at the latest changes, it was obvious to me that the user mainly responsible for the edit warring was creating an inconsistency in the article by making the alternative title the primary one. Hence the action which User:Jeanne Boleyn hesitated to take was the correct one, and I suggested a way of avoiding it leading to an edit war. So I do not apologise for my action in this case. Deb (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Pather Media

Hi Deb. I checked that you have deleted the page Pather Media under the clause "unambiguous advertising or promotion". My sincere apologies if it came out as that. The article was meant to enlighten Wikipedia readers on the existence of the company should they be looking for it. I would appreciate any advice you may give on making the article less commercial and more informative based. Looking forward to your reply. Savesh.pather (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1991 in music

Hi Deb! In this edit to 1991 in music, it appears you meant to add the May 3 death of an Egyptian singer, but the name of the singer seems to be missing. Could you please correct this edit? Thanks so much, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! GoingBatty (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle

I see you have come across Born2cycle (talk · contribs) before in Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive96#Born2cycle. His current behaviour at Talk:Corvette over the past few weeks (and particularly in the past few days) is, in my opinion, unacceptable - badgering people and insisting on having the last word. Several editors have told him to drop it but he doesn't hear. In other words absolutely nothing has changed since his referral to the Wikquette alerts in December 2010. Can you advise on a suitable way forward? --Biker Biker (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Idwal Robling for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Idwal Robling 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/Idwal Robling 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 11:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Deb. You have new messages at Aristophanes68's talk page.
Message added 23:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Duluth Art Institute deletion

Hi Deb, I saw you deleted the Duluth Art Institute page again. After the first deletion we closely read Wikipedia's guidelines on makings sure we were not engaged in advertising or promotions. I feel the new page met the guidelines and could serve as a stub for future contributions. Please advise as to the what you saw in the page that was objectionable. Thanks! Dugana12 (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

CityLocal

Hello, I'm new here and I wanted to ask you a question: I noticed you deleted an article on CityLocal for blatant advertising. I've just written a page about them, and would you be interested in looking at it (on my userpage) to check it doesn't break any rules? It would be annoying to put up a new article just to have it deleted within a few minutes.

--Lyrical Jesse James (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi again. I'm stilling working (slowly) on the 'CityLocal article, and tried bulking up so it doesn't look like a giant advert. Does it look any better? It's pretty difficult to get information on them, all I get from Google is a bunch of listings.

--Lyrical Jesse James (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if they break any notability guidelines. They've been around for five years, I've added a few reviews with sources, and since the reviews are only so-so I'm hoping it doesn't sound like shameless advertising. They're not as big as, say, BestOf.com (I don't think we have an article on them either, maybe I'll write it another time) but I'm not sure if being small makes them not worth writing about.

--Lyrical Jesse James (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

1707 in literature

Hello, Deb. At this edit in July 2005 you added "A. Phillipick Schiner - Oration to Incite the English Against the French", which has survived for six years, although it should be "Matthäus Schiner, A Philippick Oration to Incite the English Against the French". A. Phillipick Schiner now has so many g-hits that he may be notable. I can't help wondering whether you can trace the source? It may well be another Wikipedia page, but I'm just trying to run this creation to earth. Moonraker (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry, I have now traced it back to this edit to John Toland on 20 May 2004 by Curtisweyant. Unfortunately, Curtisweyant's last edit was in 2007, so I'm unlikely to get an answer from him or her. Moonraker (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Plaid Cymru

Hiya Deb, would you mind taking another look at your edit here. At first glance, the edit you reverted looks like your basic vandalism. But, if you look at the infobox you will see the Welsh seats are noted twice now. I think the IP was just tidying up. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Deb. Pob hwyl, Daicaregos (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion

Deb, you deleted the article I had started about the Lausanne Laptop Institute. While the wording for the article was taken from its website for convenience, the Institute itself is noteworthy for being a free-form conference about the use of one-to-one technology in the classroom. The article was not intended to promote attendance but to inform about what has become conference held globally. How would I re-write the article to meet W's standards?

Talkback

Hello, Deb. You have new messages at Talk:John Howard Davies.
Message added 07:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PRCA Deletion - request undelete

Hi Deb. I was looking for the PR Consultants Association and found you've deleted the page. I think that this organisation should have an entry - it's a credible and influential trade association. I'd be happy to put some content up about it if it helps [disclosure my company is a member of the PRCA - is this OK?]. Thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeMaynardUK (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sir

thankyou sir for welcoming me. I hope, u will guide me for edits and improvment of the articles on Wikipedia. I heartly accept your wishes and feel free to guide me up. (Dr.AnasKhan (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

User:62.254.251.1

Can you create this user page? 62.254.251.1 (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 100 Welsh Heroes

The article 100 Welsh Heroes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable.

While all 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed prod notice - improvements may be appropriate but the grounds for deletion are doubtful. If you want this article deleted, please nominate it for deletion in a formal way. Deb (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of 100 Welsh Heroes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 100 Welsh Heroes 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/100 Welsh Heroes 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Wren GAN

As you are the creator of this article I would like to ask you if you are willing to help expand this article until it meets GAN requirements. Thanks, GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 13:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Deb/Archive 11! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

A cup of tea for you!

Good to see someone other than me changing a 'likely' (adverb) to 'probably'. Rothorpe (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Morgan (journalist)

The article John Morgan (journalist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Essentially no content. No sources. No indication of notability. No significant linking pages.

While all 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. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Deb. You have new messages at Osubuckeyeguy's talk page.
Message added 15:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, October 1962

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 notice that you recently created a new page, October 1962. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - 1962. 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 1962 - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. 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. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox 18:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at October 1962

Hi Deb, you recently removed a deletion tag from October 1962. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with October 1962. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Deb. You have new messages at Kingpin13's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at October 1962

This is your last warning. The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at October 1962, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think not. Deb (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

3RR is a blockable offence, had you continued to remove the deletion template it's quite plausible you would have been blocked, whether you think so or not. Anyway, please see my talk page again. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I reply to your message at my talk page: CSD is a "formal" method of deletion. At the time the speedy deletion tag was placed, the only reason it was invalid was that the article could have been redirected instead of deleted. The bot's replacements were perfectly correct, and you should not have edit warred with it. Please see WP:CSD which confirms all of this. Now please address the last two sentences in my last message at my talk. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The tag was invalid because the article is not, and never was, a duplicate. The fact that the bot can't think for itself doesn't mean I don't have to, and I followed procedure by requesting that it be made to stop replacing the tag. As for your other comments, I can only repeat that, if you disagree with having a page about October 1962, you should nominate it for deletion with your reasons. While you're about it, I suggest you nominate January 1962 to September 1962 inclusive, and all the month articles for 1960 and 1961. Then I'll be glad to continue the debate in a civilised manner. Deb (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm, you'll be glad to continue the debate in a civilised manner after I've nominated all of those articles for deletion? I hope that isn't a requirement. Can you point me to where I said I wanted the page deleted, because I think you've got very much the wrong impression; I do not want the page deleted. At this point the page is very obviously identical to 1962#October. Now, please read what I said again, "surely there shouldn't both be a page about this and a section on the 1962 page about the same thing with very similar text (at the very least use {{main}})". Either the October 1962 page should redirect to the section on the 1962 page, or the section on the 1962 page should point users towards the October 1962. Which should it be? Do we actually need a whole page for October 1962 (if so, why?), or would a redirect to a section on the 1962 page suffice? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you are attempting to achieve with this line of interrogation. If I didn't think we needed these pages, I wouldn't have joined in the effort of creating them. Deb (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In that case, why have you not pointed out at 1962#October that a main article for that section exists? What if some user sees that "A U.S. Air Force U-2 is shot down over Cuba" is missing from that section and adds it there, without realising it is in the main article. Or what if they find some event that is in neither place, and only add it to one of them? Surely it is easier to just have it all in one place (e.g. the section on the 1962 article)? Or (as I've already said multiple times but you seem to be completely ignoring) at the very least use {{main}} to connect the section with the article. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the article and the section need to be connected in one of two ways:

• Use {{main}} in the section.
• Redirect the article to the section.

Now, which of the two should it be? Then, for which ever one it should be, please do it. Surely that is not a difficult concept to grasp? You're being very difficult here. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidently you are much cleverer than me, which I suppose is what gives you the right to issue commands to other contributors. Personally, I would prefer not to add such a cross-reference until there is a full set of month articles for that particular year as it is uneconomical of effort. If you feel it is necessary, by all means go ahead. Deb (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My intention is not to issue commands. I'm perfectly happy if you add the links en masse once you've finished creating the month articles. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Michael Rudman, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Peter Hall (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 13:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In 2011 in literature, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Craig Thomas (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 10:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Spaghettisssimo

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

Recent and trivial work, performed only twice - not notable

While all 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. Greenmaven (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In 1779 in music, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page William Boyce (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) 10:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

cleaning up

You missed this one. I'm an admin too, but I haven't chimed in because I'm not sure if we actually have a policy against this kind of thing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just make one up, like you administrators usually do. Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion, but we're running out of new ideas. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated

Malleus has (if I'm understand him correctly) agreed to allow redaction of the term you found objectable at the Rfa discussion. There is a very very long history here ... suffice to say I would appreciate it if you just let him have the last word and let it go. Thanks. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing complicated about it. The insult should be redacted and Malleus should learn to abide by the Civility policy. Kaldari (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case [4] where you are mentioned via diff. As I state there, MF's swearing doesn't really upset me. It's the abusive bullying tactics behind it. His refusal to consider your simple request was the moment of clear and decisive incivility. If it was the local pub, the owner would have asked him to leave. WikiPedia has higher civility standards than a saloon. Thank You. Buster Seven Talk 12:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

replied at User talk:Buster7

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 2011 in Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Y Garn (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) 10:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello deb, i noticed u deleted my article about the song "7assisne inne r5isa" due to "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" ! But my article is far away from advertising or promotion ! Its simply about a song that made an impact in the lebanese society ! and this song was created by students ! the language used (the ones that include numbers) is an "ARABIC" internet language ! so nothing unambiguous about it if you couldn't understand ! but i assure you that this is not to harm any political or social side ! Everyone loved it on facebook and they expect it to be on wikipidea ! by deleting it you are basically deleting art achievements of university students . please reconsider this . thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moestatics (talk • contribs) 12:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Deb, I edited The article and deleted the names of the people who worked on the project and used pronouns instead just to avoid the advertising or promotion accusation Until i receive the official interview from the New TV broadcasting lebanese company , and 2 articles from magazines talking about this project so i could provide you with official references. By then i hope ur decision will change. thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moestatics (talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Questionable comment about you

Hello Deb. Just letting you know that User:Nobody Ent made two comments about you that I consider inappropriate. First, he described you as someone who "chooses to continue to be offended" [5]. When asked to refactor, he did, but added this, saying that you implied that other editors are "stupid or lying". In my opinion, this is a serious, unfounded accusation. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 1937 in music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crown Imperial (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) 10:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Notification

I posted a response to you here. Unfortunately, as Sonicyouth can no longer formulate responses to my arguments or responses to valid questions, he has resorted to simply reverting me. Thus, if you would like to respond to this or otherwise comment on my analysis of your evidence, please do so on my talk page. Regards, Lara 17:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"I console myself in the knowledge that I will still be here after the main participants in this debate have grown tired of the project and gone away." I love WP too! Buster Seven Talk 08:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Citizens of WikipediaWorld

To your knowledge has there ever been a broad based discussion about editors being citizens. Maybe not as an end in itself (too many passports, documentation, customs agents,etc.) but as the genesis of a discussion about solutions. The Civility enforcemnet sites clearly show that we are two countries seperated by a common language. Now its obvious that out mutual language allows us to come together but we bring along all our cultural baggage. And, as we see, its the cultural baggage that, sometimes, causes dysfuntion. The cultures that people live in around the world took generations to form...building, nurturing, teaching, even scolding. Maybe that is at the heart of it. As a community we are very young. We don't hold corrections as positives: we hold them as criticisms. We dont see the helping hand: we only see the finger pointing. Our culture at WP is still being formed (some would say we don't have a culture) One thing I learned early in life is "How and where do you plug into The Conversation." Whether its about politics or civility at a website or porn or ecology, etc etc. I think we are plugged into a similar socket. I'm starting to rant so I'll stop. Thanks. Buster Seven Talk 20:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for straightening me out re:Latin...Buster Seven Talk 15:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

12th century in Wales (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to William de Braose and David Fitzgerald

2011 in literature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Geraint Bowen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Links to years . . .

Have you been having trouble with other editors de-linking years or decades in articles you have edited, as I have. Questioningly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

1984 in music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Then Sings My Soul

They Were Defeated (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Herrick

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Greenspan

See [6] Links from there. Buster Seven Talk 15:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

For me, the outstanding feature of "The Case" was meeting you. You straightforward approach is admirable. At the moment of the incident I thought to myself, "I've been here before. What should I do?" I never meant to "pile on". I thought positive peer pressure might be enough. I was wrong. Buster Seven Talk 22:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hwfa Môn

Something wrong with my contributions??

Central discussion template

Thanks for the heads-up. Fixed. Selery (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of Greenlanders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Borgen (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) 10:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 1641 in music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marienkirche (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) 10:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Marienkirche

Why is St. Mary's Church considered the better redirect? Marienkirche (German) is short for Liebfrauenkirche (German), and never named St. Mary's Church, only in translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Section retitled: Cwm Rhondda

I show a posting below that I received last night on my talk page, together with my reply, and the user's response:

Bread of Heaven

I enjoyed your collection of flags at the top of this page.

I know (the English version of) the hymn that includes the line "bread of heaven". In fact, it is right up at the top of my favorites. But please tell me what is the specific connection between Welsh rugby and "bread of heaven".

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Cwm Rhondda is a very well known Welsh hymn tune. First performed in 1907. Cwm Rhondda translates as "the Rondda Valley" in English, and more often than not, sung to the words: Guide me, O thou great Redeemer. Wales rugby union supporters adopted it years ago, although the reason is not understood, apart from the fact that it is an inspiring song which everyone knew (Sundays in chapel) and could keep repeating, and repeating... I think it splendid.

It was sung at the funerals of both Princess Diana and the Queen Mother, and at the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed splendid, both tune and words. The version I learned (in the United Church of Canada) began Guide me, O thou great Jehovah.

The part of the story I did not know was its adoption by the Rugby union. A great anthem, known to everyone in Wales. I guess it is a natural. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Leeks for sale: Are you ready for The Six Nations?

I am wondering if you would be kind enough to add below any knowledge you may have on this topic.

Many thanks for your time.

With kindest regards,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)

montaguemillennium.com

Hi - as a self-published website, this fails our criteria at WP:RS. Thanks for adding the other source however. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 1557 in music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of St. Quentin (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) 10:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Deb,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Before you go any further

Could you present a better reasons than "restore links" before you damage all of those articles? The community decisively ruled that only under exceptional circumstances (aside from chronological articles) should months and days be linked. Chronological articles do not include "year in X" articles. You should have discussed the matter before taking such action, and please note that you're also damaging the articles by reinserting hyphens, where dashes are the norm. Tony (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The best statement I can find on the subject is in the MoS at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Year_linking, starting with the general principle that "Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter"

There is a specific exemption for "intrinsically chronological articles", and none of the examples given are of the form 'year in x'. Of course that doesn't conclusively establish that that type of article is outside the exemption – it’s merely suggestive. Clearly only links to other year-in-x articles might be sufficiently germane, whereas simple date links would fail the general principle of not being germane and topical. For example, how would anyone seeing a birth of a musician on December 2, 1823, benefit from knowing all the non-music-related things that happened on December 2 in a random set of different years?

Each year-in-x article already contains a navbox of related year-in-x articles, and, even to related time periods or subjects, but no-one has ever thought month-day articles relevant enough to put into such a navbox).

It is widely accepted that year-in-x are not covered by the exemption, but I don’t know if that's explicitly stated anywhere. I, and others, have had no objections from anyone when delinking simple dates within year-in-x articles, which I do from time to time as I encounter them on my travels. In that type of article I leave year-in-x links untouched and unlink the rest.

I notice that you did not even wait for this reply before launching in and damaging yet more of the year in music articles. I intend to reverse this damage at some stage, and expect that you will not revert them on that occasion. Tony (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've provided an explanation as to why it is not at all clear. Year in X articles rarely do link day-month units. What earthly use or relevance is 4 February, tagged for the birth of a composer? The community made a decisive call on this in 2009. Unless you can advise me what the utility of these links is in such a way that they might be thought of as an exception, the community's decision stands. Please do not revert edits that bring articles into line with community decisions and practice. Tony (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to abide by the WP:CIVILITY policy, and sniping that a fellow editor is working to get their "edit count up" is rude: please do not abuse the site policies or you will be blocked. Year in X articles are not exempted: show me where it says that, please. They are not exemplified in the list, and few of them link these day-month units. You have still not explained why they are of any use at all to a reader, or relevance in the context. And why they're not included in the navboxes. And why the inconsistency you're creating with other year in X articles is not of concern. You give every appearance of exerting WP:OWNERSHIP over the music articles. This is disapproved of on the site. Tony (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. While both you and Tony1 have been unnecessarily hostile towards one another, Tony1 is correct on policy in this case (see Wikipedia:Linking#Chronological_items). Please stop reverting Tony1 and Dl2000. It has now reached the point where it can be considered disruptive to the project. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cymreigyddion y Fenni

Hello Deb. I just declined the speedy nom at this article. Cymreigyddion y Fenni seems to be a notable Welsh society, but I'm not entirely sure. Could you take at look at it, please? I think you might be more competent in this area. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Have a nice weekend :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

All of a sudden Ive become a bother. But, an important project WP:WEaPOn (about Paid Operatives) I have initiated is up for speedy. Can you assist? I want to play by the rules but they seem stacked against an honest effort to record a history of an event as it happens. Urgent. TY. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 1799 in art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pierre Girard (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) 10:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Aaron Burr

In 2003, you added content to the Aaron Burr article that asserted Burr, Sr. was a "founder" of Princeton University. May I ask what is the source for that claim? He was friendly with the known founders and became the second president, but several of us who are involved in Princetoniana and the history of the College of New Jersey see no evidence of Burr as a *founder* in the various books and articles on the subject. Martindo (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Our Mutual Friend (1976 TV serial) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Television serial, Peter Hammond and John Collin

Roy Kinnear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Michael York

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Richard III video reply

Hello, Deb. You have new messages at Evilandi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Thanks for the message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bens_dream , it cheered me up ^_^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs) 16:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 in Wales

Hi Deb, did anything happen in February in Wales, or did the country shut up shop. I don't like crowbarring in information for the sake of it, but a whole month where nothing of note happened to a country of three million people? Can't be. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting addition, thanks yet again for your eagle eye. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that you put yourself down for the Monmouth meet up, it would be great (and a bit strange) if we could get the numbers there. I've only done a few conventions in my life, but feel a bit intimidated by this very niche and 'high-brow' gathering. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Concerto for Piano and Orchestra (Hess) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Classic FM and Lang Lang

1738 in Wales (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to William Holland

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited June 1963, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giuseppe D'Angelo (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) 10:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

First Monmouth Meetup on Saturday

Just a quick reminder about m:Meetup/Monmouth/1 on Saturday, as requested. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I'm really hesitant as to whether to attend tomorrow as it's quite unclear exactly what is happening and when and who should be involved in what. I can't attend in the evening in any case - what time would you expect "ordinary" wikipedians to turn up - is it 12 noon or 1pm? And how does the "meet-up" part of it work? Deb (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Deb, hope it's ok to copy your question from my talk as it will keep the conversation together. I've got this page watchlisted for now.

I think the main intention is get those attending together for the afternoon for an informal chat and a chance to meet other other Wikimedians in person. There is the board meeting going on at Shire Hall and John Cummings is doing a presentation at 12 noon until 1 pm, so I'm assuming that will be a period when folks will gather ready for the afternoon activities. John Cummings is our local contact and he's suggested some possibilities - editathon, museum visit, etc. on the meetup page, so he might have a much better idea than I (he left this note in the signup section: I'll be helping run this, send me a message before hand if you need any help and please add activities to the list if you want to do something specific. If you arrive before 12 you will find me in the Shire Hall somewhere or email me at john.cummings@monmouthpedia.org. Have a look at his talk page User talk:Mrjohncummings#Quick question where Evlekis had a similar question. Wiki-meets tend to be rather informal and less structured while participants get to know each other, so I do hope you'll come along and I look forward to meeting you there. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you RexxS for clarifying this. I had already asked John, here, a similar question to Deb, but not got a very helpful answer. The problem is that some of us who are not attending the "national" meeting live some distance away - I think you'll find that very few of the "Monmouthpedia editors" actually live in Monmouth, which is in a very rural area and takes some time to travel to. Personally, also I can't commit many hours away from home tomorrow. I am assuming that I'll get there mid-afternoon, but it's very much guesswork on my part as to when it would be best for me to turn up. It would obviously be better if those who want to "meet up" are around at about the same time as each other, rather than drifting away again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see. That's you, is it? Nice to know after all this time! No, that answer's not much help. I know I should be grateful to the volunteers who have set the thing up, but I really can't see myself staying for longer than a couple of hours, and I'm sure most of the people who are travelling from any distance would prefer to have a chance to meet during daylight hours. Deb (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just assume that as I know who I am, everyone else does as well (?!) Maybe some of us should just WP:BE BOLD and decide that we are going to be there at a certain time, and everyone else can work around that. When do you suggest? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to see if there's someone who will guarantee to be available as a point of contact throughout the afternoon - perhaps I can persuade Harry to give his mobile phone number to those who might be a bit late and want a contact. Wiki-meets need folks to be a little BOLD and just meet up at first; that's how these things grow. I'll report back. --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I had initially got the impression that people were going to have lunch together, but maybe that's only for the "Board"? In which case, 1pm would have been a good time. Deb (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly possible that folks will have lunch together, but I have no idea whether it's just the Board for whom arrangements have been made. Anyway, the rest of us peons can always have lunch together in one of the local pubs if we want, and 1 pm would certainly be a good time to go and do that - obviously, start from Shire Hall. I've emailed you Harry's mobile phone number in case there are any miscommunications, and he says he's happy for anyone else who isn't a stalker to have it as well. That way we can guarantee everybody will be able to meet up. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If the feeling is that it's best to meet for lunch, I can rearrange my own plans and do that, but personally I was hoping to come later in the afternoon. Can I suggest that we move this discussion to the project page itself, or its talk page, so that others can contribute and we can (ahem) come to a consensus? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Deb (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've linked back to here from m:Talk:Meetup/Monmouth/1#Consensus time --RexxS (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited December 2000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Higgins (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) 10:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Distance of Newport from London

Hi there. There is a debate running at Talk:Newport in which you might have an interest. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I am sorry if I had misrepresented your comment as mainly positive and thus a "yes". I have now changed that to Neutral. I wonder if you had to choose what would it be? Not that you have to choose of course! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This fanatical linking of month–day units

Please explain exactly what is the relevance of the article on 3 March to what happened on 3 March 1611 in literature? I can't wait for your explanation. And your reversions demand edit-summaries actually explaining your reasoning. Tony (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You're going to be waiting a while then. I've explained this to you a million times (or it feels like it) but you persist in your crusade to remove as many links as possible from as many articles as possible. I don't know whether you really believe you are improving these articles or if you have just lost sight of the purpose of an encyclopedia in your zeal to follow your preferred set of conventions. Personally I think that developing, adding to and correcting factual errors in articles is more useful than swopping one type of hyphen for another, and I don't find that edit summaries quoting things called "MOS" and "script" are very informative either. I will be carrying on as normal. Deb (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

What a disappointment you are. Tony (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Remember, when you comment, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith never help. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not without knowing the referent for disappointment. You practise bad faith yourself in your comment. Tony (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia editors don't hold corrections as positives: they hold them as criticisms. We dont see the helping hand: we only see the finger pointing. My comment was an attempt to bring peace, not to create an additional adversary. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you were quite right to give us both a reminder, because we both deserve one. Deb (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"Standard introduction"

Says who? Tony (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Says Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies (and has done from the very beginning - unlike date-linking, it's not a rule anyone ever really needed to debate). You see, Tony, apart from the fact that the habit of putting place of birth and/or death inside the brackets makes the introduction more difficult to read, it often leads to ambiguity because there is no rule for where it should go. In many cases the place of either birth or death is unknown, so you often find things like "(1900-1980, London)" which is very confusing. Someone unfamiliar with the biography standards created articles for all these artists years ago and, when you actually read the article, you frequently find that a particular place of birth or death is quoted when there is no evidence for it or when the place of birth or death is disputed. When I come across those articles, I make a point of improving those articles by making them easier for a reader to follow and bringing the introduction into line with the standard. Deb (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You see, Deb, that guideline says: "Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability." I'm struggling to see where it says that the places of birth and death should be stripped away from the dates of birth and death. Tony (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"Lead" means the introductory paragraph of the article, and "body" means the rest of the article. This makes it clear that, unless specifically relevant to the person's notability (can't think of an example off the top of my head, but I expect you can), it shouldn't even be mentioned in the first paragraph. Of course, the length of the introduction will vary depending on the overall size of the article; if it's a very short stubby article, one or two sentences of introduction may be enough. Just to reinforce the message, the guideline gives an example showing how to do it. Deb (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No. ""Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability." That says utterly nothing about where the places should not be mentioned. That is why your changes are not based on policy or a style guide. Tony (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

To me it's very clear - and even if it weren't, the example shows you how to do it. Deb (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

To you it's very clear. Get the sense that you have your particular "interpretations" of guide lines that you insist on pushing through, despite objections from other editors? Tony (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Other editor, I think you mean. Okay then, do you know of an English-language encyclopaedia which employs a practice other than the one shown in the example? Deb (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Now, a warning: you do not own articles, even if you started them. I have just removed the links from countless dozens of day–month items because, per community consensus in 2009, they have absolutely nothing to do with the article. If you believe they do, please make your case here. Do not revert. Tony (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And who are you to give me a warning? And who are you to make the decision on whether a link is valid or not? You know that year articles are specifically excluded from the decision of 2009, and as long as you persist in going against that decision, I will undo your changes. Do not forget that you were blocked once before for precisely this conduct, and try to learn from your past mistakes. Deb (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Year articles are 2010. Not 2010 in archaeology. Could we start with the very first "link"? What is it in that article that is remotely relevant to the anchor article? It's July 11, which begins a long list thus:

472 – After being besieged in Rome by his own generals, Western Roman Emperor Anthemius is captured in the Old St. Peter's Basilica and put to death. 911 – Signing of the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte between Charles the Simple and Rollo of Normandy. 1302 – Battle of the Golden Spurs (Guldensporenslag in Dutch) – a coalition around the Flemish cities defeats the king of France's royal army. 1346 – Charles IV of Luxembourg is elected emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. 1405 – Ming admiral Zheng He sets sail to explore the world for the first time. 1476 – Giuliano della Rovere is appointed bishop of Coutances. 1576 – Martin Frobisher sights Greenland. 1616 – Samuel de Champlain returns to Quebec. 1735 – Mathematical calculations suggest that it is on this day that dwarf planet Pluto moved inside the orbit of Neptune for the last time before 1979.

Let's go further in. Way down, I can see a few singers' and other musicians' births and deaths listed as falling on 11 July in particular years. Like "1904 – Niño Ricardo, Spanish flamenco guitarist (d. 1972)", "1929 – Hermann Prey, German baritone (d. 1998)", "1931 – Thurston Harris, American singer (d. 1990)", "1943 – Oscar D'León, Venezuelan musician". There are more ... but do any of them feature in 2010 in classical music? I'm perplexed.

So, could you find something here, or in the remainder of that list, that might be of assistance to the reader, as required by the rules? In the absence of this, wikilinking becomes a nuisance to readers. Tony (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You do like to go over old ground, don’t you? It puzzles me that you can accept the usefulness of date links in some chronological articles, eg. 2010, but not in others, eg. 2010 in classical music. Although I don’t consider myself answerable to you, I will attempt to address your concerns.

I think the trap you are falling into is that of believing that everyone who consults Wikipedia does so with the same end goal in mind. Of course, everyone is looking for information, but their purpose in doing so can be one of many, and here are some examples:

1. Finding out or verifying a single fact, eg. In what year was Charles Dickens born?
2. Finding out more general details about a subject, eg. What tactics were used at the Battle of Waterloo?
3. Finding a reference for a fact, eg. Who first described Lord Byron as “mad, bad and dangerous to know”, and in what context?
4. Finding a definition, eg. You have come across the initials GSD. What might these initials stand for?

These are just the obvious ones, but many people use Wikipedia for other purposes, such as compiling quiz questions and crosswords. You could call these trivial but they play an increasing part in people’s leisure and are the way in which most ordinary people come across the individual facts that lead them to expand their knowledge on particular topics. “Serendipity” has always been an important factor in the learning process.

I’ve spent my whole career in the information business, and I personally find that the network of links is extremely useful for navigating between articles. I can go from Year in Music article to a composer to a list of his works, from there to an individual work, from there to who was present at the premiere and what date it was held on. Alternatively I can go to his date of birth (or I used to be able to) and find out who else had the same birthday – for example, the fact that William Shakespeare was born and died on St George’s Day is of interest to a majority of people. You may not agree that this is “useful”, but you are not the only person using this encyclopedia. With wikipedia’s help I once wrote an article about people who had the same birthday as Siegfried Sassoon, which was enjoyed by many. If I wanted to do this now I would not be able to jump quickly from article to article because of your mass removal of date links.

In the long term I believe we will be linking to the month and year articles (eg. 16 April 1963) rather than to the individual dates, as these are more helpful for putting events into their exact context, but the development of the month articles is still in its infancy and we don’t have this option as yet. To do this in a “year in topic” article will also mean a lot of piping, so it is really a very long-term project. I would personally like to see articles such as 16 April in music being developed, as the existing date articles like 16 April have outgrown their optimum length and are getting rather unwieldy, but at present this is not a priority.

It does rather puzzle me that you think links can be a major distraction. I often remove links that are materially misleading, and I would agree that, for example, the use of multiple links to the term painter in a “year in art” article is unhelpful; in fact I spend a lot of my time removing such links. Likewise, I do not think it is a good idea to link to a common word or placename in situations such as “Mr X went to Rome in 1625” (although it may be helpful to link to Rome if the city played a significant part in Mr X’s life story). Also, we need to remember that many of those using the English-language Wikipedia do not have English as their first language. There may be no article on “Rome” or “23 April”, for example, in their own language Wikipedia or in the Simple English version, so links can be very useful to them for setting things in context.

So you see we are not as different in our aims as you seem to think, and in many cases we want the same things. My purpose in updating the year in topic articles is always to improve them by adding information and making them easier to use. I hope that you can say the same. Deb (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Response. The tone has been and continues to be a touch belligerent and personalised, although interestingly you lose this during your post. All this "Although I don’t consider myself answerable to you" stuff, and "You do like to go over old ground, don’t you". I'll try to disregard that while asking that you reflect on this aspect of your language (at least as one person perceives it). Good will, at least on the surface, is required of both of us.

To respond to some of your points:

• "It puzzles me that you can accept the usefulness of date links in some chronological articles, eg. 2010, but not in others, eg. 2010 in classical music." I don't much accept that 12 March is relevant or useful to the readers as a link from the article 1999. But straight year, month, day–month, decade, century, and millennium articles were exempted from the proposal and decision three years ago, as a pragmatic compromise. So accept them we do. But even your colleague Arthur Rubin reluctantly concedes that "year in X" articles were not part of the deal. I can hunt down the diff for you if you wish.
• "Alternatively I can go to his date of birth (or I used to be able to) and find out who else had the same birthday – for example, the fact that William Shakespeare was born and died on St George’s Day is of interest to a majority of people." Well, I agree with everything you say about the goals of readers until that. But I'm puzzled: how is the St George's Day target inhibited or enabled in your example? Could you be specific?
• "but you are not the only person using this encyclopedia"—nor are you or is any other editor.
• "With wikipedia’s help I once wrote an article about people who had the same birthday as Siegfried Sassoon. ... If I wanted to do this now I would not be able to jump quickly from article to article because of your mass removal of date links.". I'm lost. Why aren't the links to these people aren't available at the month–day page for his birthday? (And if you're wondering, I don't think it's a very useful thing to do, but I won't object.)
• "In the long term I believe we will be linking to the month and year articles (eg. 16 April 1963) rather than to the individual dates, as these are more helpful for putting events into their exact context". Could you explain how a month–year article is useful? And if there were a case for this, doesn't it undermine your case that day–month links are useful?
• "I would personally like to see articles such as 16 April in music being developed, as the existing date articles like 16 April have outgrown their optimum length and are getting rather unwieldy, but at present this is not a priority". What, a list of what happened in music on 16 April in every year? I can't imagine why this would be useful. How?
• "the use of multiple links to the term painter in a “year in art” article is unhelpful; in fact I spend a lot of my time removing such links"—I'm glad to hear it.
• "we need to remember that many of those using the English-language Wikipedia do not have English as their first language"—well, if you don't know where Rome and Beijing and New Delhi are when you read en.WP, I guess you should do a crash course in the basics. Readers are expected to know the language and have a basic idea of the modern world. They can always type r o m e into the search box. That would take four actions in about as many seconds. I'm picking up from your second-last para a sense that readers are denied access to articles without an inline wikilink. Not so, as you know. Some of us had to resist an analogous default assumption at the old featured sound candidates that a file not promoted was a file denied, even though it was freely available at Commons. The point had to be made.

We both want wikilinking to be optimised, yes. Tony (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I’m disappointed, though not surprised, by this response. However, there is some satisfaction in knowing that I have responded courteously and comprehensively to your arguments and that I need not expend any further energy on the exercise.

I don’t know why you refer to Arthur Rubin as my colleague. I don’t know him, and he is no more my colleague than you are. Nor do I care whether he thinks that Year in Topic articles should or should not be classed as Year articles. It is blindingly obvious that they are “intrinsically chronological articles” – that is the entire purpose of their existence. To clarify:

• 1700 in music exists because there is not room in the 1700 article for all the entries apposite to that year. For the most recent years in music, the topic has already been split, eg. 2010 in classical music because it has become impossible to cram everything into 2010 in music.

• February 1973 exists because there is not room in the 1973 article for the entries apposite to every month of that year.

• 23 April in music is an option being considered to get around the problem that there is not room in the 23 April article for all the entries apposite to that date.

I don't have any more to say on this topic. Deb (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, you do need to keep engaging, because this issue is not going away.
  • "Nor do I care whether he thinks that Year in Topic articles should or should not be classed as Year articles"—That attitude, dismissive of other editors, needs to stop.
  • "1700 in music exists because there is not room in the 1700 article for all the entries apposite to that year." Could I have evidence of that reasoning, please? But even if it were discussed back years ago in a thread, once a broad, plain year article is fractionated into themed articles, it is no longer part of the deal that excludes articles explicitly on a chronological item (see the examples ...). On the other hand, February 1973 would appear to be covered, since it is about a month alone.
  • I would oppose the creation of tiny fractionations of themed articles such as you cite. The embracing theme is becoming just too far-fetched for reason (what happened in music on a certain day each year?).
  • Virtually the only Year-in-X articles that persist in these thousands of month–day links are the ones that you guard. They include the British Isles and related, music, art, and literature. They persist only because you stand guard reverting attempts to bring them into line with all of the other such articles, and into line with community consensus. There is no discussion—utterly none—concerning why those other articles do not link these chronological units. That fact underlines the original consensus. Tony (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)