DonkeyGoatFace

Any comments or questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch.

I don't bite. DonkeyGoatFace (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Hello, I'm ScrapIronIV. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Talk:Giorgi family have been reverted or removed because they could seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 14:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi ScrapIronIV: fair enough. Think it's relevant for a talk page, given claims made, but you've been on this longer than I have so I'll defer to your expertise. DonkeyGoatFace (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

To assist you, the appropriate policy is defined at this link and the section which addresses non-article space is here. Scr★pIron^IV 15:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edits

You seem to be using Wikipedia as a tool to disparage Aspect Consulting and anyone associated with it. I can't point to a single edit and say that it's inaccurate or unsourced, but the cumulative effect of your edits does not adhere to the ethos of WP:NPOV. You're rapidly approaching the limits of what may be considered acceptable.

Adding requests to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences while logged out, and adding to those same requests while logged in just 5 minutes later gives away your IP address (and concealing your IP address is part of the benefit, maybe the biggest benefit, of registering an account). Depending on what the truth is, carelessness or deceit, one of the following cautions is due :- {{uw-login}} or {{uw-agf-sock}}. Have a read and heed whichever seems appropriate or, better still, heed both.

Given that you'd already edited two related topics before editing the requested articles page my scope for assuming good faith is very limited. Cabayi (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed obviously irrelevant, disparaging and personal content from three pages. 10:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)ParisClementine (talk)

Proposed deletion of Aspect Consulting

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

Non-notable organization lacking in-depth, non-trivial support.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aspect Consulting

Hello DonkeyGoatFace,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Aspect Consulting for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

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

SamHolt6 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Aspect Consulting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aspect Consulting 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/Aspect Consulting (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aspect Consulting

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

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

A tag has been placed on Aspect Consulting requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Organiccovfefe (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DonkeyGoatFace, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Cabayi (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)