Jump to content

User talk:Deb/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2021 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest |

DEB YOU ARE SO ANNOYING GET A LIFE '



Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Wikipedia Page creation.

[edit]

Hello, I am Aditya Dhungana. I am a Musician, Web Developer, and Graphic Designer from Nepal. I do have a google knowledge panel and an official YouTube Artist channel. Could you help me create a page? Am I eligible?


Regards, Aditya Dhungana Adityadhungana (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Adityadhungana It doesn't sound like you meet the criteria for inclusion. Even if you did, you should not write an article about yourself. And even if that didn't matter, I wouldn't do it for you - you need to learn how to use Wikipedia before you start creating articles. Deb (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Deb for replying. I understand it now. Adityadhungana (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East Venture Partners (Deletion of draft)

[edit]

Dear Deb,

Thank you for your support and sending the "external link" link.

I would now like to edit my draft and make it follow all Wikipedia guidelines. In order to do so, it would be great if you could please undelete the draft so that I can start editing it again. (Unfortunately, It was the only saved version I had)

Thank you for understanding.

Wikipro2397 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC) wikipro2397 Wikipro2397 - Sorry, but I don't restore G11s unless there is some very important reason. There are other admins who may be willing to do so. Deb (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venktesh Shukla draft page

[edit]

Hi Deb, can you please tell me how I find the "Venktesh Shukla" page that was deleted, so that I can compare the content? It did not show up when I created this page and I can't find it now. I do a fair amount of editing, but never had to look for a deleted page. Thank you, Mukis (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Mukis Unfortunately only administrators can look at deleted versions of a page, and it's not really easy to compare. I just noted that the same achievements were listed - which is not surprising - but if you want a more in-depth comparison, I haven't really got time to go over it line by line. There's nothing to stop you submitting the draft for review as it stands and you will probably get helpful comments from more experienced editors. Deb (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb, oh, no wonder I couldn't find the draft. And yes, there would naturally be some overlap in core content, if not how it's rendered. I definitely never would ask you to do any comparison yourself!
FYI, Today I got feedback from John B123 who initially flagged it, made a number of deletions per his direction, and asked for his quick reaction to the updated version -- he sounded happy with the changes.
I will submit this updated Venktesh Shukla draft for review tomorrow unless you spot any flags of your own that you want me to fix first. As always, thanks for your help! - Mukis (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from WikiProject Articles for Creation!

[edit]
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Congratulations! You have earned The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar for reviewing 57 drafts during the WikiProject Articles for creation July 2021 Backlog Drive. Thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia!
On behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation, Enterprisey (talk!) 00:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:05:15, 9 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Drewolarenshaw

[edit]


I am somewhat unclear on exactly what is required for this page to be published, though I appreciate you were correct in noting that article requires more context for readers not familiar with the subject.

Hence, I have included additional second party sources along with further context on the program, it's background, and connections.

If this updated version does not meet the standards required, are you able to lend me your expertise and specify what more is required in more detail?

Thanks

Drewolarenshaw (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:22:53, 10 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Drewolarenshaw

[edit]


Thanks for your feedback!

I have amended all the section from "Collegian's Women's" to "Collegians Women's". I have also declared a conflict of interest as the author. The only issue I am having is that I cannot see where I can locate the draft name to exclude the "'" in Collegian's Women's (sic). It seems this version is also still pending review so I will not need to resubmit at this stage - is that correct?

Drewolarenshaw (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems as though you have already re-submitted it. Deb (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Nelligan

[edit]

Thanks for the feedback on my first article about Nelligan. I tried to redo the intro again but may be light on experience even though I did read through the standards. I feel it is 'academic' and factual but if you have more guidance it is appreciated. QuebecQue (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YEAR RFC

[edit]

Don't restore the Prince & Princess of Wales to those articles. There was a CLEAR UNDISPUTED consensus to delete them. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay - If you want that to stand, don't take unilateral action to make changes for which there is no consensus. Respect the outcome of the discussion you started. Deb (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your resistance to having the British monarch in Welsh Year articles, while they're in the Scottish, English & Northern Irish Year articles, is odd to me. But, there was a clear consensus to removing the prince/princess of Wales from the Welsh Year articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay - I suggested a solution to that, which you've chosen not to adopt. The standard format for Year in Wales articles has been in existence for many years and there is no consensus to add the British monarch, so please remove any that you have added. Deb (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to remove the British monarchs, all the way back to 1700? go ahead. But don't re-add the prince/princess of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, why are you so determined not to abide by the result of a discussion you started? Deb (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there was no consensus to add or delete the British monarch from English/Welsh/NI/Scottish Year articles. But there certainly was a consensus to delete the prince/princess of Wales from the Welsh Year articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm doing the task of undoing your restorations of the prince/princess of Wales, per RFC. I won't object if you delete the British monarchs from the Welsh Year articles, based on that they weren't included in the Welsh Year articles from the beginning - thus implementing the no consensus per status-quo basis. Likewise, I will not object, if you delete the British monarchs from the Scottish/English/Norther Irish Year articles - even though that would go against their status-quo. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait a month or two. Then will open an RFC likely at WP:WALES, as there seems to be nobody calling for the deletion of the British monarchs from the YEAR in England, Scotland & Northern Ireland articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's very likely no one in England will call for it. However, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are four very different countries, with four different methods of government. Deb (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the others alone. The RFC will only be for the Welsh Year articles, which are currently out-of-sync, from the E/S/NI Year articles. Meanwhile, would you mind helping me out with @AlwynapHuw:? I'm finding his actions/re-actions/posts/edit summaries, all quite perplexing. GoodDay (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's confused by your recent actions, as am I. Deb (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing for you to be confused about. I haven't re-added the monarchs, even though the RFC doesn't tell me I shouldn't or should. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, when I open the RFC on whether or not to include the monarch, in the Year in Wales articles. I'll contact you (per curtesy), as you were/are the main opposition to such an addition. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You likely already have WP:WALES on you watchlist. Anyways, I've opened up the promised RFC, there. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My primary goal is consistency. Relieved that you weren't against contacting all the other WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You already know this. But anyways, I've pinged the RFC closer about your refusal to accept his consistency consensus ruling. GoodDay (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wait for a clarification from the RFC-closer, since we're reading his decision differently. Meanwhile, I'm in the process (at my sandbox) of beginning a new RFC, that will cover all the UK Year in constituent country articles. You're free to chip in. GoodDay (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised. I've opened an RFC at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics (for more input), as to whether to 'keep' or 'delete' the monarch at the post-1707 Year in Scotland, post-1707 Year in England, all post-1282 Year in Wales, all Year in Northern Ireland & pre-1922 Year in Ireland articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: You forgot to sign your 'survey'. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with editor

[edit]

Hi Deb, I'm having a problem with an editor while patron new pages. I found a copyright violation on Salad dressing, removed it and tagged it for rev del. The editor in question (Wikiuser100) reverted the tagging because he believed it to be about some image on the article. Their editing style is rather confrontational and I do not want to edit war with them. Could you have a look at the page and the editor for me? Thank you and best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generation 9/11 (film) A7 deletion

[edit]

Hello, can you explain the A7 deletion of the article I created Generation 9/11 (film)? According to the criterion for speedy deletion A7: “ it does not apply to articles about albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), products, books, films, TV programmes, software, or other creative works, nor to entire species of animals.” I don’t see how the articles about the film in Variety, Salon, Town & Country can be seen as not credible sources. Thriley (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thriley You're obliged to make a claim of notability, i.e. to say why the film is notable. You've made no attempt to do that. I warned you about moving drafts to article space before they were ready. I can recreate the article in draft space, as I did before, but don't attempt to move it to article space until you've submitted it for review. Deb (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please recreate it. I’ll see what I can dig up. Regarding its deletion, How is A7 a way to delete? Films are not listed under it. Thriley (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I can find another way if you prefer. Deb (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m asking a serious question. I would have rather you nominated it for deletion than, what appears to be, an incorrect use of A7. Thriley (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's starting to look like a duplicate of an existing article, Children of 9/11: Our Story. Deb (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello, can you type the names and add links "[[]]" to the governors and vice governors names of their states to the years 1890-2021, I can't do all of them, please can you help me? 190.122.20.30 (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, can you type the names and add links "[[]]" to the governors names of their states to the years 1829-2021, I can't do all of them, please can you help me? 190.122.20.30 (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In time... Deb (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enquiry on a recently protected article "Derek Que"

[edit]

Hello Deb, this is Benny writing in concern with the recent deletion and protection of the article Derek Que. I am a working associate with Derek and last week I sent a request for re-creation of his page which was deleted years ago. Upon reviewing his page i found numerous problems in word use and descriptive format that would potentially fail to meet the neutral standard that wikipedia demands. I was originally planning to make changes to the page and possibly even re-write the entire thing, but before which I sent out the publish-for-review request without familiarising myself with the rules here in Wikipedia, that was a mistake and it makes sense that the request was declined. But I must insist that Derek is a notable photographer at least here in Hong Kong, his work in artistic photography have received quite a lot of attention from the media and was exhibited in the Hong Kong Art Centre in some recent years, I believe with proper updates, edits and sufficient references, the page Derek Que would properly meet the standard of Wikipedia and his work would be recognised again. It would be more than helpful if the protection upon Derek Que can be lifted for a second chance to proper edition. Thanks again.

Benny Phim123 (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211


Online events:


Special event:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dev (Bengali actor)

[edit]

Hello, would you mind reverting the last two edits to Dev (Bengali actor), since you're presently dealing with the serial self-publicist who made them? Thanks. 2A01:4C8:A8:CC79:DAB:5CBD:E007:C1E4 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My patience is now wearing thin?

[edit]

"None of this makes any difference whatsoever to the point I was making. My patience is now wearing thin. Can we please focus on the matter in hand, i.e. whether this is a reliable source or not? Deb (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)'

You started decided to bring up the Hitler diaries. You misrepresented what I said.

I replied then suddenly you reply with: "My patience is now wearing thin." ?

We are all anonymous here. It costs us nothing to admit we were wrong. I have in the discussion thread.

Really Deb I am lost.

Yes, not a good source. As are other sources in the article that are as bad. All bad sources should be removed.

You have supported their removal in the past but (as far as I recall) failed to do so based on wikipedia policies.

Wikipedia policies should rule us all.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archived user talk page

[edit]

Hello Deb, your username appears at the Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles as an archived page User talk:Deb/Archive 25. You may want to uncategorize the archive page, and add your username instead if you still belong to the category. Jay (Talk) 10:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Deb (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangtutrangdaiphat‎

[edit]

Did you see all the other sock accounts created at the same time as Bangtutrangdaiphat‎ (talk · contribs)? I reported them at WP:UAA 10mmsocket (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Deb (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cy Wikipedia sockpuppet policy

[edit]

Hi, does the cy Wikipedia have a sockpuppet policy, as I haven't been able to find it? This is for my curiosity rather than the current SPI, which it wouldn't be relevant to. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hero

[edit]

Love You NoGodGood (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fragmentary and contradictory

[edit]

Hi,

It wasn't meant to suggest that it didn't exist, infact text to say that it did exist would be a good addition.

Martin used fragmentary and contradictory here "https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Welsh_Not#Thanks"

So maybe it should say...

So whilst the Welsh Not certainly existed the evidence we have of when and were is fragmentary and possibly contradictory.

on the contradictory side Martin says the most reports are in the mid 19c whilst the inquiry only found 1 example and then we have the Anglesay info that suggests a 'short time' whatever that means and prior to 1870. If a short time is say 5 years then there isn't an overlap.

I'm easy on the contradictory but think we should definately include fragmentary.

So maybe...

"So whilst the Welsh Not certainly existed the evidence we have of when and were is fragmentary."

also I left the space between that and the first claim because I didn't want to privilage one report over the other.

Thanks

Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NoGodGood Me Head The State Wikipedia Create In China

[edit]

Me Head The State Wikipedia Create In China Friends Wikipedia NoGodGood (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usa

[edit]

Me Is Friends Is Deb RedMoneyPro (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: FYI, see also this harrassing edit. I have removed it as vandalism and left another 3rd level warning their user talk: [1]. Also, compare usernames and behaviour of
RedMoneyPro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HowNoDog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
But perhaps too early for an SPI. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not too early. But plenty of justification for me to block them all without that. Deb (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- DVdm (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arix Speedy Deletion

[edit]

Hello, I am not connected with Arix. I didn't know this company at all until a few days ago. It's a wrong statement you left on my TP. Although a quite new user, the Speedy Deletion request seemed to be in my estimation unjustified. Can I remove the tag from my user page? And what should I have done differently? The article didn't seem promotional to me. Company seemed to be notable. And I just used the information available from Reuters and other sources. More details here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Orbit_Wharf - Thanks! --Cucina11 (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing a deleted article

[edit]

Putri Sistha (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Hi, I'm Putri. I just realized that you deleted my article yesterday because you think it's promotional. I've read the NPOV and am still not sure which part of my article sounds like an advertisement. I want to re-write the topic with the same title, could you tell me where the problem was?[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About article "Cris Pinciroli" deleted

[edit]

Hi, Deb.

My name is Piero, and I am the author of the article about Cris Pinciroli, which you rejected and excluded. The article I made was a translation of an existing article on Wikipedia in Portuguese. How can I get the translation of this article approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierobarcellos (talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to create a new version of the article in draft, this time following the project guidelines. Deb (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy page deletion

[edit]

Hello Deb,

I got my draft deleted as Speedy deletion without assisting on how could i make it again to get it published. Kindly assist,

Page name was 'Neo Paints' Draft user: Tanzila07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoPaints (talk • contribs) 07:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been explained on your Talk page. Deb (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:50:55, 17 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Essgee Haitch

[edit]


Hello Deb, thank you for your feedback. I need more specific guidance about what can be changed in this article to make it sound less like an advertisement and more neutral. If you could point out the phrases or sentences, I can change them from there. I understand the need for more outside sources/reviews about the work and will ask for more of those.

Also, I read the Conflict of Interest you linked, and see that I need to clarify that I am being paid to submit the articles. It's a little confusing exactly where this needs to be amended, but I understand the formatting will look like this:

Please advise.

Essgee Haitch (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Essgee Haitch Essgee Haitch (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, please make the declaration and read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for further guidance, or ask a question at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Deb (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declination of Salomé Robert-Murphy Page

[edit]

Hi, Deb. I wanted to reach out because I'm curious how to make the draft for Salomé Robert-Murphy's page better. I noticed recently the lack of pages for immigrant actors and actresses based in New York City and Salomé's page was the first of my attempts towards shining that light on immigrant talent. I'm an expert in film and TV and have been able to take notice of these underrepresented people thanks to my participation in film festivals across the country. This is a big step, in my opinion, and I'd love to do it right. So, how can I make this page (and future pages) more compelling and ready for Wikipedia? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Zero ZeroEdits (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting others

[edit]

Please do not misrepresent the positions of others as you did to me, here. I presented my position in a technical request as appropriate for a technical request of that kind. Had I wanted to present a formal RM I would have done that, and with a different argument. Next time you want to challenge a technical request, note your disagreement at the request. Don’t create a formal RM that looks as if the tech requester did it. Thank you. —В²C ☎ 19:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Born2cycle: Just to let you know if you don't want the discuss link in the request add the "|discuss=no" parameter. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. It should be the default. Or at least included in the template so you don’t have to remember. —В²C ☎ 22:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it would be too much to expect an apology? Deb (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather confused Born2cycle, by your actions. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't want to have a discussion on the matter - that's the point. Deb (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He'll be in the middle of one (an RM), next month. Like it or not. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t want to start a formal RM discussion with the argument I made at the technical request which focused exclusively on the timing of the revert I was seeking to revert. A formal RM discussion would need to present a complete argument addressing all the merits for a title change. I’ve updated the template to include information about “discuss = yes/no” option. —-В²C ☎ 14:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping disruptive user BedStarCar

[edit]

Hi Deb, At has been a while since we were in touch. The reason I am contacting you is that at this moment a new user BedStarCar is making disruptive edits to the monthly deaths pages and to article Deaths in 1996. I suspect it is the same user as HowNoDog that you blocked two days ago. What is the best way to deal with this? I do not have a lot of experience dealing with this behaviour and it costs a lot of time on my end correcting all the pages. Cheers, Mill 1 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The pages need protection but I don't suppose that will stop them. I'll do what I can. Deb (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deb,
Since the last sockpuppet was blocked things seemed to have quiet down. I monitor those pages closely so if he's back I'll let you know. Thx Mill 1 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Deb (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb, I think we have a new one: Special:Contributions/GeorgeBestHow. He/she hasn't been warned yet but the writing is on the wall.

Requesting reasons why the article was marked promotional and deleted.

[edit]

Hi Deb,

I have recently published an article on "S-Ancial Technologies". However, wiki has marked it as promotional and later, you have deleted it for the same reason.

I would like to know what exactly sounded promotional in the article so that I can make appropriate changes. All the article had was about the history of the company and the product offerings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShahiAakanksha (talk • contribs) 08:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you haven't responded to my request for you to declare your conflict of interest. Please address that first. Deb (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added COI declaration to my user talk page. ShahiAakanksha (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)ShahiAakanksha[reply]
The whole thing, the draft too, reads like it came from the company website. Please don't ask us to provide word-by-word analyses. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretend you know nothing about the company. Then see what you can find about the company published by WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Then write a draft article based only on that information. Then find an experienced WP editor to review it and, if approved, post it in article space. —В²C ☎ 14:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bazaart

[edit]

Hello. I have edited and re-edited this article in accordance with previous comments. Would you please point me to any section that still reads like an advertisement? Thank you in advance. TheMoonRider (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"After returning from New York, the Bazaart team noticed users were not using the app exclusively for..." Who cares? Take the proprietors' voice out of the article. Deb (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you again. TheMoonRider (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Tissue heterogeneity

[edit]

Thanks dear Deb for your comments on tissue heterogeneity. I expanded the article, and added a link to it in the topic of cellular deconvolution. Let me know what else I can do to improve the quality of the draft. Thank you for reviewing it. Seemu (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:02:46, 26 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by HistoryofJournalism

[edit]


Dear Deb, This notice is about https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Bernard_Fernandez_(Journalist)

I just received notice that the Wikipedia page for Bernard Fernandez's page was declined for looking like an advertisement. I am confused by this. Bernard Fernandez is one of the most respected journalists in the boxing industry and a 2020 Boxing Hall of Fame inductee. Some of his contemporaries have Wikipedia pages that say the same thing. In fact, I used one of them to decide what to include on his page. I don't see any language on Bernard Fernandez's page that appears to be an advertisement or promotion, only facts and statements about his notable history as a writer and some facts about his personal background for future references. Every piece of information is public and verifiable.

Bernard Fernandez is retired but he is mentioned in a number of books on boxing, including the most recent best selling boxing book by J Russell Peltz, who also has a Wikipedia page. The first section of Bernard Fernandez's Wikipedia page points out that he is a sports journalist. The second section tells his family history. The third is his personal life. The fourth shows awards and honors, notability, and contributions to society and the boxing industry. Where is the advertisement? This page provides the basics about his history as a sports writer and the history of his life as a journalist. The first decline did not mention this as an issue, it mentioned that linked sources were missing. They are now included. This is not an advertisement. It is simply a list of his accomplishments, background, and current status.

I will resubmit WITHOUT any information that references his book - which must be the only thing that you could be referring to as an advert. But it is an odd omission since it is a compilation of his sports articles published by different publications for the past 40 years (apropos to his history as a sports journalist). But if you feel this renowned journalist might benefit from a listing of his book on his Wikipedia page, consider it removed. I just think it omits an important part of his history to sports and the boxing industry. Bear in mind, he is so important to journalism that George Foreman himself wrote the foreword for Bernard Fernandez's book. Google "Bernard Fernandez boxing" - he is regularly searched for and sought out so clearly there is a need for information about his background. This Wikipedia page was not set up as an advertisement. With the number of articles and information about Bernard Fernandez on the internet, he is not lacking attention or coverage. This Wikipedia page was posted as convenient location for readers to locate his history. It just seems odd for a person with his history in the boxing industry for Bernard Fernandez not to have a basic Wikipedia page. The requirements for a Wikipedia page is notability. He has that. What is the issue? This process was a lot harder than it needed to be. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3300575580026230 Again, every piece of information is verifiable. There is no need to call history "advertisement.

HistoryofJournalism (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofJournalism - You seem to be confusing notability and neutrality - something that often happens with inexperienced editors, especially when they concentrate on a single topic. As I commented during the review, it would be helpful for you to get some practice editing articles rather than plunging straight in to trying to create one from scratch. There are plenty of instructional pages to help you achieve the appropriate tone. A tip: Take a look at what you've written above and decide whether it sounds like something that you would find in an encyclopedia or something you might find in an advertisement. Deb (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing January 5 1911’s edit

[edit]

Deb, removing my edit, you are annoying and it’s not funny.


Belgian lawyer founded Qasr El Nile Club (now known as Zamalek SC) on January 5 1911 and you keep moving my edit. Mr. Cookie544 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Arun Pathak

[edit]

You deleted Arun Pathak. Can you please do Wikipedia:Userfication on it? I made the article and want to see what the issue was. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I arranged revision deletion of the problematic content and re-published the article.
Can you please also restore Talk:Arun Pathak? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry - Done, though I'm not sure it's what you really wanted. Deb (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had no idea if there was content there. It is what I wanted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jose María Capitán

[edit]

Hi Deb.

I have no connection with the specific person in the article, it is a direct translation of an article from Spanish Wikipedia. Perhaps my language (my native language is Spanish) leads to a misinterpretation of the text. In any case, I am afraid that the article has already been deleted and that it cannot even be modified to conform to the request. --Miros Dursselev (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Lavernier

[edit]

Dear Deb, I am not connected with this person but I have read and seen a lot of his artistic career, in this case I ask you: how can I behave? do you think it is better to delete the created entry? it was not meant to be an article to advertise. I thought it might be suitable if you, who have more experience than me, think that this is not the case, I help you to delete it if you deem it appropriate. this is the link https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Christian%20Lavernier Thanks --Kastalia81 (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:SciChart. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and will be reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Please assume WP:GOODFAITH as you state at the top of your page and do not WP:BITE. Deletion without consensus is vandalism. Having reviewed other pages for charting software I don't view this page as promotional. Given you are from Wales you should understand the value of a company receiving a Queens Award. Given the field of operation this meets criteria for an entry. Open to discussion but do not edit war or act without discussion and consensus. Thanks. Amicaveritas (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC) Amicaveritas (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So block me. Deb (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm asking is that you refrain from arbitrary decisions with out reference to consensus, consideration of the importance to the field and similar articles already in existence. I don't think this is unreasonable, is it? Amicaveritas (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso Calderon

[edit]

Hello Deb, I was considering nominating the page about this activist for deletion and I wanted to say that I agree with what was said on the talk page. However, I don't have experience with nominating articles for deletion so I wanted to ask if you're interested in participating in such an attempt. --Killuminator (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Killuminator - Thanks for this message. However, I'm not sure that a nomination for deletion would be successful. It might be better to wait a while. He doesn't seem to have done anything since 2018 and if he doesn't come back into the news we can try another time. Deb (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcointalk

[edit]

Hi, I'm ZenulAbidin2k, one of the contributors to the now-deleted Bitcointalk Wiki page. I see it was deleted because of repeated vandalism/speedy deletion.

This article was also vandalized a few days ago, by the IP address User_talk:179.125.142.194.

As you can see, I had already put them on User warning 2 (as this user had previously vandalized this page so it did not merit a level 1 warning). Unfortunately I did not see if this user caused the vandalism that caused this page to be deleted, otherwise I would've put him on a Level 3 warning.

On the "Request for page protections page", I had requested an increase of the protection level for this page to "required autoconfirmed or confirmed access" a few days before this incident, but this request was denied by another admin in favor of warning the user or filing an abuse report instead.

The speedy deletion reinforces my belief that the Bitcointalk article should be re-created but with autoconfirm protections, as it is clear that the article keeps getting vandalized (possibly by the same person).

--Zenulabidin2k (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • Zenulabidin2k - In principle, yes, but it is hard to identify an older version that I would call "good". I don't think the way it was before the vandalism would have got it past a review, so I think you should create a draft. Deb (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tom McLaren-Actor/Author Page

[edit]

Deb - your comment for declining the page is that most of the references are in regards to the subject's father. But in fact, only reference #26 out of the 29 citations is an article about the subject's father. Can you please take another look at the submission, I would greatly appreciate your help on this. Thank you. TerryLange (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TerryLange Okay, references 2, 20 and 25 are also primarily concerned with the author's father. Some of the other references I can't look at because they are behind a paywall. Sites like Fandom and IMDb don't count towards notability because they are unreliable sources and there is even still an external link in the text which you need to remove. It's clear that the "actor" aspect of McLaren's life has been unremarkable, with a few minor roles in little-known films, hence the comment from a previous reviewer that most of the articles referenced just contain passing mentions of his name. Some, e.g. #8, don't even have that. There's an awful lot of work to be done if you want to get a draft through review. Deb (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy

[edit]

Need your help before editing

[edit]

Hi, I edited a part of Draft:Benjamin_Lemaire that you declined as Ewingglads (lost my password, sorry :D) I see that part of the content is not really encyclopedic but I'd like to know more about npov. I didn't know about "peacock" and I want to be sure what part is problematic for you. For instance I'm pretty sure that "ace communicator", even quoted from a media is not really relevant, but "community manager to the stars" is told by like 10 sources, just like ranking as "best blogger". Can you please tell more ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conanbarks (talk • contribs) 12:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission of Draft:Automatic Simultaneous Translation

[edit]

Hello, I have overhauled the Draft:Automatic Simultaneous Translation according to your comments. Could you please give guidance, whether the draft is now in line with the Wikipedia:No original research guidelines? Thanks and best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fox2.river (talk • contribs) 11:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Fox2.river - It's certainly much better. I cannot of course guarantee that another reviewer will find it suitable for inclusion. Deb (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 at Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ankit yadav 529

[edit]

Thank you for blocking at least one of these and deleting the refuse. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Kostiantyn Magaletskyi (Deletion of draft)

[edit]

Dear Deb, I have recently created an article which was later deleted due to alleged "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" I want to rewrite this article so that it will not be deleted. Can I do this? Maybe you have some tips for me. Thanks. Pomidoro1980 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

stronghands blockchain deletion

[edit]

Hello Mr. Deb, this a historical record of a decentralized community cryptocurrency, it's not for advertising. can you help us to adequate the article? can we move to sandbox until is properly made?

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexorbit (talk • contribs) 10:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. You have a history of creating promotional pages, and your use of the words "us" and "we" suggests that more than one person is using your Wikipedia account, which is not allowed. Please read and abide by the guidelines. Deb (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
come on. i've tried 2 times in the past to create pages. i am not a expert and the subject is totally different. also is not true that is another person using my account. if you can check i recently log in with a single ip, you can't acuse me of that. as i said, i want to adequate the article, i have a right to register a encyclopaedic information, because is relevant, decentralized and despite the actors involved, there are thousands of people who hold and follow the community and the information can be verified. this is not for advertise purposes since we really don't need that, there's not a economical interest behind that, i ask you please to not take a personal view, and please give a chance to adequate the article. there is not a single "us" or "we" word in the article. even once. i'm sorry but it looks personal. it's not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexorbit (talk • contribs) 12:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions for you:

  1. Why do you keep saying "we" if there is only one of you?

because we are a community. this is a work made by many hands, we are a team of volunteers. i often use an expression "we" because it represents a team work.

  1. What makes you think you "have a right" to create an article?

why not? Isn't this a free community? anyone has the right to propose an encyclopedic article isn't that true? It is relevant information, and of social value.

  1. Why have you not learned any lessons from having all your previous articles deleted because you didn't follow the guidelines?

maybe you are right. however as you can see, this article was carefully written to meet the requirements. if I made any mistakes, I want to fix them. I believe in free information, and I am willing to make the necessary adaptations so that the article meets all requirements. I need guidance, if you can help me, I appreciate it. re-evaluating the text, I believe I can remove the information about the exchanges. I can make all the necessary corrections, I just want to register public information of social and historical value.

  1. Why didn't you begin with small edits to existing articles, as is recommended for inexperienced users? Deb (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't notice that instruction, i just login, and created the article. i didn't had an intention to commit any mistakes, as i said, i need guidance. i spend the last 4 days adapting the article to avoid any misinformation.

These responses tell me that you are not ready to start creating articles for Wikipedia. Please read and follow the guidelines before making any future edits. Deb (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles declined

[edit]

Dear Deb,

I am somewhat unclear on exactly what is required for this page (Europass_Teacher_Academy) to be published. I have written this page following the same structure of other articles already published. The beginning follows the one of Harvard University:

"Europass Teacher Academy is a private provider of professional development courses for teachers. Founded in Florence in 2009 from the Europass Italian Language School, it mainly operates within the Erasmus+ Key Action 1 (KA1), where, with 7'000 teachers trained per year, is the largest provider."

"Harvard University is a private Ivy League research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Founded in 1636 as Harvard College and named for its first benefactor, the Puritan clergyman John Harvard, it is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States and among the most prestigious in the world.[6]"

All the article had was about the history of the company, and a basic introduction to the product offerings, and to its accreditations.

I haven't found external articles about the history of the company, but I think it's plenty of evidence that the company exists and does what the article says. You can have a look at the number of reviews on social media as proof.

Erasmus+ platform (comparing the number of the reviews with the ones of other providers you'll see we are the largest provider. The UE doesn't release a document where you can verify it directly): https://www.schooleducationgateway.eu/en/pub/profile.cfm?do=organisation&id=293 Google profiles (several have only a few months, but already dozens of reviews): https://www.google.com/maps/place//data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x132a55f4c5266fd1:0x4fc8101a9a8edaa6?source=g.page.share https://www.google.com/maps/place/Europass+Teacher+Academy/@43.7688421,11.2567167,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x132a55e61c3bb0f7:0x4e30fbd40710f4e9!8m2!3d43.7688256!4d11.2589362?shorturl=1 https://www.google.it/maps/place/Europass+Teacher+Academy/@41.3904084,2.1772851,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xf651c2268f6850ca!8m2!3d41.3880419!4d2.1670712?hl=it&shorturl=1 https://www.google.it/maps/place/Europass+Teacher+Academy/@53.3348889,-6.2397971,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x8a33ab900f44e793!8m2!3d53.33442!4d-6.2409808?hl=it&shorturl=1 Facebook reviews (more than 200): https://www.facebook.com/europassteacheracademy/reviews

Since it's a big company, I think it's relevant to Wikipedia.

I have seen you have also deleted the page of the Italian Language School. Even there the description was based on the structure of the description of other schools. I see no difference with the articles published by smaller and less relevant schools (just to give you an example:Istituto_di_Lingua_e_Cultura_Michelangelo)

I would need more specific guidance about what can be changed in this article to make it sound less like an advertisement and more neutral. If you could point out the phrases or sentences, I can change them from there.

Best regards, Andrea — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaMerloAlbenga (talk • contribs) 13:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the structure of the article. Your references were inadequate and mostly not even independent (don't even think about using Facebook as a source for references; it's not acceptable). "Plenty of evidence that the company exists" does not contribute in any way to demonstrating notability. Moreover, you clearly have a conflict of interest which you have failed to disclose as yet. I'm really surprised that anyone who works in the field of education should try to write an article without understanding the purpose of Wikipedia or taking note of the guidelines. Deb (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Ishbia Article Deletion

[edit]

I would like to work on this article and prove notability--is it possible to have it restored as a draft somehow so I can keep improving it?

Enchantingbear (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

[edit]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:The Diver (2000 short film)

[edit]

Hello Deb. Thanks for the comments! I’ve now checked sources and edited text as neutral point-of-view as possible. As this film is critically acclaimed and awarded in well-known international film festivals, critical reviews are naturally positive. I have used quotations from sources which are respected and independent. These are Variety film guide and world's largest documentary film festival (IDFA). My own interest is creative films, especially shorts. I’ve worked on different tasks in art festivals and organizations over a decade in Finland and Sweden. Best,Ruutanaonki (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ballroom Marfa Deletion

[edit]

Dear Deb, thank you for your comments! I recently created an article for "Ballroom Marfa" which was deleted due to "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." I would very much appreciate access to the deleted material for future reference, and so that I will not repeat previous mistakes. I will be returning to the Wikipedia guidelines before making any further edits on Wikipedia. Thank you for your oversight on this.Zoeroden (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Thank you for your message. Perhaps you could explain exactly what you would like me to do differently and I will endeavour to do it. I have been adding sources, even where the article does not have them, of late in line with a previous request of yours, although it seems to me of very dubious value.Rcb1 (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)rcb1[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]
Merry Christmas, Deb!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 23:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

January 2022 Women in Red

[edit]
Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

  • Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month.
Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Merchandise giveaway nomination

[edit]
A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi Deb! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Aguilar Pages 1918, 1997

[edit]

Just wondering, why did you take Aguilar out from both pages? You only included him on the 1997 in Mexico page, like why? Aguilar was an international figure and deserves his own recognition, in any case why not the same with John Denver, or Lillian Disney. Makes no sense, greetings. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheBellaTwins1445 - You've done a lot of work on Year and Day of Year pages and you are aware that all entries must have a citation to back up the date. Any historic entries that don't have one are in the process of being removed and new entries will be removed immediately. If you check the article for Luis Aguilar you'll see that it's an unreferenced stub. If you want him included, I suggest you improve that article, add references, and ensure that you provide citations for his dates of birth and death. Deb (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

[edit]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

[edit]

For your kind words on my talkpage. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Hinduism in LATVIA" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hinduism in LATVIA and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#Hinduism in LATVIA until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

extended confirmed user reversal

[edit]

Hi Deb. Belated New Year Greetings. Hope you are keeping well. Last few months I had been working hard to improve Wikipedia forum as per Wikipedia guidelines without consciously making promotional edits. Can I request you to reverse the tag back to extended Confirmed User to avoid wrong tagging in future. Thanking you in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed_user

[edit]

Hi Deb. Thanks a lot for this favour. Looking forward to work with you and make Wikipedia platform accessable and dependable to all. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating the page Oqimta - deleted in 2013

[edit]

Dear Deb,

I was about to compose the page Oqimta, and I see now that you've deleted a similar page in 2013. The page is about an academic and free-access journal dealing with rabbinic literature. I suppose that in 2013 there was a good reason to delete it, since it was new and unrecognized. 8 years later, with 8 annually issues and academic recognition, I think it's it deserves a page (it has an Hebrew page, being a bi-lingual journal). (in the field of rabbinic literature it's something ;) )

Sending you a link to the journal if you like, http://www.oqimta.org.il/english/HomePage.aspx

Plz let me know if we can for forward.

I can also send you the text to pre-examine. (it's not a long one...)

Regards, Toraumada (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam I Gordon

[edit]

I wanted clarity on why a page describing the contributions of Adam Gordon to the property development, architecture, etc has been deleted. There were numerous references and no external links to promotion or product. This was a simple write up for yet another entrepreneur and leader-- many of his peers are on Wikipedia, all referenced the same way BDavidsonBlue (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BDavidsonBlue The article to which you refer contained promotional wording ("helped define living in 21st-century New York"; "iconic"; "internationally prominent"; etc) and breached the neutral point of view policy. This sentence: "Wildflower LTD creates innovative, sustainable, and socially beneficial physical infrastructure in New York City by fusing design, entrepreneurship, and community engagement" reads like it was copied directly from a sales brochure. In addition, the article did not follow the Wikipedia guidelines on article naming or citing sources. We advise inexperienced users to go through the Wikipedia:Articles for Creation review process for this reason. Furthermore, you haven't declared your conflict of interest, which is essential. It actually seems like you haven't looked at any of the guidelines and have just winged it. Deb (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Deb, I appreciate all of this useful information BDavidsonBlue (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deb. Thankyou for reviewing my article and for your feedback. I now know what i should have done different and how to better improve my article. Since it has been deleted how can i get it retrieved so as i can keep working on it. Thank you! Lisajoer (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Lisajoer - I won't restore article text that has been deleted for advertising. The best thing you can do is to start again from scratch. Deb (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, Thank you so much for being extremely helpful. Lisajoer (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

notifiability and verifiability

[edit]

Greetings,

I read the Wiki guidelines, and the research described here is both notable and verifiable. It has been published in a number of academic journals. Please see the list of references and explain further why these are not considered sufficient.Ecocharlie (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

middle out perspective

[edit]

We are new to Wikipedia, happy to learn what the expected format is. But there seem to be two versions of the page now. The one that was moved to our user page and one that is still available on Wikipedia. The page on Wikipedia has been altered, and we would prefer to use the talk page associated with that version of the work. I wanted to initiate a talk page there, but it said that I should contact you since it was deleted and moved. I don't know why there are now two versions, but the version we are working on to further comply with wikipedia's guidelines is the one there.Ecocharlie (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ecocharlie - the reason there were two versions of the page is that you created a new one immediately after I informed you that the article had been moved to your user space (and explained why). So I have now moved the new one to your user space. Please understand the following:

  1. User IDs are for one person only. So please don't think of it as something for your team to use. If others want to contribute, they need to get their own IDs.
  2. The article as you created it is not complete. If you wanted to recreate it, you should have put it in draft so it could be reviewed by more experienced users before going into the encyclopedia.
  3. You've admitted to a COI but you haven't declared it in accordance with the guidelines. Those with a conflict of interest are discouraged from editing articles on topics with which they have a close association. Since you are a bona fide researcher, you should be able to edit in accordance with the neutral point of view policy, but you must be very careful to do so.
  4. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, because it must be backed up by independent sources. I understand why you think that you have done this, but remember that this was not the reason it was marked for deletion. Although there have been improvements, thanks to User:John B123 and User:Oculi, the "Recognition and Impact" section still reads as promotional, and you made it quite clear on your user page that your purpose is to make your findings more widely known, i.e. to publicise them.
  5. You removed the tags that User:John B123 placed on the page without fully addressing the issues, e.g. the absence of categories.
  6. I know this all seems strange to you, but as you've just said, you are new to Wikipedia. Please accept guidance from the more experienced. Deb (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb, It would be most helpful if you could point me to a link where we can learn how to add a category. Not all pages have them, and since it is way at the bottom I don't have much experience with them. I think the way in which we tried to do this was through "see also". For example, an existing page on "diffusion of innovations" by Everett Rogers is much like what the MOP page is doing. That has two categories at the bottom which would be appropriate for the MOP as well: science and technology studies and public health. I put STS in the "see also" category, but it should have been in the categorization category. I asked John B123 for guidance on how to do the categorization, since I was aware that I didn't do that part, as stated in the talk. There are many strands of communication in the backchannels of wikipedia, and it is not yet clear to me what I get notified of and what I don't. I am surprised, for instance, that I wouldn't get an alert when the page is moved. Or that these talks about the MOP page are not on the MOP talk page itself. I'm still trying to learn, but as I understand it, we can move the page back once we complete the categories, yes? That was the remaining item in the list that JohnB123 put in his review. We have apoligized and asked where we can find further instructions on adding categories rather than "see also". Obviously, the page is evolving and that is the point of Wikipedia...evolution of descriptions and information sharing within a communal setting. I look forward to adding the information as requested and would appreciate guidance on how to do to that. with kind regards Ecocharlie (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ecocharlie If you use the Draft facility as I mentioned, someone else will add the categories for you when the article gets accepted into the encyclopedia. In the long run, categories can help a lot with navigation and will also help you to find other articles that exist in the same subject area. Yes, Wikipedia has lots of shortcomings, because it's a community project and most changes to procedure need consensus, which is often difficult to achieve. But it is what it is. Deb (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Those last two sentences may help explain why this is not a good place to publish original research. Deb (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page recreated

[edit]

Hi, I am ICBP. You recently deleted Sal Rich, and within moments it has been recreated again. I tagged it with CSD again, please look into the matter as soon as possible. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully we'll never see it again. Deb (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, something really had to be done about this matter. Maybe soon we will see sockpuppets. Just joking. Please don't take it seriously. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe s/he got away with it for so long! Deb (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe because no new page patroller noticed that page. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 09:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or it can be he /she was really lucky. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 09:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion, if you won't mind. I saw that you had salted the page. Good you did it. But could you change the type of salt to extended confirmed users. Someone good without any intention of promoting Sal Rich, might want to create a page. Please don't mind, because I interfered in your administrative decision. Forgive me, if what I am requesting you is not right. Regards. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 09:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LTA of User:Blogs19

[edit]

Hi Deb, see Draft:Asim Riaz (actor) by Towerlofts2402:3A80:6C4:55CD:6B69:BB08:2845:9418 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft George Ramsay Beaton

[edit]

Good morning.

If you have time, I just wanted to ask for a bit more specific feedback on a recently rejected article.

Looking at the text of the article, I had worked to make sure each complimentary reference to the subject of the article came from an objective, reliable source--sources like an article in Forbes about but not by the subject, the American Bar Association, et cetera.

I am wondering if the sense that the article is "advertising" is due to the lengthy list of the subject's publications at the end and the External Links pointing to his own websites? Also, two out of the many References do refer to articles by the subject rather than about the subject--that is just two out of many others, though.

I'm just wondering if I am on target in thinking these are things I need to correct in order to have a better chance of the article being accepted. I've tried to have an objective tone and reliable sources beyond the subject himself in the text of the article--so I'm just wondering if the long list of publications, the External Links, and two references are what are making the article seem like an advertisement and possibly too closely sourced by the subject himself.

Thank you for your time in reading this. Any further feedback would be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

JMSOtis (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)JMSOtis[reply]

Salting

[edit]

Hi again. Please salt Draft:Asim Riaz, since it is being created again and again. Thanking you in advance. Regards. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb:, socks are back. Please salt Draft:Susovan Sonu Roy (actor) and Draft:Asim (Actor). 2402:3A80:1A44:1E6E:E54C:946E:6C27:E9B7 (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:10:23, 20 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by SriSriChinmaya

[edit]


Hey Deb, First of all, a heartfelt thanks for leading and guiding me on Wikipedia. I am fairly new here but I am driven by my desire to contribute to the art and artists community. While going through many Wikipedia articles, I felt there was a need to address the problems most articles faced and still facing i.e. little or no discussion about art style and techniques. Abstract art of all needs it most because that's how it has cemented its place in the media and public's consciousness. In my research, I stumbled upon many contemporary artists who are doing great work in the field of abstract and in my opinion, they have the notability for a Wikipedia article. I also understand that while writing an article, I may have gone overboard. I should be taking information over the internet with a pinch of salt. That's why I am sending you a revised draft bereft of all the extra hammering about the artist. Please have a look into it again. That would be really helpful. Note: I have no conflict of interest for this article, I am just a curious and passionate person who would like more space for art on Wikipedia and on media in general.

Edit: Thanks, Deb for such a quick response to my article. I am going through the links you have sent in your comment. Hopefully, I will be able to do justice to the draft standard of Wikipedia. SriSriChinmaya (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)SriSriChinmaya[reply]

SriSriChinmaya (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SVTCobra 16:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)SriSriChinmaya[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Thanks Deb, for quick response and guidance on Wikipedia, SVTCobra 16:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date entries

[edit]

I don't see what the issues are!

Restore Request

[edit]

Hi Dev. Please, Restore Al-Baas Al-Islami in my user page User:Owais Al Qarni/Al-Baas Al-Islami. I want to improve it. It was not an advertisement. I already wrote 10 articles on this topic in bnwiki. It is difficult for me to write again a new article. Thanks.

COIN

[edit]

Per this edit, I invite you to the discussion on COIN. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is your talk page too big? I posted but it disappeared.

[edit]

You may consider this a "test". Cheers --SVTCobra 16:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LTA is again back

[edit]

Hi , Deb I think LTA is again back with his new account and I've found new behavioral change ... I've also seen they giving death threats and using slangs on every editors talk page and the sock starts edits mostly corona virus related Article and I suspect that LTA also runs Admin account please look at also Admin accounts ... Please look at it 117.226.155.166 (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the IP is a sock of user:Blogs19 as per their geolocation and ISP. They have also made the same request at User:Girth Summit 2402:3A80:1C3C:7B26:9914:A77B:71C:BD7B (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

[edit]

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

  • Senkaku islands
  • Waldorf education
  • Ancient Egyptian race controversy
  • Scientology
  • Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

  • India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
  • Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[edit]

Thank you for your clarification. It really helped me see what needs to be improved in my article. The language you chose made it very clear.

I appreciate your time.

Sincerely,

JMSOtis (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC) JMSOtis[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
I saw that you thanked my edit adding the Greek election in 2019 and I was grateful. Then I saw that you're the Wikipedia editor equivalent of a veteran and I was kind of honored so I wanted to thank you back. RookieInTheWiki (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February with Women in Red

[edit]
Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Restoration of user rights to auto confirmed

[edit]

Hi Deb. Good morning. Hope you are keeping well. One of the administrators and editors here,xaosflux,has changed my user rights from confirmed. Also he suggested to check with you on changing rights to auto-confirmed. Thanking you in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI 'confirmed' does nothing, that account is already autoconfirmed. I noticed you revoked ECP, which is normally only done for gaming. If you do not have a specific plan worked out with this user for restoring ECP let them know they can request it back at WP:PERM/EC please. — xaosflux Talk 10:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karoll Marquez

[edit]

Shwmae Deb

I'm just dropping by as I saw this comment by another user at RSN. I was wondering why you rejected their proposed article on Karoll Marquez. The sources look reasonable to me, is there something I'm missing? While there are minor tone problems, the only thing I would say needs fixing immediately is to simply remove the word "renowned".

All the best.

Boynamedsue (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boynamedsue, sorry, I have literally just logged on for the first time in a fortnight and I don't remember much about this. Deb (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, all the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh gymnast

[edit]

Hi Deb - hope you had a nice break. Don't know if you can find out any more info about Pamela Hopkins (or Pamela Hardwicke), who competed at the 1972 Summer Olympics. Maybe one for the Welsh wiki! Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Lugnuts - Thanks, I'll check. Deb (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News

[edit]

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undid your draftification

[edit]

Hi there, just wanted to let you know I undid your draftification of Prayas. It was over a decade old when you draftified it [2] and the community has said only draftifying new articles is appropriate. [3] Please only draftify new articles in the future, or as a result of a deletion discussion. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{reply to|Chess}} Gosh, that's going back a bit. I'm surprised nobody commented on it sooner. The changes since then don't seem to have resulted in any improvement on the promotional content, do they? Deb (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I just cut much of the promotional language in the article itself though. Hope it's improved somewhat. I just think the original draftification was flawed given how old the article was. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{reply to|Chess}} Mmm, although I don't actually remember it, at the time I think it was probably intended as a way to avoid deletion as it wasn't egregious enough for a speedy, yet the article wasn't substantial enough for the encyclopedia. Deb (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Can I get my deleted document back? I understand tre were some legal issues. would like to rectify... Draft: Abu Torab Fatemi Mehra

Thx

Cyrus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmehra (talk • contribs) 03:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't. It was a copyright violation so it can't be reproduced. Deb (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March editathons

[edit]
Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Can you please undelete the Lance Hayes article?

[edit]

Hi Deb, I saw that you deleted my article of the award winning video game composer, Lance Hayes. I personally do not see any reason for this being deleted, there are many other articles of people with less information than mine, barely any references either. I have been a fan of Lance's for a long time, I also had some plans months before for setting up a Wikipedia article for him, seeing it deleted just seemed like a waste of hard work to me, possibly to the other editors of the article too. If there really was a valid reason for this being deleted, what are some things which I could do to make the article adequate and have it reuploaded to Wikipedia, if you do accept this, then could I please have the source information for my article.

Thanks, Dark.

Comment - I saw your message on my talk page, you have the wrong idea, I was not talking about the draft, I was talking about the actual page which I had created for for Lance Hayes, the link to it is here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lance_Hayes. I was asking you to undelete this article as I believe I had done things correctly, I am not trying to represent him as a sponsor or advertise his content in any way. I created this article purely because I wanted to, for educational purposes, just like every other article which exists on this site. There are millions of other people articles on Wikipedia, I highly doubt that it would count as 'representing' or advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkKnight9337 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ok I will continue to work on my draft then, but can you please retrieve the source code from the published article? The link to it is here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=128209593. My original reason for blanking the draft was because I thought the published article would stay, but it seems that I need to keep working on a draft. I put a considerable amount of work into the article, if you could get the source for it, I could paste it into my draft page and work on it from there, what does COI mean also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkKnight9337 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help

[edit]

Hello i dont know if this the right place but i want a wiki article that is "unlisted" means only people who have the link can see it, my redirect article have all gone through death (aka speddy deletion), I just want to make a redirect link and put it in my YouTube banner that's all i am not promoting anything i am just doing it privately please tell me how to do it or give me a article that is unlisted.

Any help is appreciated, Vedant Gogia

VedantGogia (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking complete nonsense. Whatever you are trying to do, you are doing it wrong. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines before attempting to edit. Deb (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman Products

[edit]

I emailed because the email from wikipedia suggested it. I'm sorry that happened, but I just clicked on a link from Wikipedia to email. I didn't see how to add to the talk page until this minute, despite the fact that I have used and written articles since something like 2005. I know how to edit the page, but often have problems navigating the editor talk.

I have no links to Chapman Products or the people of the company, but I am a member of a Black community online. The company was mentioned to me in the context of their Foundation and because it is a Black-owned business. I felt that given what I found on the Internet they deserved a page. I wrote it in as neutral a style as I could. Reading it now, I still see a page that tells the story of the company and find nothing overly commercial about it. I did suggest to the person who deleted it out of hand that they are possibly not aware of the culture of Black Americans, despite the fact that Black History Month just ended yesterday. I would request that a person of African-American community be the judge of whether such a business deserves a page. To me, the company has achieved much in the context of the pandemic and the general conditions their business was created in.

Have you suggestions regarding the text that you can pass on so I can make changes?

Thanks in advance.

I can't see how to reply to your suggestions but thats I will try to implement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randulo (talk • contribs) 09:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randulo (talk • contribs) 18:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Deb, I was in the process of implementing your orders when the page was deleted. I thought we'd have at least a day to respond. Three or four different editors have acted upon this and it isn't clear what to do next. I also don't know if you are notified when this section is edited as I am doing right now.

Randulo (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)randulo[reply]

Deb Understood, and thank you for the clarification. I learned how to sign,too. You editors don't realize how difficult it can be to understand these procedures by reading the texts. They are written in a code that o-is so complete, it boggles the mind. Appreciate you understanding.

Randulo (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)randulo[reply]

Postjer

[edit]

Hi Deb,

hope you are well. Can I know please why Postjer's article is declined by you? It is a company based in UK, Albania, USA, Germany, Austria and is doing innovations through online platforms. I got sources from www.postjer.info and www.postjer.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albaniancontent (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Postjer

[edit]

Hi Deb, I am replying because from your answer, yes it's true I got the official statements and sources from the company page as they are the ones that can give us the information about their important notice. I found this company and first sources as they are known in UK and Albania by a local newspaper Gazeta Si, Best Startup UK and from Techbehemoths that they are awarded as one of the top 20 PHP companies in the UK. Have a lot of sources that you can verify what I wrote and say that I got from the company website only official statements, I should say as the legal name of products or their team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albaniancontent (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deb, I’ve updated the Pickwood Magazine draft. Between the article is an entertainment magazine stub that can be expanded with the help of others on Wikipedia.

Please you can kindly help me point out things that needed to be changed as well.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maybreed09 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Federation of Asia Pacific Philosophy in Schools Associations

[edit]

I am concerned that this page was deleted unduly. We are not advertising anything. We are a legitimate organisation that have existed for 30 years. There are several related topics and organisations which have a page and we were aware of the gap in the information that needed to be filled. If there are issues with the wording then by all means highlight those, but the information was accurately referenced as much as possible, named historical accounts, events and their names. I'm not sure what you think we were promoting? This seems very abrupt and a somewhat extreme response to what was an inoffensive, page about an organisation. Is there a copy of the page somewhere? A lot of work was put into to it to try and ensure it was accurate and unbiased, and that work is now lost. thank you Aylianore Aylianore (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aylianore (talk • contribs) 13:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above comes from a contributor who still hasn't declared his/her conflict of interest and clearly hasn't bothered to learn how to use Wikipedia correctly. I'd have expected someone involved in education to be able to do better. Deb (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How would you like me to declare a conflict of interest? I am not paid by this organisation, I pay them. There is no need to be rude about my profession. Aylianore (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This just shows that you haven't read the conflict of interest guidelines. Deb (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the Conflict of Interest guidelines. I do not receive any financial, social or any other reward in writing this article. This article is in no way intended to promote the organisation, or myself, or anyone I know. It is intended to note its existence, history and role in the history of P4C and its relationship to the people/ideas mentioned elsewhere in the article (i.e Matthew Lipman, John Dewey, Pragmaticism etc.). Are you going to offer any helpful advice or make throw-away statements? I am taking this seriously and attempting to do the right thing and I feel you do not seem to have a 'good faith' perspective. thank you Aylianore (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no external connection with the organisation, why are you saying "I pay them"? Of course you are promoting them, whether or not you understand the meaning of the word. Deb (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have an external connection but it does not constitute a conflict of interest. The guidelines are clear that this is a matter of judgement not universality. I pay a membership fee (of $10) to a subsidiary organisation. They essentially offer free training to teachers. I donate my time to do so. It doesn't advance me personally in any way as I have a chronic disease and live off a disability pension. Nor am I being paid to undertake this task. As a community of philosophers we take ethical matters very seriously and I have a strong understanding of Conflict of Interest. The act of putting up a wikipedia page invites external scrutiny and contributions to how FAPSA is presented to the world, which was a contributing reason to undertaking this path. If they wanted to self-promote and control the narrative they would stay with their organisational website. If there are parts of the article that you consider problematic then I am more than happy to remove them, but the existence and history of the organisation is an important part of the P4C movement worldwide over the last 30 years. thank you Aylianore (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you want people to know that they can get free training from FAPSA and you want to "present FAPSA to the world". Almost the classic definition of promotion. Deb (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord! Are you just interested in trying to play gotcha games that are devoid of any rationality? No where is that information about training being free written on the page. I am giving the context of my relationship to the organisation for the purposes of conflict of interest. I do not understand you negative outlook and complete lack of good faith judgement. You ignore the information that doesn't fit your narrative. Kindly please address the following issues so that I can make the appropriate action; 1. I have made an argument for the issue of conflict of interest and you have not addressed that. I believe that I have made that point. 2. There is no advertising of services on the page, you assumed that without evidence. 3. I have stated twice that this is a page about the existence and history of the Federation (based on references) and its place in the Philosophy for Children and Community of Inquiry movement. I am in no way interested in publicising specific activities, and what FAPSA is doing currently is not mentioned - that's what the organisational website is for. 4. I also don't understand why you have the 'power' to make this decision on your own with seeking input from others. Where is the oversight for this process? Aylianore (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obliged to respond to you. You have a conflict of interest and you've admitted that you want to promote the organisation. I don't have any further time to waste on this. If you're not satisfied, you can request a deletion review. Deb (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is entirely consistent with the rest of your gaslighting. I have not admitted to either of those things and it is a lie for you to suggest otherwise. You have provided no evidence for your reasoning at all. Given the lack of good faith you demonstrate throughout this talk page I shouldn't be surprised. Perhaps you need a break from this work if you can't make good faith judgements. Good day, Aylianore (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About your note of not moving the article

[edit]

You are telling me not to move the article myself. How can I request review of my draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SertabLeafar (talk • contribs) 14:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operating Procedure Synthesis

[edit]

Dear Deb,

Why did you delete the page titled Operating Procedure Synthesis? It describes an algorithmic problem that can benefit organizations and people.

Please tell me what to do in order to make it publishable.

Best regards,

Leafar — Preceding unsigned comment added by SertabLeafar (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored my advice. Why should I give you any further assistance? Deb (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deb/Archive_26&oldid=1075547577"