User talk:Deb

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, you have been pretty busy with some British history artilces - Good work! Cheers! --maveric149

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7

Littlenobody

Hi Deb, You previously left the following on the littlenobody article asking for a speedy deletion.

This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic - mark for speedy deletion. (February 2009)

If you look at the history of the page it has a previously speedy deletion removed as I understand that articles about a companies, corporations, organizations or groups purely as self promotion will be deleted but this article is a statement of fact. All the information listed has been linked internally where possible and externally to BBFC certificates and Clermont Ferrad film pages etc.

I would like to think the information is of 'importance or significance of the subject' to the online animation community.

I understand that a conflict of interest stands as I am close to the subject and this I am hoping to resolve with the help of another wiki author doing a rewrite.

Please can you explain to me wy you added the written like an advertisement / speedy delete?

Kind regards

k --Kdelirium (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice please

Hello Deb, best wishes of the season to you. I am wondering if you can help me with some pointers on what to read on early Welsh history. I bought Kerry Maund's The Welsh Kings, and that's ok as far as it goes, and Davies & Arnold's Roman and Early Medieval Wales, but that's a bit archaeological in focus. If I was wanting to read up on, for example, Hywel Dda or Merfyn Frych, where should I start? Any advice gratefully received, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Paul Croft

Hi, this proposed deletion was contested by the (now blocked) article creator. I've raised it at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Croft|AfD] instead. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Raglan

Nice job. I didn't bother tidying up that bit because I considered it rhubarb. Did you see my comments on the Talk Page? (Probably too busy.... I ought to be too.) Peridon (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Lissy Trullie

The article shouldn't have been speedily deleted. I added 3 reliable sources with significant coverage! Schuym1 (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, there was assertions of notability in the article so I really don't understand why it was deleted. I also don't understand why you didn't bother to look at the sources. Schuym1 (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The references are fine per WP:NOTABILITY. Also, all the links worked for me. So you went against the CSD criteria and the notability guidelines. Schuym1 (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think I'm going to find more references, yeah right. I am not going to find more references to fit your own personal opinion that goes against the guidelines. Schuym1 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk

hello, deb not speak good English, or difficulty, I translated the artist's page from Italian to English, I am a friend of the painter, I have all his books, I searched in Italian as not to copy from the book, I Italian painters seen other pages that have a lot more court (francesco menzio,filippo de Pisis, Giovanni Segantini) does not have "template: cleanup." I tried to highlight the particularity of the artist, not to copy from books. What should I do more to remove the template: cleanup " thanks for your understanding, greetings Labcatal (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

hello, Thanks very much for your help I subscribe to Wikipedia: WikiProject Visual arts, or already know , I have to subscribe to the list of participants or there is a debate where everyone can see , thanks we are very grateful Labcatal (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Burning Bush (band)

Hi Deb, I wiki'ed this klezmir band, The Burning Bush, and found it had been deleted by you for reasons of being a 'seemingly non-notable band'. That's too bad, because I would have liked to find information about them. There's the google of course, but seeing as I can see that Wikipedia DID have a stub written about them, I deplore the fact it now no longer is there. -bergamasque (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2009 (GMT+1)

Use of military ranks

Thanks, will make sure to use the name in all future ones. -Iross1000 (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC).

Dani Campbell deletion

Hi there. I'm just noticing that the page on Dani Campbell was deleted. She is pretty notable in the lesbian community (cover story in Curve (magazine), covered in the Advocate etc., as the final female contestant in the bisexual dating reality show A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila and popular spokesperson for LGBT rights. I don't know what the content of the article was at the time it was speedy deleted, but I believe notablity can be established and survive even a non speedy deletion review. Regards, Scarykitty (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Deb - if you could restore Dani Campbell, that would be great. Yes, there are references out there. This Curve cover story alone [1] should establish notability and I'm sure I can find a few others. Thanks. Scarykitty (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for experimenting

Hello Deb. I'm sorry for experimenting with the page porch, I really hope that it won't be to any damage for my user account. --Kri (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

14:55, 4 January 2009 Deb (Talk | contribs) deleted "Kelly lynn" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising)

Can you please let me know why you deleted this page? I started creating it underconstruction, which should give me a few days to develop the content. This artist has recorded the following projects, two with Disney and one with Universal:

http://www.amazon.com/Archies-Christmas-Album-featuring-Veronica/dp/B001DZDTHW/ref=pd_sim_m_3 http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=9203543 http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Beauty-Friends-Original-Soundtrack/dp/B001AUKUZO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timgrable (talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Replication of results

Hi. You redirected my stub to Experiment, but I think a better redirect target would be Reproducibility. Do you mind if I change it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1995 in music

Could you please review your edits to 1995 in music. It appears there's some malformed wiki markup that has caused a large chunk of content to become invisible. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Verb tenses

Hi there, I notice that you're reverting the verb tenses in the Years in music pages from the past tense to the present tense. Could you explain your rationale for this? The events obviously happened in the past so the past tense of verbs would seem better grammar. I can't find anything very specific to this in WP:MOS but WP:TENSE generally supports what I'm suggesting. Alchemagenta (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(response from Deb copied from my talk page)

Mmm, I understand your point, but it is quite "normal" to use the present tense in that kind of list of historical events. I think you'd find the same if you looked in a similar list in, say, a magazine. The year articles started that way and I've always tried to keep them consistent. Deb (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me threading the discussion here, it seems easier to follow it that way. Are you aware of any previous debate around this issue? I ask because I don't want to go where many have already been before and I notice that you're quite active in the years lists area. I think that the usage of the present tense in the magazine-type current affairs media, both print and broadcast, is more of a stylisation than accurate grammar and has been adopted by them because it gives historical information a present day currency, as though we're being magically transported in a news broadcast time machine to January 8 in the year 871 to observe Ethelred of Wessex defeating an invading army of Danes. But in normal conversation or prose writing about such events, the past tense is used: "In 871, at the Battle of Ashdown Alfred the Great, then a mere prince of twenty-one, led the West Saxon army of his brother, King Ethelred, in a victorious battle against the invading Danes." Now that I'm delving into this, I'm noticing that there is an inconsistency in tense usage where, for example, an overview is included (past tense) along with a list of events (present tense). I realise that if what I'm suggesting – that historical events listings should be written in the past tense – is broadly agreed with, then the re-editing implications are monumental; but if the principle of the grammar accuracy holds, and I'd welcome informed opinion on that, then perhaps we should also strive to ensure that the English Wikipedia is a bastion of best English language usage. Alchemagenta (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a few separate issues here. The years/centuries with "overviews" tend to be a recent development - which I don't disapprove of, but I think it would follow a different convention in any case. There is nothing ungrammatical about using the present tense in this context. The reason we've done it here is as you describe above. So I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't agree that your proposal would be an improvement. I am not aware of any debate having taken place - and I'm sure someone would have told me by now if there was any consensus to do it differently. But by all means start one. There is always room for improvement. Deb (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the debate is worth opening up in a wider forum (any suggestions as to which?). Would you mind if I reproduced a summary of this discussion as part of an opening position? Alchemagenta (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1997 in music

Hi there. I noticed that you have again deleted the line of text from the Classical music section of the article 1997 in music. In reverting my previous restoration of this text you may not have noticed that my edit summary included a note indicating reference to this on the article's talk page. This questions the deletion of these nine words of text and gives reasons why I believe they should be there. It would be helpful if you could explain your edit by responding to this on the article's talk page (see Explain reverts). Alchemagenta (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the deletion

I attempted to add an article to Wikipedia and you deleted it. This is my third try on writing the article and it gets deleted everytime. Why? You labelled it advertising, but it is simply an article about a company. No different than an article about Coke, Pepsi, or any other companies. This was the article about eng-tips.com and tek-tips.com.Lgmagone

Dragon pearl tea- blatant advertising?

Did this someone how come out as advertising because if it did i'am sorry. --WavesofEbony (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Dan Agin

I tried to find more out in Wikipedia about the writer Dan Agin, and ,to my surprise, an article about him from had been already deleted because "A7" - I marvel at the precision of the criteria - in 2007, a debatable action as he is the author of the book Junk Science, a neurobiologist with a publication record in pubmed, visibility as a columnist in the web, and has international recognition[2]. So I placed a brief article in the hope to have more time to enlarge it and that others in Wikipedia could work on it as well. Unfortunately, this article was almost immediately deleted by you, without any attempt at discussion, and so, if you do not restore it, nobody is getting smarter, and the article may have to wait until when his orbituary is written it becomes obvious that the article is overdue. Ekem (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You deleted it without discussion and while the work was in progress; please kindly restore it so the work can continue. Ekem (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Dan Agin Ekem (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Schedule

Hello - i am writing to you in confidence. I am expressing concern about the removal of the schedule i placed on 96.4 The Wave. I believe it valuable information & had provided sources. It was reasonable detail. Many other radio stations on Wikipedia have schedules, yet this one was removed. The list of presenters was also removed. Is it ok if i add the structured info back ? Jonny7003 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the presenters ? They were removed as well. Jonny7003 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Welshpedia

How do i become a member of "Welshpedia" ? It doesn't let me sign up. Jonny7003 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Kernow

WP:Suspected sock puppets/Kernow was the basis for the indef. Just in case J-man doesn#'t get bck to you in time Fritzpoll (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To me, it looks like they blocked the wrong contributor. Deb (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're basing that on - Kernow is the man discussed who was using the other accounts as sock-/meat-puppets. His current unblock formulation is very similar to previous ones that he has used. I suggest discussing with the blocking admin before changing block lengths as everyone suddenly has a deadline! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of a response, I have restored the original block length to give time for Kernow to respond to some reasonable conditions that should be placed on his resumption of editing. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if we assume that Kernow is purely innocent, he should have no problem agreeing to avoid editing an article closely connected to himself, and to avoid asking others to edit such articles on his behalf. My unblock conditions are simply a restatement of the good behavior that all editors should follow. Hopefully he will agree. I am sorry for any confusion. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith please

"he doesn't actually seem to do anything except pick holes in other people's articles. I've not seen a single constructive contribution from him" is not the type of comment that I would expect from anybody who assumes good faith. As an administrator, you should be leading by example in your conduct. No need to reply to me, just letting you know that you good do better to assume good faith in that respect. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. The quote was taken from User talk:G-Man. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with good faith. Edits can be made in good faith and still be worthless. Deb (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that all my edits are worthlesss, or just the ones you disagree with (e.g. date delinking)? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Deb: Del of Martin Investigative Services?

Hi. You flagged/pulled Martin Investigative Services as blatant advertising. The entry had no overtly promotional language or tone, no advertising, followed guidelines, and properly belonged in the [Category:Private detectives and investigators] amongst other entries. Respectfully requesting it be put back up. chernicky (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Rivers

Deb! Yes, in answer to your question on my discussion page thingy- I have been to the exhibition... with you :-P I thought it was interesting timing for the post and then checked your userpage and realised that you were you. I thought my identity would have been rather obvious since no one else is really insane enough to write so much about Rivers!

Kayleigh (or pudupudu)

As proof that I have no idea how the technical side of this site works, I'm not entirely sure whether I'm supposed to post replies to your comments on my page on your page or my own (if that makes any sense). I replied to your C.E Fox point on my own page, whether that's right or not. I really should be writing essays right now but I am developing a phobia of metre so came here to seek refuge --Pudupudu (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pride Soccer

I noticed you removed the SD tag from PSA. Why? ttonyb1 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikirrelevance

I am done with this site. You are contributine to irrelevancee by providing your bias. Let users flag items as spam instead of deleting them. Would have been nice to see the download was spam by reading user reviews before loading it onto my system. You are making this project irrelevant. Please keep this up for discussion, as it is very relevant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.217.30.70 (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A somewhat baffling set of comments from a contributor who has never had any of his articles deleted! I wonder what he is talking about! Deb (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why leave some and delete others???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_personal_information_managers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.217.30.70 (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Brain quest

New information has come up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain quest since we cast our delete !votes, and the nominator now wishes to withdraw the nomination. The nomination cannot be withdrawn, however, unless we three who put in for deletion withdraw our objections to the article's existence. Take a second look at the AfD and see if you still agree with your initial post, or if you're willing to let the nominator withdraw. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 03:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jim Emery

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jim Emery, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Emery. Thank you. andy (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

diff

saw diff, and since I don't know the subject matter I didn't know if was vandalism ... saw that it was page you had edited before, so thought I'd drop you the link. — Ched (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny coincidence

Just saw your comment over at the date linking arbitration. Out of curiosity, I took a look at your user page, and noticed your Sassoon Fellowship site. I nearly spilt my cup of tea - seconds earlier I'd been editing this. Small world... -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 00:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Lightbot

Thank you for your kind comments Deb. I like what you say. It means alot to me. Do you also support Lightbot? AdirondackMan (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Webmonkey

On 14 January 2008, you deleted Webmonkey. I didn't see the article before it was deleted, but the references at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=webmonkey&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnGt=Show+Timeline , including the Washington Post article at the bottom of the Google News page, are probably enough to establish notability. Please consider restoring the article and adding some of the references that Google News found. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I will be happy to expand the article if you restore the page. Perhaps it would be best to restore the page to User:Eastmain/Webmonkey so that it doesn't get deleted while I am working on it. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jersey opera house

A tag has been placed on Jersey opera house requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. pablo_hablo. 18:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that - by the time I tagged it you'd already moved the page. pablo_hablo. 18:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Eeeeeeek!!! :) Deb (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion on Honest Bob's second & eighteen

Maybe I haven't been paying attention to the article, but it does have an artist with its own wikipedia page, Honest Bob and the Factory-to-Dealer Incentives. And even if that wasn't the case, it should've rather been nominated for deletion instead.--F-22 Raptor ^IV 16:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The band was nominated for deletion before but the result was keep, and the result will most likely still be keep. Who are you? Are you an admin of some sorts?--F-22 Raptor ^IV 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Matthes

Hi. If someone on wp-EN has rights to see, on the OTRS queue permissions-fr, the ticket #2009021110035154, you have to know that there is no more problem, on wp-FR, with the same page fr:Michael Matthes, which was a copy of http://www.michaelmatthes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=32. But, without access on deleted pages on wp-EN, I can't know if the English page was also a copyright infringement from the same external page . And I also don't know anything about the way, for the author, to see the English article be possibly restored (this problem is not for wp-FR...) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope that this should be enough, after the restoration : Talk:Michael Matthes. I have added the Template:ConfirmationOTRS, with the link to the French language ticket and a few words to explain. Thanks for your help and the restoration. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Belated Hi......(In return)

You must think me very impolite. So apologies....

DJ (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Threshold knowledge

You recently deleted threshold knowledge under A7. As I understand WP:SPEEDY, A7 "applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations", so cannot apply to an article about an idea in educational theory. The article was, admittedly, very much a stub, but one academic citation was given and Google Scholar throws up plenty more, so it seems to qualify to me under WP:GNG. Would you consider reversing your action? It can, of course, go to an AfD if you wish. Bondegezou (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have reviewed WP:GNG and WP:SPEEDY and remain of the same opinion as previously expressed: this article appears notable under WP:GNG and ineligible for speedy deletion under WP:SPEEDY. Bondegezou (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To save jumping between Talk pages, I've replied to your latest comment on my own user page: User talk:Bondegezou#Threshold knowledge. Bondegezou (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is now at DRV. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To complete the story, the DRV unanimously overturned the speedy deletion as being mistaken. The article then went to AfD, which has now closed with a keep decision. Bondegezou (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just think, all that time and effort wasted because one contributor would rather argue than take the trouble to create the article properly in the first place. Deb (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that "all that time and effort" to which you refer was only required because of your initial speedy deletion, which consensus would seem to consider to have been a mistake. I myself would rather have spent that time improving this or other articles, but the only way to save this article from a mistaken act was to go through these various lengthy processes. That is how things happen on Wikipedia and I do not begrudge that. The deletion review unanimously found against you for the same reasons I wrote at the top of this section, that A7 does not apply, so might I humbly suggest that much time and effort by numerous parties there would have been saved had you engaged more in the matter in the first place? Speedy deletion is clearly a very important tool on Wikipedia, but its successful use rests on its appropriate use. WP:SPEEDY, like WP:AGF and WP:BB, act as policies to guide our actions and I feel sticking closely to those policies would have saved us all much time. Bondegezou (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC) (Comment amended. Bondegezou (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

As would have been clear to you if you had taken any notice of what I wrote on your talk page, I would have restored the article if you had been prepared to improve it by adding references to support its supposed notability. In the end you were forced to do this because you saw that the article would lose the deletion debate if you didn't do something about it. So you could have saved yourself and others a lot of trouble by just doing that in the first place. I do hope that the experience will be a lesson to you next time you decide to create an article. Deb (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Threshold knowledge

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Threshold knowledge. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bondegezou (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

you might want to reconsider your statement there, or perhaps send me an email.DGG (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppressed Logic

Can you please explain to me why you deleted the Oppressed Logic article? Also you gave me no notice before deleting it..

ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read that before, I feel they are notable enough for their own article. Vocalist Mike Cyco Locco was also a member of the Angry Samoans, and Retching Red. Drummer, Adam Grant was a member of Creepy and Retching Red. I remember having quite a few references. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well I still think the article could just be improved and would appreciate the opportunity to do so. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks..I'll be working on both articles.. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Nothing's Gonna Stop Me

You're partially correct in your untagging of this article, but in my estimation, only partially. It's not vandalism. It's a hoax (which is also covered by the template employed). Despite the big names given, a quick look at IMDB and Google does not appear to indicate this movie exists. I'm not going to just swat the template back on, but I request you kindly take a look for yourself and consider re-adding it (or a hoax template and PROD/AfD?) if you concur. It could be I just missed something, I'll grant. If you have further comment/questions, please reply at my talk page. - Vianello (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for giving it a second look! Please don't think I'm annoyed with you or anything, as I see where you were coming from in removing that template. I should have been more explicit with it. Anyhow, take care of yourself now. - Vianello (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Donut Kings

I'm rather new to the Wiki world and forgive me if I don't do everything correct here. You tagged the Donut Kings pages and the Donut Kings CD pages as:

This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted. (February 2009)"

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009)'

Please tell me what that means and what I have to do to satisfy that requirement? I read the article on it, but it's so confusing it might as well be in another language. The band is a notable band and has national and international releases, is on iTunes, Walmart.com, Amazon.com and a ton of other NOTABLE websites. Please help me out on this.

Taliesyn1 (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Catapult C

Hi Deb, I saw you deleted the Catapult C page due to 'blatant advertizing'. Do you have Wikipedia guidelines for adding pages describing software products? We tried to use the exact same model as these two product pages: Norton Antivirus and iPod, by not making any claims but rather just stating facts on the functionality and what enhancements were announced based on published sources not from the EDA vendor offering the product.

I realize that Electronic Design Automation (EDA) software is a more specialized industry (chip design and verification) than some of the consumer areas like antivirus software and MP3 players, but in general we are trying to add more Wikipedia content on the EDA terminology and landscape as we see in other areas of the semiconductor industry. EDA in general is behind other areas with regards to Wikipedia - and has some catching up to do.

If there is a link that you can refer me to, or specific content on the page that was offensive, we will see if we can redo the page according to guidelines. My apologies if we inadvertently did something against guidelines, we really tried our best to match what the other product pages did.

I will check back here or you can talk to me on my talk page. Thanks. Mukis (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

BookRags

Hi, Deb. Could you please restore BookRags and move it to User:Cunard/Article/BookRags. I want to work on rewriting the article before taking it to WP:DRV. By the way, I'm asking you this because I saw you in the deletion log. Thank you so much! Cunard (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Catapult C Repair

Hi Deb. Thank you so much for the response on my talk page.

Before I ask you to restore the article for me to repair, can you please answer 2 questions about 'independent sources'?

1. Is it okay to cite references to articles and paper that require registration to access? There have been conference papers presented on the topic, but many of them require a (free) registration to the conference website or for people to be part of that engineering organization (IEEE) to register and read. I checked the Wikipedia sources guidelines and could not find the answer to this. I would imagine some of Wikipedia pharmaceutical entries may have similar issues with access only to abstracts vs the actual documents...?

2. I had included references from independent, respected electronics publications such as EETimes that do not require registration, are those still okay?

I will look for your response on my talk page, then respond to you back here once I am ready for you to restore the page for me to repair. I will need to track down your approved reference types to show notability - many consumer products utilize this type of technology.

I am trying to make and encourage more robust Wikipedia entries for a number of areas and technical terms and want to get this right so our industry will have the right model to proliferate...

Thanks again. Mukis (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Ruth Thorne Page

 Please refer to Puerto Rico Department of Education for veracity. Speedy deletion was suggested after creator added the link to a blog. Adding this obeyed to the article being orphaned. Advertising would qualify for asking/suggesting readers were to find the books, etc. Article speaks about a very real person who has contributed to Puerto Rican letters, literary genres and is verifiable. Children's book s by this author have been acquired by the Puerto Rico Department of Education, and the Cronicas del Barrio Saga is at present in negotiations for comercial movies both in Hispanic and American markets.. Please verify. Links that may not be useful have been deleted, unless you consider they should be present.

Simply Madonna: Materials of the Girl

Why has this page been deleted? If its sounding like an advertisement, its because there is only small amount of information, it only opened on Saturday. Would it not have been better to request that it be re-written. I am a Madonna fan and created the page. This seems very unfair as the could have simply been a call to improve it instead of deletion. There were plenty of references from outside sources. This exhibition has got international news and media coverage and is relevant. A consensus in the talk page should have been made and call for improvement not deletion. JWAD ^talk 21:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiya thanks for your message. I think we can improve the article by making seem less like an advertisement and use more info from out sourced press information. The exhibition is now open and there was a lot of press coverage. Would it be possible to give me access to the article so I can improve and change it? Many thanks JWAD ^talk 19:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonnie Moore

Hi Deb

Because you're an experienced editor who seems generally reasonable, I'm asking this question rather than simply removing the {{notability}} tag you added to the Nonnie Moore stub I created.

It would seem that despite the presumption of notability required under WP:GNG for the subject of a full-length New York Times obituary (which, unless the decedent is Times-associated, is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), you feel that presumption may be rebutted in this case.

The GNG states that the presumption should be rebutted by consensus. So perhaps you could create a discussion on the article's talk page or initiate a deletion discussion? Otherwise, your tag seems misplaced.

Thanks, Bongomatic 19:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your RFA

Hey Deb - thanks very much for the note of encouragement. Unfortunately, I (like many) do think that the RfA process really could use major improvement. It's really unfortunate when a bad experience at RfA can lead some of our best contributors to leave the project, or at least have forever hampered relationships with others here. I personally have a fairly tough skin (and many thanks go to neuro for being supportive when the skin felt a bit less thick), but I think it's too much to ask that anyone applying for admin be ready to take criticism of a personal rather than professional nature. FlyingToaster 23:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Catapult C sources

Hi Deb. I had asked you about whether cited sources could require registration and you posted the Wikipedia sources link for me to review - thanks. I have looked through it carefully (following all the related links I could find) and there is nothing that comments on it at all. They suggest 1) independent sources such as respected publications that do their own research and/or 2) peer reviewed papers.

The Wikipedia source reference does say that you can reference books or articles from respected publications. Since a reader would have to purchase the book or even pay a subscriptions to view some articles from respected publications, it seems to me a free registration to a conference paper would be less effort to verify so should be okay.

So can you please let me know on my talk page if it is okay for me to pull from peer-reviewed papers that require registration on the industry conference website? If so I will get the revised page ready - I only used independent publication articles and no conference papers.

Thanks. Mukis (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Catapult C sources

Hi Deb. Got your note. I now understand what I need to do and just need to carve out some cycles to do the reseach. It may take me 1-2 weeks to carve out time to review technical papers for this. I will come back here to request for you to restore the page once I am ready with the new content - please 'hang on' to it! Thanks again. Mukis (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Select Registry

You recently (and correctly) deleted Select Registry as spam. I have now rewritten this article to satisfy the notability and neutrality standards. Since you were one of the deleting administrators, could you please restore the revisions of the article for GFDL/history attribution? If you restore the article, I will immediately copy and paste the contents of my offline sandbox into this article. Note: I asked User:NawlinWiki to restore the article, but s/he has been unresponsive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. NawlinWiki has restored it. Cunard (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - March 2009

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet blanket

Could you expand your reasoning on this AFD? Your comment did not address what you thought of my redirect proposal. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Neurotically Yours

Why did you delete Neurotically Yours? OverSeer (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)