User talk:Ottawahitech/Archive 3

I know you hate wiki-politics -- and so do I. Here is some history of my initial attempt to start this article. Should I ping you when replying? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC) As you can see it was labelled G3: Vandalism by the deleting ADMIN. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You can use

Template:Ping, but I prefer that you alert me by addressing me with my username wikified, thus: [[User:Wavelength|Wavelength]]. I am unable to see the deleted article, but the nine references at User:Ottawahitech/archived/sandbox seem to be sufficient for a substantial article worthy of being accepted (that is to say, not deleted). The March 2015 links at this page

do not help me to understand why the article was deleted.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Wavelength (is that what you mean by " username wikified"?), this happened at the beginning of the year, which to me is decades in wiki-years, so forgive me if my memory is a bit hazy. Anyway this is what I remember:

• I was notified the article was CSDed in March 2015
• a little later I approached the deleting ADMIN and inquired about the reason for the deletion
• This ADMIN (who used this opportunity to forcefully archive my talk-page in an unstandard fashion against my wishes ) userified my article, again in a way that, I think, is not recommeded.
• The end result is that the userified article cannot be moved to mainspace (because its history goes back to February of 2014 and includes material that is irrelevant).

Ottawahitech (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, your link notified me (and I thank you), but I meant this: Wavelength. Your previous link has a link to this section, which indicates that the administrator has a strict position on bare URLs. (Please acquaint yourself with him here.) Apparently, he believes that it goes without saying that a bare URL in a reference is no better than a missing reference, so an article with only bare URLs is unreferenced. In turn, he apparently considers an unreferenced article to be a hoax comparable to vandalism.

I suggest that you use the userfied article as a basis for starting a new article with a new history. You can use a completely new subpage, as if all the past were forgotten. I recommend that you convert the bare URLs in the userfied article to links with titles. I recommend that you use the references to produce an article of at least two paragraphs of at least three sentences each. I recommend that you expand the article to that size in your userspace before you transfer it to mainspace. Alternatively, you can develop the article in a file on your computer before you transfer it to Wikipedia mainspace.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Once again this page is seriously overdue for archiving - when do you intend to do something? "Cannot moved to mainspace" - don't be ridiculous. Please confirm that User:Ottawahitech/archived/huang contains all the relevant edits and that User:Ottawahitech/archived/sandbox contains none of them. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have just been notified that this category which I created has been nominated for deletion umm…discusion. I was notified, not by the nominator but by a kind bystander.

With all this extra make-work, I doubt I will have the time to participate, but wanted to thank Softlavender for the extra work he/she had to do to let me know. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I always appreciate a grammar correction! FYI - Would love to implement a way to eliminate widows!!! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 16:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Although I am unsure about which sandbox in particular, but I most likely removed a Project tag due to the fact that the article was drafted and was not viewable to any users, and therefore needed to be worked on and then the tag would be added back.

Hello Ottawahitech: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Hey, Ottawahitech,
I regularly tag empty categories so I guess I'm the person to ask. I use Twinkle to tag empty categories with a CSD C1 tag and Twinkle says it notifies the category creator but, unlike other CSD categories or PRODs, it actually doesn't (see CSD criteria here Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. Unpopulated categories). The principle is that categories are applied to articles first and then a category page is created. Empty categories shouldn't be created that then filled. But categories are not supposed to "be emptied out of process", that is, the categories should not be removed from pages in order to empty a category and tag it with a CSD C1 tag. Relevant information is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Categories possibly emptied out of process. But it can be difficult to tell if a category has been emptied out of process. The easiest way is if you have a clue which editor might have done so, check their contribution page and you can see a straight list of pertinent articles that might have had the category removed.
I should say that although I tag empty categories, I create twice or three times as many new categories every day. This is through looking at Wikipedia:Database reports/Red-linked categories with incoming links which have red links for categories that have links to them but which have yet to be created. It is not uncommon for me to come across categories that had been deleted because they were empty that now can be recreated because they have been assigned to a page. Since I have the admin buttons, I just go into the deleted contributions and restore the category.
I guess the only advice I can offer is to look to see if a category structure you are interested is already created. The category might go by a different name that the one you think is logical. At

Hello Ottawahitech: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Esquivalience ^t 00:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of founders of companies of the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dick Jones, Jonathan Schwartz and Gary Green. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion there is so tangled that it was hard to see exactly how it was going. I tried reading it as if I were a closer sorting out the !votes. Aside from you, it's 6-2. You gave a strong initial opposition, then made quite a few negative comments about problems on the board, and in particular this:

To make this short, if FLOW will allow us to edit others comments... I see no reason to support it.

I'm not arguing to change your !vote, I just wanted to check whether there had been a shift in your position. Alsee (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi user:Alsee, First of all thanks for all the work you do around FLOW. Even though I am keenly interested in FLOW, I just don't get the time to do it justice (too busy trying to save categories that took years to develop from being trashed by editors who could not care less).

To answer your question: Yes FLOW is terribly buggy right now, but I still want to continue testing it at BF. I believe it is worth the try to save FLOW if at all possible. Looks to me like the team working on FLOW is just not getting the resources it needs becuase top management at WMF does not see FLOW's value? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi user:Alsee, There are developements at User_talk:AlbinoFerret#Your_summary_of_.22RFC_-_Remove_Flow_from_WikiProject_Breakfast.3F.22 are you aware? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Flow at projectbreakfast RFC - too depressing

This whole thing is just way too depressing - its time for me to move on to doing some real work here. For those interested, if any, I have added my final thoughts at: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFCs_on_Wikiprojects_-_a_hijacking_strategy and at: Community consensus reached? -- discussion that will soon be buried in archives, sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I will be appealing the close of projectbreakfast RFC

I believe the close is fauly and plan to appeal it (if time permits). For more:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic:Stn15z0u230zcbve
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ottawahitech

Thank you to user: AlbinoFerret for providing appeal information. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: Can we keep this discussion between the two of us here to avoid fracturing the conversation? You have already archived the thread I started on you own page, so this seems the logical place to continue?Ottawahitech (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thats fine, but now the review has started on

WP:AN Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_close_review_of_RFC_-_Remove_Flow_from_WikiProject_Breakfast.3F and discussions in general should happen there. If you have a question, I will try and answer it if you place it here, just ping me. AlbinoFerret

21:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE

which stipulates:contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review

So can we start over again? Will you withdraw the challenge to your own RFC closure and try to work this out first before involving the community at large? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you didnt ask me to appeal on your behalf, but an appeal can be started by anyone, including the closer. You had already discussed the close with me, and with uninvolved editors on other pages. Under the circumstances the appeal was IMHO the appropriate action because it had left the page the RFC was on already. Had this stayed there and my talk page it could have been discussed more. But I think at this point the review should continue. You are free to join the review and make comments, if I have gotten something wrong, point it out. AlbinoFerret 14:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: You said: you had already discussed the close with me but I don’t recall discussing your close with you. All that happened is this exchange on your talkpage which you archived beforeI had a chance to continue asking, IIRC. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought the discussion was done after a day and no new comments. I tend to like a clean talk page. But you could have still opened a section if you had any questions or asked them here with a ping. AlbinoFerret 18:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

FLOW - Consensus_is_not_working

Looks like I am not the only one complaining. See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Consensus_is_not_working/ Ottawahitech (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Businesspeople of companies in Canada, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Obviously you feel strongly against deleting the Category:Women translators and took the following actions:

• 1. You gave a long opposition the CFD nomination to remove the male translators category here.
• 2. You removed my tag of the related women translators category here without reverting my edit so I would receive an edit here.
• 3. You tagged me in a sort of help desk confessional here. (Was there something that lead to this?)
• 4. You were so alarmed by my suggestion in the CfD discussion that you alerted a WikiProject here.

All of these edits are completely constructive except for #2. If I wasn't assuming good faith, I could interpret that as an attempt to sabotage an open CFD discussion by not having the category tagged for a week as is required. But, you make constructive edits all the time and tagged me in the help desk post.

So let me just ask you here: what are we doing here? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we were editing at the same time. Thank you for your constructive suggestions for making sure the nominations is correctly handled. All of your suggestions are implemented. I'm retagging the category on the assumption that we are in consensus now about the process. (Obviously we disagree about the actual nomination though.) Merry Christmas (if applicable)! RevelationDirect (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

It's not correct procedure to merge a category with

Hello, Ottawahitech,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether List of founders of companies of the United States should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of founders of companies of the United States .

If you're new to the process,

Thanks, Iamoctopus (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You must be a very patient person. If tags were real, you would be squished by now. Checking in to see what you are up to. Thanks for thanking me and giving me support and encouragement....unlike what I see here on your talk page. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bfpage: I have another candidate for cat:Over-templated-experienced-editors: User_talk:Jiang#Copyright_problem:_Ti.E1.BA.BFn_Qu.C3.A2n_Ca -- do you think Jiang qualifies (been an editor since 2003 and an ADMIN to boot)? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ottawahitech,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether your talk page is excessively templated and tagged; The discussion may be deleted..or not. Your comments are welcome but likely to be completely ignored by whoever placed the template on your talk page in the first place. Your comments are welcome at talk.

If you're new to the process, a sly remark suggesting that you are inexperienced, feel free to make use of

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Debt collection, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Ottawahitech,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Ottawahitech,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

I submitted the original request and it was exactly like it says - Rename to be consistent with the naming of some other categories in the same tree. What I didn't realize is that there are a group of users who had previously been involved in a "Categories for deletion" discussion related to cause of death which was organized as you describe = submit a small subset first and then submit other subsequent categories from the same tree later for deletion. So, they have all jumped on this band-wagon. I don't know if we will see a reasonable outcome. Someone else described CfD as a mushroom territory: "so many changes occur in the darkness of the shadow of the few who inhabit the territory". I naively just tried to do things by the book. --Big_iron (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

In recent years, the CFD discussions haven't had enough editors participating. I hope you both stick around! Thanks for your contributions. @Big iron: RevelationDirect (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@

discussion when ADMINs make their own rules never mind what others say? ..but I am going to leave this for others who enjoy "talk" -- I would like to get back to "creation" Ottawahitech (talk

) 13:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect: I felt a little guilty rebuffing your invitation to participate in CfD discussions, but I just happened to come across an old CfD in which I did participate and it appears nothing has changed since 2013 - ADMINs still inititiate CfDs without notifying the creators and no one cares about consistency. Since you seem to belong to the group of editors who actually enjoys debating endlessly, I hope you will care enough to try and fix those glaring issues. Cateories are getting such a poor reputation at wikipedia I fear the community will simply shut them down if nothing is done. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Haha, that might be the best/worst compliment to receive. I've worked on making the Category Discussions more accessible to casual editors but those improvements have been more around the edges, unfortunately. For what it's worth I just voted "Weak Keep" on the category abolition discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect: When you refer to best/worst compliment I assume you are talking about belong to the group of editors who actually enjoys debating endlessly? If so, I did not mean it as a compliment/non-compliment. There are several editors I highly regard who do nothing but participate in wiki-talk and vice verse. I personally try to stay away talk because the primitive wiki-talk software makes it too time consuming. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't add articles to container categories, as you did Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. I've reverted your edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I created

It was deleted, userfied to another user, and then deleted again at that location, which shouldn't have happened. I have restored it to

Fram (talk

) 08:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victimology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal agency. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the Missing entry for Doc glasgow because this editor is still active with a new account. See the latest entry in his rights log, where the connection was sufficiently recognized for his admin bit to be ‘bequeathed’ to the present account. I don’t know what it took to demonstrate the continuity, but it was evidently enough to convince at least one bureaucrat. (There might be some back-story in talk-page or noticeboard archives, but I haven’t gone looking.)—Odysseus1479 01:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you please explain what these edits to Wikiproject Years means? I have no idea what you're getting at. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jc3s5h, I guess you are asking about article alerts? If so have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canada/Article_alerts where the wp:Article alerts BOT has last delivered the alerts to the project at 09:07, 9 January 2016‎(UTC). Please let me know if I have answered your question. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess the link in your edit was supposed to go somewhere, but it is a read link. If the link were correct, maybe I would have understood. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@

ping

me

OK, I'll keep an eye out. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to the section on challenging a close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures AlbinoFerret 19:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you have indicated your time was limited I started a RFC review request here [Request close review of [2] Please add your input. AlbinoFerret 20:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend you undo your edit of my post in the

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pat Dowell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ordinance. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

An off-wiki discussion of The Ten Best Wikipedia Articles Deleted This Week. The President of Your Fan Club,

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Americans renouncing citizenship in records numbers. Since you had some involvement with the Americans renouncing citizenship in records numbers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Allison Christians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill C-31. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Hot Pork Pie 20:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Defunct power stations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rehman 07:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I sent him an email. Thanks for noting that. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

	Hello Ottawahitech. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	Message added on 17:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Here's a relaxing cup of tea for you for being a leader, not a follower! Cheers! MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 15:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Just in time. It is extremely exhausting, isn't it? :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've seen your name appear a lot on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. I was wondering if you would give your opinion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Clarification of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sia proposal? where I've opened up a concern about a Wikiproject that was created on a whim and not done through a proposal. The founder and original member has since asked a few people to join it, and now there are only two. I personally don't think the WP should exist because the scope isn't broad enough, it was never official proposed despite the founder knowing that there is a system in place for the proposal of the creation of WP's, and as a result we don't know if there is even a need/any interest for it to exist. Thank you.  — Calvin999 09:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Category:Chancellors by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Vice-Chancellors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ottawahitech. You have new messages at Jiang's talk page.
Message added 21:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jiang still edits every now and then.

Category:Women religious leaders, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Microsoft Canada. Since you had some involvement with the Microsoft Canada redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 'Microsoft Corp. Since you had some involvement with the Microsoft Corp redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234') 22:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ottawahitech. It has been over six months since you last edited your

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The article List of people who have been quoted as having used Wikipedia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:TRIVIA

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 103.6.159.85 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The article

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Criticism of Berkshire Hathaway. Since you had some involvement with the Criticism of Berkshire Hathaway redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ÷seresin 16:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Reddit employees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Reddit employees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

sorry to read your user page ottawahitech. wp sucks and I know it. admins that is. deep sigh.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clayton Homes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award winners, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect:, I see you have been doing a lot of work trying to get more editors involved in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Are you making any progress? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I've had some success with getting individual editors and WikiProjects to participate in specific discussions. Also, rather than using jargon, many other nominators are using the section links I created on Wikipedia:Overcategorization which makes it easier for new editors to participate. What I have not been successful with is getting any of those editors to stick around for other nominations outside of their subject area; the total number of participants on a typical discussion remains too low. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect: Talking of Wikipedia:Overcategorization, this is an a guideline I do not understand at all. It seems that it was written by editors who think the purpose of categorization is to summarize the contents of an article at the bottom, not to provide a mechanism for readers to find articles. I suspect there are others who shun categories because of the contradictory and confrontational attitudes dispalyed by category-oldtimers. IMO, of course. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

With the exception of

WP:CFD has declined much more rapidly than editors overall if you look at the discussions from a couple years ago. I don't have a good theory as to why so I'm not going to disregard yours out of hand that the in-crowd there is hostile to outsiders. I don't see that, but I suspect I'm one of the old timers you're describing! RevelationDirect (talk

) 02:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect: BTW when we talk about wp:overcategorization it appears that there are editors who think overcatgorization is a different concept than that described in the guideline. See for example the response to question question 20 at the RFA for user:BU Rob13. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The

WP:C2D is often ignored too, even though I think that guideline is sound.) RevelationDirect (talk

) 02:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pauline Thornhill, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Host and Here & Now. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The article

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of

2016 Ottawa sinkhole

for deletion

Just a note to myself Ottawahitech (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ottawa, I reverted two of your edits over at

(moved from mypage. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC))

Hi! Just wondering what the point of this category is. And are you going to add all 10,000 species of birds on the planet? MeegsC (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@MeegsC: I hope that one day Category:Animal common names will be more like Category:Plant common names Ottawahitech (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. I get it. But right now, it's a hodge-podge of animal groupings (i.e. "Duck") and animal species. If you're not planning to add all of the species, then none of them should be in there! And you need to clarify what should be included (i.e. by putting some verbiage at the top of the category page) so that others know what to add. MeegsC (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2016 Ottawa sinkhole

added a link pointing to Pavement

Arthur Cockfield

added a link pointing to Queens University

Basil Jellicoe

added a link pointing to Reformer

List of sinkholes

added a link pointing to

Doline

Santa J. Ono

added a link pointing to Provost

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What happened with Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/2016_Ottawa_sinkhole? DeVerm (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@DeVerm: Thanks for asking. This talkpage was blanked by user:Secondarywaltz. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@DeVerm and Ottawahitech: C'mon now. The sinkhole article may be part of WikiProject Ottawa, but Articles for deletion are not. What is your problem? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, this is due to the way that user's edits are stored in the Wikipedia database; it's marked as T36873 in Phabricator. The 2001 edits can be viewed using the API like this. Graham87 14:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to leave a note of explanation for my revert at List of Wikipedia controversies (and feel free to move this to the talk page there -- or open a thread there -- if you want to open it to discussion). It seems like that example is one of countless examples of high-profile citing of Wikipedia (and getting scolded for it), rather than a controversy about Wikipedia itself. I was going to add it to an article I could've sworn existed called something like list of news organizations citing Wikipedia, but I can't seem to find it... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I did not mind your revert -- actually I wasn't sure that was the right place to place it, but thought I would bring it to others attention. Anyway for those interested here is a Signpost article covering Terrorism database cites Wikipedia as a source. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ottawahitech, you forgot to sign your comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council; I've labeled it with an {{Unsigned}} for now. Just thought you'd like to know. CabbagePotato (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I was blocked, but the block lasted only a few minutes. Weird! Ottawahitech (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Science technology engineering and mathematics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:People in STEM fields has been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. --PanchoS (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, is there any way I can win you over to the viewpoint that company articles should be moved out of

Hi User:DanielPenfield thanks for bringing your approach to my attention, but no, I am completely opposed to removing articles from WikiProjects, something that, in my opinion, should be the decision of the WikiProjects themselves. Can we take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Why, I am a member of WP:WikiProject Business, but don't see your name among the Wikipedia:WikiProject Business/Participants. Also, I suspect if you took the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, the first thing that they would ask is "Why did you bring a project-specific question to us? Why didn't you discuss at WP:WikiProject Business?" -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@DanielPenfield: Are you saying that you only remove wp:WikiProject banners of WikiProjects you are a member of? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you're trying to change the subject. To quote

WP:PROJSCOPE, "A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support), which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project." If you're looking to criminalize removal of banners deemed out of scope, you'll have to prosecute editors like these: [4], [5], [6]. -- DanielPenfield (talk

) 03:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shenzhen Stock Exchange, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Civil law and Conglomerate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hari Vasudev is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Vasudev until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Uncletomwood (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Three years ago ...

missing
... you were recipient no. 556 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ottawahitech. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Shoppers City East, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have chosen to walk away from this article, since it appears it will take too much work to fight the stream of wp:deletionists. Too many other deserving areas to work on. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Treatments and potential treatments for Alzheimer's, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ChemNerd (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

What happened to your user page? Peter Horn User talk 01:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Property tax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Could you add more sections to List of sinkholes? like sinkholes in Europe, sinkholes in Asia, sinkholes in Africa and sinkholes in South America. and take them out of List of sinkholes#Others, thus eliminating that section. Peter Horn User talk 00:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Add New Zealand separately? Peter Horn User talk 00:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Property tax into Owner-occupancy. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of sinkholes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sinkholes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. EditorDownUnder (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Affordable housing in Canada

added a link pointing to Regina

 Done

British Columbia Real Estate Association

added a link pointing to CPE

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Saving Detroit's DIA and worker pensions. Since you had some involvement with the Saving Detroit's DIA and worker pensions redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. DMacks (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New York City Civil Court, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/strata-housing/operating-a-strata/finances-and-insurance/insurance, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to request that

You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

New York City Civil Court

added links pointing to Action and Calling

Ecogrid

added a link pointing to Grid

Fern Holland

added a link pointing to Vinita

 Done

Michael Cowpland

added a link pointing to Rockcliffe

 Done

Renters' insurance

added a link pointing to Uninhabitable

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of full-block structures in New York City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Port of New York. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Check out the following new article improvement drives/contests. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge
  – aims to reach 10,000 article improvements for UK- and Ireland-related articles
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge – aims to reach 10,000 article improvements for Africa-related articles

The article

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus

. Thank you.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thanks for letting me know. Just wondering if you were aware of User_talk:Ottawahitech/Archive_2#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Jeff_Storey? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, through I looked at it now and I do not see how it can be helpful to us. My concern is as stated - that the bio fails notability policies. If you'd like, we can start a proper AfD discussion where others can offer their opinions as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)