13 May 2015
Foundation elections: WMF Board candidates share their views with the Signpost Op-ed: What made Wikipedia lose its reputation? In the media: Grant Shapps story continues; Wikipedia's "leftist ties" News and notes: Swedish Wikimedia chapter organizes simultaneous Wikidata contests Featured content: Four first-time featured article writers lead the way Traffic report: Round Two
Single page Book Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 19:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Nomination of Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service 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/Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 21:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Joe Landolina for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe Landolina 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/Joe Landolina 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 18:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ottawahitech![edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of Us military command hacker by isis[edit]

A tag has been placed on Us military command hacker by isis, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Identity theft in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UTube (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Us military command hacked by ISIS listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Us military command hacked by ISIS. Since you had some involvement with the Us military command hacked by ISIS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 21:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20[edit]

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.

Americans for Tax Reform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tax return

Nina E. Olson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tax return

Washington Apple Health (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CHIP

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Asset protection[edit]

Just curious what you mean by your edit summary here at Asset protection ("just to see if anyone else will get involved")? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just curious to find out why you saw fit to post this on my user talkpage? Why not on the article's talkpage where others who are interested in the topic would normally opine? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Because you removed it with a strange and perhaps pointed (though I can't really tell) edit summary. That you're asking why I'm asking you on your talk page just makes this all the stranger, but by all means respond at the article talk page if you prefer? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27[edit]

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.

Canadian Marketing Association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Conference and Self-regulatory

Percy Downe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Veterans Affairs

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Dan Lamothe for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dan Lamothe 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/Dan Lamothe 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

TurboTax database knows your secret listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TurboTax database knows your secret. Since you had some involvement with the TurboTax database knows your secret redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mrfrobinson (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

for reminding me of that edit. It was a long time ago. I probably still had a sense of humour in those days ;( Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The need to communicate[edit]

• Hey Ottawahitech! Regarding your comment, I'm certainly interested in your perspective. Mine is that people aren't obligated to respond to every comment that comes their way; everyone chooses what they do here, and if they personally find a discussion too boring or time-consuming, they don't need to justify that. But if you're doing something other editors (correctly or not) object to and you continue to do it while ignoring repeated attempts to initiate discussion, that is a problem (I wouldn't call it a crime). This is a collaborative project after all. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Neil P. Quinn: I agree, I think. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of IRS Nationwide Tax Forums Online[edit]

A tag has been placed on IRS Nationwide Tax Forums Online requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia-related lists[edit]

Category:Wikipedia-related lists, 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. DexDor (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Companies of the United States with untaxed profits[edit]

Category:Companies of the United States with untaxed profits, 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) 00:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Companies of the United States with untaxed profits for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Companies of the United States with untaxed profits 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/Companies of the United States with untaxed profits 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem - I have placed the information on the article's talkpage for those interested. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I hope things are going well for you.Lbhiggin (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

RfA Question[edit]

Hello, I think you broke the template asking your question. If you want to fix it I will post and answer. Fenix down (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

some ideas[edit]

Hi Ottawatech, I've noticed our overlapping in a few AFDs and elsewhere. Hmm I thought more so than I see in wp:EditorInteractionAnalyzer, maybe I've been observing and agreeing with your comments in discussions where i didn't actually post. Anyhow I think we have similar views: we're both inclusionists, we're both being concerned about negative effects of Wikipedia deletion processes, we've both created lots of articles, maybe we both have been criticized for creating lots of articles (i have, and I see on your User page and above that you've had a lot deleted). We're both interested in business topics or at least not afraid of them. And I recently noticed your mentioning (at some "WikiProject X"-related page?) about not really having a home project, and I am pretty much in the same way. I wonder if we could team up usefully somehow. Maybe:

• engage in a collaboration to change deletion processes, maybe with a new wp:WER-like WikiProject?
• develop the repatriation of profits area? You created Companies of the United States with untaxed profits and I supported keeping at AFD, and it was kept, i think by no consensus. It's incomplete as a list-article and maybe we should make an effort to fill it out: actually identify the firms having more than some level $X of untaxed profits abroad, maybe using some business library resources, maybe easily if companies are required to report this in a footnote in their financial statements. It's within an important topic area which could be in the news prominently. Besides Obama's proposal, maybe U.S. presidential candidates of various parties will make proposals. Yet there's scant development in Wikipedia, nothing that could be updated to support Wikipedia front-page "in the news" linking, if/when the issue area is hot. The Repatriation article is about persons being returned to their home countries, and there's no "Repatriation of profits" article or other main article(s) in the general topic area.
• systematically create a lot of business-focused list-articles, that could guide a lot of future development? E.g., we both participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birungyi Barata and it led me to notice that coverage of law firms in Africa is minimal, while there's tons of coverage of firms in U.S. and U.K. There was a List of law firms in Uganda that was deleted, and I asked for a copy and have it at Draft:List of law firms in Uganda, planning to restore it perhaps. I would expect the top law firms in any country should be covered in Wikipedia. And the top firms in any professional services area, e.g. top architectural firms. But it looks like there never was a List of law firms in Africa or lists within individual African countries besides Uganda and South Africa. Use the sources found in the AFD to create them.

Just thinking out loud, no biggie. cheers, --doncram 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wulf Schiefenhövel[edit]

A tag has been placed on Wulf Schiefenhövel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  CombieTractor        talk 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a WikiProject Study[edit]

Hello Ottawahitech,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Ryzhou (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Identity theft in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tax returns (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Spelling corrections[edit]

Just curious. Why would you undo my correction of your spelling mistake? It's drama not dramah. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Harold Kahn[edit]

Hello, Ottawahitech. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Harold Kahn, 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) 20:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I posted a question on the article's talkpage. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dan Rosensweig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Turbotax database knows your secret[edit]

. A tag has been placed on Turbotax database knows your secret, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aileen Lee[edit]

.A tag has been placed on Aileen Lee requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Reddogsix: What do you mean by "lack of asserted importance"? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Turbotax database knows your secret[edit]

I am not sure what you were requesting on my talk page. Did you want me to restore the redirect? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90: Thanks for asking. Actually what I want you to do is wave a magic wand and get User:Mrfrobinson to leave me alone, just kidding :-)

But seriously I don’t know what processes Wikipedia has in place to stop User:Mrfrobinson from nipping at my wiki-heels. I don’t believe in wiki capital punishment and really have no desire to go to wp:ANI and start another wp:dramah to try and have him/her blocked (and possibly end up being blocked myself). But it is hard enough to contribute content here without the constant stream of deletion nominations and reversions of legitimate content. I just want to be left alone to contribute content and not be involved in "talk" exclusively.

So... to answer your question: I was just trying to bring this user's behavior to the attention of the community, and your talk page provided me one such opportunity. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(added as an afterthought) The proximity of your post to the one that follows it reminded me that my hassels with USER:Mrfrobinson go back a long way, and that trying to prove my case at Wikipedia is hopeless. Back in March 2014 I tried to illustrate how this user was one of those targeting my edits, but failed to convince 4 editors (user:DGG /user:Cullen328/ user:Voceditenore/ user:PamD) involved in that discussion, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

and in the meantime User:Mrfrobinson continues to revert my edits with impunity, sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Who are you talking too? If you have a problem with an editor bring it up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You just need to show your position that you feel stocked and they are doing wrong..for example this revert that you mention above is not what should have happened as per WP:CONTESTED. You need to make a case that your editing in good faith but some guy is following you not in good faith (with differences). Be aware he has the same right to explain his POV at any investigation. -- Moxy (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Since I have been pinged above, I'll just point out that the revert that Moxy is talking about was entirely appropriate. It was a completely unreferenced BLP, with the tag BLPPROD. Such tags may not be removed unless a source is provided. If they are removed without adding a source, the tag is restored. Ottawahitech, as for your other assertions, I see no evidence that Mrfrobinson is "stalking" you. One only has to look at the multiplicity of notices on this page from many other editors for your inappropriate and/or completely unreferenced articles to see that the problem does not lie with Mrfrobinson, but with your own approach to creating articles here. Voceditenore (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore, Did you just say that even if I am a victim stalking, I brought it on myself and therefore it is my own fault? Just trying to understand. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what I am saying. I'm saying that:

• Your perception that this person is "stalking" you is incorrect and a misinterpretation of WP:HOUND. Incidentally, we don't use "stalk" any more.
• The problematic nature of your editing has been observed by many editors. It is not the case that only one editor sees problems with your edits or "has it in for you".
• You should think very seriously about why you have so many of these messages on your talk page and do something about it.
• Accusations of "hounding" should not be used to deflect attention from problems in one's own editing or to avoid confronting an obvious problem. Ditto describing oneself as a "victim".

It is quite common when an editor finds a problematic article to start also checking the various articles and categories linked from it as well those which link to the article. In my experience, one often finds many more problems. If one editor is connected to all those articles and categories, it can look like "hounding", but in my view it's not. Likewise if an editor finds problematic editing from another editor, checking their other edits can also be permissible and is even advised for new page and recent changes patrollers. I have tracked such editors myself, although not you. I consider repeated creation of unreferenced BLPs, removing BLPPROD from articles without adding a reference, and a tendency to treat Wikipedia like a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia to be quite problematic. This revert of yours was particularly egregious. That completely unreferenced article contained the subject's exact date of birth and alleged partner's name—both serious BLP violations. You obviously don't consider this problematic, and I think that's where the the problem lies. Note also that the person you are objecting to has only dealt with a very small proportion of your edits, and in a particular area. I suggest you re-read WP:HOUND. I also suggest you re-read very carefully the excellent advice DGG gave you in that conversation you linked. So far, you seem to be largely ignoring it. Voceditenore (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Voceditenore:

The problematic nature of your editing has been observed by many editors Lets agree to disagree on the best way to add content to Wikipedia, at least for the moment.

Accusations of "hounding" should not be used… Please note I have been very careful in my choice of words and have not accused user:mrfrobinson of stalking me, however, I do consider myself a victim.

Your perception that this person is "stalking" you is incorrect Just wondering if you have actually assessed this or whether you just decided that I am simply not worth the effort?

I have tracked such editors myself Tracking is one thing, but going on fishing trips to nominate articles for deletion, for example Aileen Lee, using this type of rationale: a businesswomen who lacks any real n notability. No significant award or achievements may end up hurting Wikipedia's credibility.

a tendency to treat Wikipedia like a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia to be quite problematic I have more to say, if you are interested? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Your contention that you have been "very careful" in your "choice of words" and have not accused Mrfrobinson of hounding you is nonsense and pure Wikilawyering. Below is just a sample of the stuff you have been posting about him on other editors' talk pages (clearly identifying him by linking his name or via a diff). This is in addition to pinging 4 more editors (one of whom is an admin) to this section to continue your assertion that he is "targeting" your edits, and your continued assertions here that you are his "victim":

• The nominator has made it his wiki-mission to pursue my edits almost exclusively. Just thought you may want to know
• whether you have second thoughts about his insistence on driving me out of Wikipedfia.
• an editor who has been relentlessly pursuing Ottawahitech for weeks ... you seem quite content in perpetuating the continued harrassement ottawahitech is experiencing. (Why you are referring to yourself in the third person is beyond me.)

Repeatedly casting aspersions on another editor is in itself a form of harassment. I strongly suggest you cut it out. And yes, I have examined the editor's contributions and yours very carefully. That is precisely why I said that your perception that the editor is "stalking" you is incorrect. This is my final comment here. I am not interested in discussing your editing philosophy any further. Voceditenore (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aileen Lee[edit]

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

non-notable: 3 references: 2 are her own work, one is a mention.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Therese Lawless[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Therese Lawless requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nitasha Tiku[edit]

The article Nitasha Tiku has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vauhini Vara[edit]

The article Vauhini Vara has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. BiH (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your article has three references now. One primary, two secondary. I certainly consider the person to be notable. I just can't find the place to participate in the deletion discussion. The template was one I wasn't used to seeing for some reason.

  Bfpage |leave a message  00:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bfpage: Deletions at Wikipedia are strange rituals: there wp:CSDs. wp:PRODs (at least 2 kinds,apparently), and wp:AFDs. Then there is also other rituals for nuking categories, redirects, templates, wikipedia pages, to name the few I remember of the top, sigh ... Ottawahitech (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Portia Li[edit]

The article Portia Li has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nitasha Tiku[edit]

A tag has been placed on Nitasha Tiku requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wgolf (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Aileen Lee for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aileen Lee 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/Aileen Lee 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22[edit]

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.

Employment Law Alliance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Labor, Client and Member

Fadl Shaker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saida Y

Xenia Wickett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dean

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thank you[edit]

Thank you for sending me a 'thank you' for my editing on the Animal attacks article. I often wonder how and why editors like yourself even notice such things and I am flattered.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bfpage: The pleasure is all mine - what a great article you have created. How did you find all these bits and pieces and put them together? And, to answer your question, I was notified when you linked an article I created long ago (and forgot all about). This is one of the brownies wiki-editors get for creating articles on Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, thanks for responding back to me. I'd love to chat via email about how I find all that stuff. I have taken a look at your editing history and I believe that I've discovered a kindred spirit-someone who appreciates all that wikimedia has to bring to the world yet at the same time frustrated with the problems inherent in its' operation, Am I right? I love your user page, and how you boldly proclaim how creative you have been and yet how it looks like all you do is get ...ummm well, the opposite of encouraged on your creative endeavors. May I send you an email?

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bfpage: One thing I noticed from looking at your contribution history is that we both started editing wikipedia in 2007 (The number of active editors on the English-language Wikipedia peaked in 2007 at more than 51,000 and has been declining ever since). I have always wondered if those who started in 2007 simply experienced the wikipedia version of Eternal September. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of things I like about 2007. I almost gave up because I didn't realize how trigger-happy some administrators are and are so quick to NOT assume good faith. I've got your talk page on my watchlist and whenever I see that you have gone and found somebody wanting to delete one of your articles I'll just go right in and find all your references for you. It's quite simple if you ever want to learn I'd love to help you out. Very Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bfpage: I rarely use my watchlist, but any tips on how to find references I am sure would be welcomed by me and others reading this page. BTW since you like animal pages have you seen this: List of animals with fraudulent diplomas? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Hazelrigg[edit]

Effectively I "nominated" it myself. Admins are allowed to use their own judgement, and directly delete pages that they believe meet the Speedy Deletion criteria. In this case, A7, notability. Please read WP:BIO. To pass A7, an article needs to show that there is at least an indication that the person might be notable by Wikipedia's definition of notability. Just being a "developer", a "lender", or even being sent to prison for tax evasion, none of that shows at all that the person might be notable.

And even if you pass A7, you then have to actually show that they do indeed meet the criteria, or the article is likely to be deleted at AFD fairly swiftly. Independent, reliable, non-trivial sources are needed for that. And if they are notable only for the jailing issue, you need to get past WP:BLP1E. And especially if the article is written mostly as a way to show the negative information, it is going to get extra BLP scrutiny. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@TexasAndroid: Thanks for taking the time to reply. Since you have nominated Thomas Hazelrigg for deletion I am wondering:

• Why you did not notify me of the pending deletion that took place only 20 minutes after the article was started?
• How can the wording be changed so that it passes CSD#A7 without using wp:peacock words? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice is not required. Many, many non-notable people get articles written every day. Most get deleted fairly quickly, as yours was.

As for avoiding it being deleted, one good way is to astart off with one of the article creation systems. Draft article space, WP:AFC, etc. These allow articles to be developed without being under threat of sudden deletion.

That said, you really should be thinking not about how to avoid A7 deletion, but how to avoid deletion at a full deletion debate. Just building in Draft or User space will avoid A7 for now, but the article is still subject to deletion as soon as it moves to article space. If you want your article to stand, aim for avoiding that from the beginning. As for how to avoid that, please do read WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E]]. It's not really a matter of wording, as much as it's a matter of sourcing/references. You need to be able to provide (preferably multiple) sources that are Reliable, Independent, and Non-Trivial. All three of those points are critical in determining if a source is enough to help show notability. As examples, a blog is no Reliable. A press release is not Independent. And a brief mention in a list or article on a tangential subject is a Trival reference. You should be gathering your references now, rather than later. Otherwise, even if you get past A7, you'll just find yourself in the middle of a deletion debate, facing deletion. And full deletion debates carry more precedent, are harder to get past, than simple A7 deletions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@TexasAndroid: One thing that struck me when reading your reply above is your suggestion of using draft-space for article creation, which is something I did a while ago, thinking it would buy me time to collect information, but my article was deleted anyway. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to Draft:Julie Ireton? That one was deleted as "abandoned". It had not been edited in six months or more. Draft space is not free web hosting, it's a place for articles that are being actively worked on. So yeah, it's not the case that articles in Draft will never be deleted, but they generally will not as long as they are actively being worked on. And if one *is* deleted under G13, like the Julie article was, all you have to do is ask, and it can be restored. I could restore that specific one for you if you want. If it sits unedited for another six months, it'll likely again be deleted as "abandoned" again.

There are a lot of different reasons things get deleted. Some are more easily undone than others. G13, G7, and WP:PROD are among the most easily undone. All those really take is a request to have it restored. On the other extreme, copyright violations and attack pages would be reasons for deletion that would IMHO likely be the least likely to be easily restored. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Editing abuse filter[edit]

You need to add sources to these new articles because your getting alot of abuse filters the pass few months. This leads to even more people looking at what is going on and thus deleting your work.... because they see no sources. Just have to add sources and a cat to stop this. -- Moxy (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy: Thanks for reminding me of the abuse filter -- I remember seeing it before and not understanding its purpose. I am still confused because it appears that all the recent "abuses" have been triggered by Creation of a new article without any categories (650) which I had no idea was considered abuse. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Funny[edit]

not everyone likes my new article Here is thw one I created today: Empathy in chickens, one of my finest.

  Bfpage |leave a message  15:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Duggan (CEO)[edit]

The article Robert Duggan (CEO) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. --Finngall ^talk 18:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

fixed,   Bfpage |leave a message  21:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Congratulations and much in encouragement and admiration do you for putting up with all the people who want to delete your work. I am the new president of your fan club. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  21:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing Wikipedian[edit]

Thanks for considering me for the list of missing Wikipedians. Though I can't think of much reason to have such a list at all (feel free to enlighten me if there is some such reason). Actually, per the policy notes, I've just been on a long break. My "day job" has kept me very busy. As an aside, it currently involves the Chapter 9 case of a public hospital district! I'll be back some day. Cheers. --Pechmerle (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pechmerle: Wow, am I glad to hear from you and to know you are considering returning. You are one of the editors I met here for whom I have a great deal of admiration. It is great to know that you will be returning — there are just so many editors who simply vanish.

I guess you are referring to Wikipedia_talk:Missing_Wikipedians#.22Don.27t_add_users_with_fewer_than_.7E1.2C000_edits.22? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Portia Li for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Portia Li 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/Portia Li 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. Onorem (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

fixed,   Bfpage |leave a message  18:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You may want to comment on the Portia Li deletion since the discussion has expanded to include other editors.

  Bfpage |leave a message  14:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tina Huang v. Twitter[edit]

Hello Ottawahitech,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Tina Huang v. Twitter for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Karlhard (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• You thoroughly deserved to have this deleted. Surely you know by now that it is article suicide to start ad article in mainspace. I have moved it to your sandbox. Do not even think about moving it back until you have clothed those naked URLs. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The naked are clothed.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Bfpage: sorry mate, they are still naked according to my definition of the term. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You are quite charming in your replies... I haven't decided which link I'm going to click on yet, the suspense is killing me. I do see your point, though. Best regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey! I'm pretty sure I'm one of those hags! I'm going to get you for copivio. Your new friend,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:CAC 40 companies[edit]

Category:CAC 40 companies has 12 members. Category:CAC 40 has 29 members, and only one of them is about the index. I see that Category:Dow Jones Industrial Average has members such as Dogs of the Dow and List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Are you planning on adding similar articles to Category:CAC 40? Otherwise, I don't see the point of your partially completed category split. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia categories named after stock market indices for examples of other stock indexes. For example, Category:TOPIX 100, not Category:TOPIX 100 companies. As your project to change this category configuration remains unfinished, I am reverting your changes. I'm open to the idea of renaming the category, though I don't think that's necessary. I don't see the point of a category with just a single member, that's WP:Overcategorization. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Mateo County Superior Court, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Mateo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Chia Hong v. Facebook for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chia Hong v. Facebook 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/Chia Hong v. Facebook 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. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

talk p.[edit]

You're in the right, and I don't mind your invoking me, but for various reasons I'd prefer not to comment there. I'd gladly merge them back for you except that my experience in performing history merges is that I mess them up further about half the time. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Civility Barnstar

Thank you! I was really impressed by the constructive and non-acrimonious tone and contributions from everyone involved in the recent AFD discussion on the Alliance of Women Directors article. What could have been—with the wrong editors involved—a very nasty debate, turned into a very positive discussion. Even editors who strongly felt that the article should be deleted worked hard to find sources and fix problems with it. This is the kind of positive collaboration people don't hear a lot about in Wikipedia-land and I'd like to recognize it. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brad D. Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquinas College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Small Business Health Care tax credit[edit]

Hi Ottawa. Some interesting editing going on in relation to Healthcare in the USA at the moment, including this Small Business Health Care tax credit page you started. Possible SPA activity, not sure if it is legitimate or not. See here. 220 of ^Borg 06:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Drobot, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Irvine and Long Beach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI[edit]

	Hello, Ottawahitech. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. North America1000 09:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

New article: Excellence Canada[edit]

Assuming you haven't already seen it, I'd like to bring it to your attention. It could use some strengthening and I'm guessing you're in a position where you could make a difference. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)