User:CactusWriter/Archive 2019

__NOINDEX__

On This Holiday BY Jessie James Decker
I would like to know why my page was deleted the album is charting on Billboard's Christmas list, which meets WP:NALBUM and is a reason to keep the page. I have updated it multiple time its just information on the cd please explain. Thank you in advance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:On_This_Holiday_BY_Jessie_James_Decker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.37 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The page Draft:On This Holiday (album) was tagged and deleted for the WP:G4 criteria (recreation of a page previously deleted per AFD discussion). That discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:On This Holiday. If you wish to have other editors review the deletion discussion and the subsequent deletion, than you can use the forum at Deletion review. Regards. — Cactus Writer (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Declined speedy G12
Just so I understand, unattributed copy-pasted text from a CC-BY-SA source is not a speedy G12 because the license allows copying under certain conditions, even though the conditions weren't met? In other words, because the attribution could be added, it's not a speedy candidate? Thanks for any explanation. I'm still learning how the various speedy criteria apply. Bakazaka (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Bakazaka. No, the page does not qualify for speedy deletion. Please note that the G12 speedy deletion criteria are only for pages with "with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license.... Public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion." That particular Wiki uses the same CC-BY-SA license as Wikipedia. Of course, this does not mean the text is acceptable, as is -- only that is does not qualify for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Thanks for checking. I appreciate your diligence. — Cactus Writer (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Always more to learn! Bakazaka (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a thanks
Thanks for helping out with the speedy deletions of Wwe2011, he is just churning out test pages and i'm happy someone else has noticed other than just me. Thanks! Haha --HC7 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, HC7. Yes, they were definitely creating a mess. I resisted an indefinite block -- but after seeing all the copyvio images, too, the block may need to be extended. We'll see what happens upon their return. Thanks for staying on top of it. — Cactus Writer (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They seem to have resumed the same activities upon their return. Their talk page just sprouted a new crop of speedy/draftify notices of the same type and topic coverage. Bakazaka (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that the user has been appropriately indef'd already. Thanks for the heads-up. — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Undeletion request
You deleted the page Javee Mocon per WP:G5. Now, this player is currently playing in the top professional league in the Philippines and I am requesting you to un-delete this page so I could expand and update it. If undeletion could not be done, could I have the markup of the page before it was deleted? So I could use that to recreate the page myself. Thank you. Baby miss fortune 07:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hello Babymissfortune. As you requested, I have restored the last version of the page before deletion. It can be found at Draft:Javee Mocon. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Undelete request
Hi,

Could you undelete Talk:G.N.P.C. which you deleted? G.N.P.C. has been un-CSDed and there is an AfD going on. Just to have the talk history available. Best wishes -- Raziman T V (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- Raziman T V (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Corn & Peg
here go on this website and reveal the truth. Official website  -- Moonelson (talk • contribs) 18:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , the link that you provide above does not list any of the personnel -- director, producer, etc -- and therefore, is not a source. That is an issue that has been mentioned to you by multiple editors. You need to cite a reliable source as reference any time that you add information to Wikipedia article pages. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * well actually we will wait for Friday February 22th to find out who the voice actors, producers, director, creator, and all the other crew for the show are -- Moonelson (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that Verifiability is a foundational policy for all edits. If you cannot provide an immediate reliable source for this information, than it cannot be added at this time. This is the reason your edits were removed in the first place, and also the reason your Draft submission was declined. It appears that you are trying to circumvent Wikipedia policies by creating new versions in the Main Space and continuing to add unsourced information to multiple pages. As you have stated that this information will not be available until after February 22, then the information needs to be removed until such time as it becomes available through reliable publishes sources. If you have questions, feel free to ask. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Undelete request: File:Vertical airspeeds of Boeing Max 737s in 2018-2019 crashes.jpg
I understand why this image was tagged as a copyvio, but I think the tag was incorrect. Could you review and reconsider?

For ease, I'll quote the description I provided:


 * This is a graph of publicly available flight data, for the two flights. The source data was provided by FlightRadar24 (https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/1104676048317362177 and possibly other tweets/posts).


 * It is believed to be public domain, but if not, it would be usable under free use doctrine, because 1/ the data cannot be provided from other sources than the few bodies that log aircraft satellite data, so fair use would reasonably apply to its reuse, and 2/ the production of a simple graph of an ordinary type, like this, from this type of public reusable data, is insufficiently creative to give further copyright to the grapher (for example, any regraphing of the same data would look substantively the same, expect for minor choices such as line colors and scale).


 * Graphs of this data have also been reused on several websites, in simplified and detailed form. The detailed form is more relevant to our article, because it is more exact (hence useful to a reader, especially one with experience in aircraft) and it specifically shows the 20-21 second fluctuations which third parties have noted as a key feature, which is probably of use to a reader.

As far as I'm aware, the only copyrightable elements might be choice of colors and captioning - the graph itself cannot be copyrighted, as it is a non-creative endeavor. A certain degree of creativity is needed to make a graph copyrightable, and I'm not sure that this graph meets that criterion. Could you consider undeleting it? Alternatively, what would your view be on approaching it this way:


 * 1) The only potentially copyrightable elements are coloring, captions and overall style - the graph itself in terms of the lines shown, are representations of data where no creativity was used to select the data, and it's settled that such drawings can't be copyrighted. If a concern exists over those minor elements, would the same lines, with different styling/captions  (not related to those in the original), suffice?
 * 2) If not, would you be okay taking this to DRV for discussion?

Thanks! FT2 (Talk 02:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi FT2,


 * I understand your desire to use the graph. But the image was tagged for being listed as public domain and it is definitely not public domain. FlightRadar24 holds a copyright license for all of its content that is incompatible with Wikipedia policy. Their website specifically states that their content is for "non-commercial use only” and may not be modified. As you know, FlightRadar24 is a Swedish company that sells a subscription service for its data collection and presentations, and materials like the graph are part of their commercial enterprise. The appearance of the graph in the NYT is credited and probably involves a publication fee.


 * Although the ability to copyright a graph has been disputed in US Law on the basis of a lack of creativity, Wikipedia takes a "more restrictive" approach than US Copyright Law. The concern for Wikipedia is also on the permission for downstream use.


 * I think your best possibility is to argue for fair use. If you can make a case that the graph is needed as a visual representation of the article text, than it should be allowed. I have no problem should you wish to run this by WP:DRV. As always, other editors may have a different take on this. Cheers. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There's an error/misunderstanding in your comment. Contradicting your comment, The graph isn't in any way created by Flightradar24, nor did they creatively select data to be graphed. The graphs produced by FR24 were completely different (1 2 - these look like the only pages with graphed data or graphs on them, on that FR24). The specific graph we're discussing was produced from vertical speed data put online by FR24 (see download links for data at foot of those 2 pages), but data isn't copyrightable without creativity in its selection. So what FR24's website may or may not say for reuse terms is completely irrelevant. Can you now re-reconsider? :) FT2 (Talk 21:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that clarification. Yes, I did misunderstand. I didn't realize that only Flightradar24's data was used to create the graph. That would not be a copyright violation. I have restored the image, and perhaps you can clarify your licensing remarks on the page so that they are clearer. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

G12 of List of countries by past population (United Nations, estimates)
Hi, you declined a G12 on List of countries by past population (United Nations, estimates) on creative grounds, and I'm wondering why you are certain this isn't a creative work? The numbers are not presented as facts per se but rather as estimates, which would likely be considered "creative." Also, the U.N. license is still incompatible with our license. Non-copyrightable data has been subject to use restrictions by U.S. courts when a license exists. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, SportingFlyer2. It is my understanding that raw data, including estimates, are not copyrightable. This is true even for research data that may have required hard work and calculations to compile. (Here is a nice overview of the law). The creative component that makes a list of data copyrightable comes from selection of some data rather than others (like a top 100 list) and/or arrangement of the data in a creative manner. (The Wikipedia article is alphabetized, a non-creative mechanical grouping, that is different than the UN presentation.) I don't see either criteria as applicable here, and, therefore, any stated copyright is unenforceable. Wikipedia has a a good essay written by our in-house experts at Copyright in lists. It covers this in more detail. As always, you can obtain other opinions but this is clearly not an unambiguous case as is required by CSD. I appreciate your care toward the issue of copyright here on Wikipedia. Cheers. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I still disagree with you - per the Copyright in Lists link you helpfully provided, I still think this list satisfies the "calculations which are themselves based upon numbers created by value judgments" after reading the methodology of the UN data sources here . I think you are probably correct to say it is not unambiguous, but it's also possible a court could rule either way. Is AfD the correct place to get other opinions on this matter? I appreciate your help, this I believe was my first G12 post. Thanks! SportingFlyer  T · C  21:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, AFD is always an option. Or you can ask for opinions from editors at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Or you can template the page with Template:Copyvio and list it at Copyright problems where it can be assessed by an administrator. Good luck with your editing. — Cactus Writer (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Adam Frank Artist site
Hi CactusWriter,

I made some significant changes to the page for Adam Frank (lighting designer and public artist) since it was intially flagged. could you have another look at it and let me know if still does not comport with wiki guidelines.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregwall89 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Gregwall89. The page Draft:Adam Frank had been tagged for speedy deletion by another editor for copyright violation. I reviewed it at that time. Before it was speedy deleted, I took a detailed look at the page and compared it to the source material. Although you had changed some words, the overall writing remained a close paraphrasing of the original sources -- and that is plagiarism, a copyright violation. For a couple of examples copied from outside sources at and :


 * Source page: His body of work represents an ongoing investigation of light, interactivity and our perception of nature. Adam’s work uses new techniques to add natural lighting effects to the modern built environment.


 * You wrote: His work is an investigation of light, interactivity and the perception of nature. Frank utilizes new techniques to add natural lighting effects to the modern built environment.


 * Source page: This interactive installation welcomes people to the new facility with a living symbol of health, compassion and scientific inquiry.


 * You wrote: PULSE welcomes visitors to the TTUHSC LERT facility with a spectacular, living symbol of health, care and compassion.


 * These are just two clear examples of close paraphrasing, but the entire article was similarly plagiarized. This is typical when someone tries to changes a few words -- unfortunately the foundational creative arrangement remains. I suggest that you review WP:Close paraphrasing before writing any article. And understand that it is always best to use your own original wording to write the article, in addition to inline citations. If you have further question, please ask. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary! From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Request unprotection Sunil Kumar
Hello CactusWriter! I wrote the draft on this Sunil Kumar. When I went to move the page, I saw it is currently protected. Could you help move my draft there or unprotect it so I can? Many thanks! Thsmi002 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . Hi, Thsmi002. That page was protected for recreation, but it was a different individual. I have now unprotected it. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I figured that was probably the case. Thank you! Thsmi002 (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Page Ren (singer)
Dear CactusWriter, It has come to my notice that a page I've created was deleted by you. Kindly let me know what can be done to revive it. It was flagged saying that it is similar to a previously deleted article about the same person. Kindly guide me though what needs to be done. Asikm03 (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Asikm03. The page Ren (singer) was tagged for speedy deletion as a recreation of an article that had been previously deleted per deletion discussion. The previous version was determined to be based on references which provided only trivial mentions and/or were unreliable sources. The latest version did not improve upon these issues. Please note that a biography page requires significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. This means that references should provide in-depth coverage of the person as an individual (rather than mentioned as a member of a musical group) and the citations must be reliable independent sources (See WP:RS). Good luck with your editing. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Now at Deletion review/Log/2020 January 1. —Cryptic 10:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Kundan Srivastava
Dear CactusWriter,

Namastey from India.

I've created a page was rejected by CNMall41 on 24 July. Earlier they advised me to search the reliable sources of Kundan and then citation it properly. After submission of draft, the article was rejected for no reasons.

It was flagged saying that this submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is previously deleted article about the same person many times and the protection log. I agree sir, may it was deleted earlier lack of reliable sources, notability (suitable/sufficient sourcing). Now, he has handsome reliable sources and notability. Google is too showing his notability. https://g.co/kgs/6TLjbg

Kundan Srivastava is a noted human rights activist and working since many years from the young age featured in BBC World Service and International media for his fearless works for human rights, you can research as well. Secondly, I came to you to know that on which ground article was actually rejected now? Only because the article about him was deleted earlier many times? I have mentioned the reliable sources, notability (suitable/sufficient sourcing).

I’d request you to check the draft once. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lekkala_R_Reddy/sandbox

Please help me to get this article published; if meet all the guidelines. I'll be highly grateful to you.

Wikipedia is for those people who’re doing some notable works in respective fields. Kundan deserves to be included in Wikipedia directory because of his notability.

Please help me to get this article published; if meet all the guidelines. I'll be highly grateful to you.

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear CactusWriter, please reply. I’m waiting to know your opinion that now my article having reliable sources and notability?. Regards,

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Do not expect people to immediately reply to your talk page comments. This is almost spam already. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 03:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . I'm sorry that I was not around this week to answer your question. However, I see that it has been well-answered by numerous other editors already on your talk page, at the teahouse and on other venues. Please note that failure to meet the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia does not diminish the work of Kundan Srivastava (or any other activist) -- it is simply that they do not qualify for an encyclopedic biography. I also reiterate this good advice written to you by Seraphimblade and encourage you to move on to other subject matter. Good luck with your editing. — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear CactusWriter,

Thankyou for your warm reply.

Somewhere I agree with your words that failure to meet the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia doesn’t diminish the work of Kundan.

But I’m sad and discourage that Kundan article was rejected after a handsome reliable sources and coverage.

I have mentioned these reliable sources as citations of article.

https://www.freepressjournal.in/lifestyle/kundan-srivastava-the-man-who-fights-for-human-rights https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/bollywood/190719/ill-always-be-there-for-people-who-have-been-ill-treated-kundan-sriv.html https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03mcy46 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-jails-worker-indian-migrant-spoke-out-work-conditions-online-viral-video-abdul-sattar-a6943901.html https://www.sify.com/finance/saudi-employer-demanded-rs-15-lakh-to-let-two-indians-go-free-news-editors-picks-qdwsc6gaibjji.html https://topyaps.com/indian-workers-in-saudi-arabia/ http://www.internationalnewsandviews.com/a-human-rights-activist-wins-veer-putra-samman-award/

I’d like to understand which articles of these meet the guidelines and which are not. Because I want to clear my understanding for the next articles in future.

Many thanks,

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Lekkala R Reddy, I assume that the latest version in your sandbox contained the latest sources, then was reviewed by several editors and was subsequently deleted by an administrator. I will not be reviewing the content nor their decision. The place to request a review of a deletion is at Deletion review. However, first please read WP:FORUMSHOP and, secondly, you may also wish to keep in mind the brief essay on WP:DROPTHESTICK. Best, — Cactus Writer (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Kenneth Crutchlow article edit
Would it be sufficient if I provide a statement from one of the coordinators of Ocean Rowing Society to allow this text to be used and revert the edit?

Intoextreme (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Intoextreme. Yes. The specific instructions for releasing text from an online source are provided at WP:DONATETEXT. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Undelete Request
Hi, could you kindly undelete the page Tobiloba per WP:NMG. Now, this musician has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published and are independent of the musician. Inorder to be able to work on it and improve it. Thank you Kojomo (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . The article had been userfied to Draft:Tobiloba in order for you to work on it. Please note that Drafts are not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Good luck with your editing. — Cactus Writer (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Request Undeletion of Michael Petr
I am a big fan of ballroom dancing and have been following dancers for many years and came across Michael profile and wanted to improve and update so it does not get deleted. Micheal is a big influence in the dancing community and makes a change. I have added the necessary sources which were missing originally, it is why it was flagged for deletion. All sources are reliable. Although some are in Czech language as he is Czech. For example....see below at time stamp 13:07 he talks about his music career. https://sport5.cz/volny-cas/ukaz-se-3-104dc055.html?fbclid=IwAR2q4Av6zNrUeBaJYL0OWqHXu1xj1BmDrI-8OIOPwzajATndX-SSgq12418 Jw201309 (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Julie Smith
 * Hello, Julie Smith. Please note that a deletion due to lack of notability does not reflect on an individual's talent or influence within their community -- only that there is not enough significant coverage by independent reliable sources to pass encyclopedic criteria. IMO, the example given here -- a 60-second interview on a half-hour youtube video is not significant coverage. Nor is the bulk of other sources independent or reliable. Reliable sources provides further information. Best. — Cactus Writer (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response and understand where you are coming from. Can you elaborate further on what is reliable source.  If you followed the sources there are pictures and articles.  In Embassy ball reason why I am using Facebook as a source is because embassy ball deletes the results every year.  However, it doesn't make it unreliable.  There are photographs and results which prove he was there and his involvement. It is why there is a link to facebook. If you go to danceportseries.com and search past winners you'll see Michael P as a top teacher. Next year new results will be posted for 2019 winners and the 2018 winners will disappear as they do not keep record of priors years winners on their website. I appreciate any feedback.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4C01:6370:7C27:9C11:3287:10FC (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Both significant coverage and independent are necessary criteria -- meaning that news coverage must be in-depth and more than just a mention; and that self-promotional materials or bios are invalid as sources. Also, at the moment, it is unclear whether a regional dance series is notable in itself, let alone the individual dancers or teachers. By the way, the dancesportseries.com does list the past winners of previous years and it appears Michael Petr has never won the award but has been a Top 10 finalist. (I note that this regional award itself does not appear to have any significant notability for an encyclopedic biography.) — Cactus Writer (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Atanu Raychaudhuri
Hello CactusWriter, I've created a page was rejected by CactusWriter on 26th August. Earlier my page was published, after two months my page was delete, and Wikipedia show me the reason, same content on website : http://atanuraychaudhuri.com, And my page has delete section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Previously ,19 June 2019 Roy Chaudhuri Atanu talk contribs moved page User:Roy Chaudhuri Atanu to Wikipedia:Roy Chaudhuri Atanu (Moving draft article to main namespace) (revert), after editing my page was published, But now it's delete. Mr. Atanu Ray Chowdhuri is noted a Film Producer & Also and popular advocate in Kolkata High Court. You can Research as well, Secondly you mentioned that this page is seems like promotional page, which is absolutely wrong. So I want to request you, If I edit this page with new fresh content, Can I Publish or not? Please guide. Roy Chaudhuri Atanu (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: Editor has already been blocked as a spam only account. — Cactus Writer (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Maynard Hubbard Salmon, II
Hi, I was just about to revert the speedy tag I'd added to Draft:Maynard Hubbard Salmon, II as the author has contacted me on my talk page to inform me that she's added a compatible creative commons licence statement to the source that parts of the article were copied from. You'd deleted it just before I reverted my edit. Please could you restore? Thanks. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Cactus Writer (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Ayanda Thabethe
Hi CactusWriter, You salted the page Ayanda Thabethe. I believe it was created by an inexperienced editor. Please unsalt it as I would like to work on it. The subject is notable. Thanks Ceethekreator (talk)
 * Hello . Because of the circumstances surrounding the protection of that page, your best course of action is to create an article in draft space (WP:DRAFTS). After it is ready for addition, it can then be moved into the main space. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you CactusWriter, here is the draft Draft:Ayanda Thabethe Ceethekreator (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've moved your draft into main space. Note that I've tagged the birthdate and high school because they still require citations to reliable sources. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much from the Journal of the Southwest
Hi CactusWriter,

Thanks so much for the detailed info. The example from The Accounting Review will help a lot. Will do lots of reading next week before starting to edit. If you love the Sonoran Desert, these people I work with... It is amazing how much they care. I have been here just three months but I am already inspired by that love for the place.

Thanks!

Carlos Quintero

Cqinteroh (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bardi (folklore)
A tag has been placed on Bardi (folklore) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"There is no reference to this use of Bardi in the Turkish (folklore) article. Bardie DAB page says 'a shape-changing spirit or a rabid animal in Trebizond folklore', but I am removing this as there's nothing in the article about this either."

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The speedy deletion was declined, and the redirect has been listed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 8 instead. Geolodus (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Geolodus. I have replied at the RFD . — Cactus Writer (talk)