User talk:Daphne Preston-Kendal/Archive 1

Proposed deletion of Suburban Souls


The article Suburban Souls has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable book

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 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 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. TheLongTone (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "ə"
In view of the comment you left at User talk:Hortimech2014, you might be interested in the discussion I started at Template talk:IPAc-en/Archive 1, suggesting that "about" is a bad example. --  Dr Greg   talk  17:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lauri Love


The article Lauri Love 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 when you are ready to add one. Jinkinson  talk to me  15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OED
I see that you followed the advice at FAC and opened a peer review – only for a bot to close it immediately. I imagine that's because the closure of the FAC is not complete, and the system doesn't allow a PR to be open a the same time as a FAC. I suggest you wait a day or so, until the FAC closure is formalised, then reopen the PR. Meantime I'll start looking at the article and making notes. I'll also see if other useful eyes are prepared to chip in and help improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have looked in at the peer review and left some comments. The article, which I much enjoyed, has the potential to become a featured article: the facts, the coverage, the sources are all there, but they need working on. Because I see potential in the article I have been pretty unsparing in my comments, but they are kindly meant, and I shall be happy to give advice or help if you ever feel in need of either. As a purely personal comment, and one to be ignored if you disagree, I find the existing referencing layout heavy going. As Brianboulton has contributed above, I take the liberty of pointing to one of his many featured articles – here – as an example of reader-friendly referencing, with four easily-distinguished sections: explanatory footnotes, citations (including web references), books cited, and further reading. Be that as it may, do let me know if I can be of use to you.  Tim riley  talk    12:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

My unexplained reversion
I fat-fingered my reversion of your edits on List of genocides by death toll and so there was no summary of my edit. I wanted to let you know that the reason I removed the entry is that, even if the numbers were true, there is no assertion of genocide in the provided reference. Even if there were it would be a hugely contentious assertion to make and so starting on the talk page would probably be the best course of action. Sorry for any confusion. GraniteSand (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"BDSM"
Hi! Thanks for your edit in the BDSM article. I've found one mention of the term that might be earlier via a Google Books search -- try a Google Books search for "bdsm" "the black flame", which finds a mention in a periodical called The Black Flame supposedly dated to 1989 -- but this is original research on my part, and the OED remains the best reliable source we have at the moment. -- The Anome (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The Anome: Awesome, thanks for the (potential) antedating! Unfortunately to get a citable reference for it I'll need something other than Google Books's snippet view with its vague "volumes 1–6" and often inaccurate page number and date indications. According to WorldCat this periodical was first published in 1989, and if the Google Books scan represents volumes 1–6, assuming one volume per year, this could be anywhere between 1989 and 1995. Also according to WorldCat, the nearest copy to me is in the Library of Congress, 4,100 miles away. I might try an interlibrary loan. On the off chance that any of the four physical copies listed are near you, it would be useful to me if you could go along and look. DavidPKendal (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Alas, I'm also thousands of miles away from any of them. An inter-library loan sounds like a good idea. -- The Anome (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Berlin Bruisers


A tag has been placed on Berlin Bruisers 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 club, society, or group, but it does not credibly 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 "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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Evening Prayer (Anglican)
Hi Daphne, I've reverted your merge for now as it came as a complete surprise. Your merger may (or may not) be a good idea but I think a short period of consultation with editors would helpful. Please see Talk:Evening Prayer (Anglican) and WP:MERGE. Thanks, Cnbrb (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving
Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you! Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Detlef Bald moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Detlef Bald, is not suitable as written to remain published. As a biography of a living person it needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. JW 1961 Talk 20:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, Daphne Preston-Kendal,
 * There is no need to leave an unpleasant edit summary. The editor who moved the page to Draft space was doing what they thought was best and you are free to move an article back to main space if you disagree with the action. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll echo what Liz said. If you create an unsourced BLP in article space, you should expect to have it moved to draft or deleted - that is our new page review process working as it should. If you make a mess, and someone else tidies it up, you should thank them. For you to choose to insult them instead suggests that you need to make more of an effort with civility and collaboration. This isn't a templated message, but please consider this a warning that personal attacks are not tolerated here (WP:NPA for full details.) Girth Summit  (blether)  10:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I will respond to both of you together.
 * The article itself did not comply with BLP policy. The initial edit message of the article made clear, however, that it was a translation from a (fairly well-cited) dewp article. That left Joseywales1961 with two productive options: find a suitable citation or external link in the dewp article which I neglected to copy over in the initial version and add it; or add the Template:Expand German hat note. Fair, the first option requires more effort and some minimal German knowledge, but he could also have sent me a user message asking me to add a citation myself asap without actually nuking the entire article, and perhaps have taken it down later if I failed to add one within, say, a day. To simply delete the article from the public namespace entirely without doing any of these things is the height of rudeness. But, of course, mechanical automation of policy enforcement (through the use of ‘templated messages’) leaves little room for common sense or polite co-operation.
 * Finally, I take strong issue with the notion that my edit message was a ‘personal attack’. It quite clearly was not. I have no idea how you would interpret it in such a fashion. If Joseywales1961 feels attacked, I apologize. But I am more frustrated with the continuous pattern of semi-automated deletionist rudeness in WP policy enforcement than with any particular individual. Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The height of rudeness is to use expletive-laden edit summaries to accuse a new page reviewer of being a pedantic jobsworth. I don't see how anyone could possibly think it civil to speak to someone like that, or take it in any other way than a personal attack.
 * The article was not 'nuked' - it was moved into draft space temporarily to allow you to bring it into line with our WP:BLP policy - moving it back into article space once references are added is the work of a few seconds, I don't know why you find that so troublesome. You can avoid this happening in future by simply ensuring that there are citations already in place when an article is created, or by starting articles in draft or user space and moving them to article space when they're compliant with our content policy (which is what I always do when I write a new article).
 * New page reviewers are currently dealing with a queue of around 10,000 unreviewed articles. Amongst those, there will be lots of good articles that need little work, lots of really bad ones that need a lot of tidying up, a lot of adverts, vandalism and attack pages that need deleting - and some unsourced BLPs. All of them need to be triaged and dealt with appropriately, and if the number of unreviewed articles is to come down, reviewers need to work reasonably quickly. If they come across completely unreferenced BLPs, some might go hunting for sources, but most will either draftify or add a BLPPROD. That's not 'semi-automated deletionist rudeness', it's just the result of too few people trying to tackle a huge backlog. Having people like you swear at them and insult them merely for trying to follow our basic quality-control procedures is part of the reason why there are so few people willing to do review work. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Detlef Bald


The article Detlef Bald has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and there is nothing to suggest they pass WP:NSCHOLAR."

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Phil Bagwell


A tag has been placed on Phil Bagwell 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 real person or group of people that does not credibly 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 "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. ~Styyx Talk ? 21:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Paul Ford (technologist)
Hello Daphne Preston-Kendal, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Paul Ford (technologist), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Paul Ford (technologist).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Sohom (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)