User talk:Scope creep/Archive 2

Proposed deletion of Iyad Rahwan
Hello, Scope creep. Thanks for the message! I added some credible references. Thanks for the information, I am new and am still learning

Thanks,

Zivepstein (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Iyad Rahwan
Great! I added more references from science publications, books, conferences, and news outlets. Thanks for your patience I'm still learning. If there is anything wrong the page, or things I am neglecting, definitely let me know so I can learn and get better at making pages!

Thanks,

Wizardwhitebeard (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of High power laser analysis
Hello,

I did not mean to infringe copyrights, the contents were all copied with permission from the author using this source:

http://www.industrial-lasers.com/articles/print/volume-28/issue-5/features/high-power-beam-analysis.html

(Actually, the link you've attached https://www.photonicstechnologies.com/item/news6/ doesn't work)

What is the process if I want to restore my edit?

Thank you, B.Wheeler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breitwheeler (talk • contribs) 08:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

DXC Technology‎
Hi Scope creep. It's not non-notable material. The version you keep reverting to has serious issues - it's self-promotional, lacking in information and grammatically incorrect. If you feel the version I posted sounds like advertising, please edit it for tone. But going back to that flawed version is not the answer. I would also appreciate it if you refrained from calling me names in the revision history. thanks GoodwinC (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the more thoughtful reply. I wasn't aware of any of that history, or that the material was considered advertising rather than informational. If we left all of that out, we at least can agree that the new intro is an improvement over the version you keep reverting to, no? That version has a grammatical error ("has over 6,000 clients when it was formed"), is self-promotional (why is the number of clients named?), and actually gets the company name wrong in the infobox. Here's the new version:

DXC Technology is a global technology company headquartered in Tysons Corner, Virginia. DXC provides information technology and consulting services to enterprise clients. The company trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “DXC” and is a component of the S&P 500 index.

DXC launched on April 3, 2017, created from the merger of Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) and the Enterprise Services business of Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE).

thanks. GoodwinC (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

″Probably all of it could go in, except DXC provides information technology and consulting services to enterprise clients. which is advertising." - So, how would you phrase it so that it conveys what the company sells without being advertising? Is it just the "to enterprise clients" that has that feel? Point I was trying to make there is that DXC mainly targets very large companies - it doesn't really sell to small businesses. But this listing really ought to have at least some indication of what the company sells, and you could in fact argue that what I wrote is too generic. Other current examples from corporate intros on Wikipedia: "Microsoft Corporation... develops, manufactures, licenses, supports and sells computer software, consumer electronics and personal computers and services." "LG makes electronics, chemicals, and telecom products..." "Juniper Networks is an American multinational corporation... that develops and markets networking products. Its products include routers, switches, network management software, network security products and software-defined networking technology." GoodwinC (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ettrick Bay, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arran and Rothesay. 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) 09:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Ettrick Bay
I'm basing my edits on WP policies and guidelines. Good job with the article, but I don't think it needs a gallery, that's what Commons is for. And your "more images the better" approach is one of the reasons why many WP articles need to be cleaned up. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

For M J Khalid Article
It is noteworthy here that any addition or deletion has its relevance,meaning and impact in the case of Wikipedia.In my opinion there world should be told about a genuin, living and working journalist who is approved by Govt of India and has a commendable share in journalism and writing.It is also worth mentioning here that not a single source has been brought on record from any BLOG.The person has aplace in WHO IS WHO directory published online by Sahitya Academy, one of the highly reputed organization of the country, being part of Ministry of Eduacation,Govt of India. Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc6870 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

For M J Khalid
Hi Editor You asked for the Who's Who link where M J Khalid is mentioned so please have a look on the http://sahitya-akademi.gov.in/sahitya-akademi/SASearchSystem/sauser/writerinfo.jsp?wrids=4458 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc6870 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please review addition of more link to better integrate with wikipedia on Tatjana Bezjak
This is still work in progress so sorry on the initial lack of links. I have added a number of links in the first mentions of terms that seemed a good target for other wikipedia pages. Let me know if its ok to remove the "This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. " Part of the notice. And if not, what else do you suggest in this respect.

Working on the second part of the notice, I have cleaned up and made more uniform some of the references. Unfortunately some of the references are literally in print (paper). I will find those that are not and add them to the article, add a new section - list of exhibitions (which will also add external references from the institutions where the exhibitions took place. And find a way to either digitize or link to images of the printed material. Could you please suggest what is an appropriate level of references?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finchesxyz (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello ,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just reviews, the  backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Images
Last week, you reviewed 3 pages I created (Catherine C. Eckel, Hilary Hoynes, Rachel McCulloch), and suggested that each would be improved with an image. Do you have any suggestions on where to find images consistent with the Image use policy? Do you know if I can simply take the images from each economist's personal webpage, or the images from interviews with each them in the newsletter of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession (I didn't think so, but would be happy to be wrong)? I have looked for photos of each on U.S. Government webpages and have not found any.EAWH (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the beer
Cheers! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Oswald Teichmüller
Thanks for the compliment re: Oswald Teichmüller, though I changed it to "fanatic Nazi" due to the original German being "fanatischer Nazi" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrodvarsson (talk • contribs) 02:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

could you please explain...
Last December you initiated an AFD on the article on Jennifer Blumin.

Your nomination concerns me frankly, because you did not inform those considering her notability of the many references that covered Ms Blumin, at that time. In Talk:Jennifer Blumin I've listed some of the references that covered here, when you made your second nomination. I said there that I was going to ask you to explain why you didn't think those references established notability.

If you have an explanation, please put it there. Geo Swan (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You left a reply on User talk:Geo Swan.


 * Um, you did go to Talk:Jennifer Blumin I hope? You didn't leave any comments there.


 * In your reply on my talk page you made some general comments related to policy around BLP:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! you wrote || comment
 * the reason I nominated it because it was a terrible article, badly written, and it needed to go... ||
 * We didn't use to delete articles merely because some contributors think they were badly written. If there has been a change in policy, authorizing the deletion of articles merely for being badly written, I would appreciate it if you could provide a link to that policy.
 * Contributors can disagree as to whether an article is badly written. Contributors voice their concerns over badly written passages, on the article's talk page, or, sometimes, other fora.
 * The usual rememdy for badly written articles include excision of the badly written passages, or rewrites of the badly written passages.
 * When I initially reviewed it, half the references were blogs, some of the others were 404's ||
 * Blogs? Please don't nominate articles for deletion, because you think their references are blogs, unless (1) all the references are blogs; and (2) those none of those references you dismiss as "blogs" are faux-blogs.  Adriana Gardella, a business columnist employed by the NYTimes, wrote about Blumin multiple times.  The NYTimes publishes Gardella's column at blog.nytimes.com, but, since she is a professional journalist, overseen by the NYTimes's professional editors, since she writes these columns as part of her job, they should not be dismissed as "blogs".
 * 404? Since when did we start to consider references non-verifiable because they were 404?
 * You wrote "When I initially reviewed it..." Maybe you didn't mean to imply you only reviewed the article once, when you initially nominated it for deletion, in 2013.  But, for the record, if you ever nominate articles for deletion, in the future, could you please fully comply with WP:BEFORE, prior to every nomination, without regard to whether you, or another contributor, had previously nominated it for deletion?
 * BLP articles must now have ironclad variability in terms of sources, and the article didn't have it, and the fact it was written more about the ladies companies, rather than her, meant it had to go. It is worth mentioning, that WP Terms of Use no longer accept blatant advertising as it did in the past. That was the reason it was deleted.
 * I think you meant something other than "ironclad variability"... I don't know what "ironclad variability" would be, unless you really meant "ironclad verifiability"...  but that doesn't really make sense, because I see no justification for genuine concerns over the verifiability of the copious sources that covered her in 2016.
 * I accept, at face value, that the article seemed like "blatant advertising" to you. However, the copious high quality RS that wrote about her, all write as if she was widely admired for being some kind of visionary.  Blumin was a beautiful, successful, rich, and widely admired individual.  If our article described her that way, this is not an indication the article is "blatant advertizing".
 * it read like an advertising skit...||
 * ...and, unless I am out of date, this is irrelevant, if the topic of the article is notable
 * I put a copyedit and cleanup tag on I think, then left it for a month... |||
 * Um, no, you didn't. You made exactly two edits, 1, 2, at least under the scope_creep wiki-ID -- the two times you nominated the article for deletion.
 * }
 * I will update Talk:Jennifer Blumin with a link to this exchange.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As per the usual convention, of keeping discussions all in one place, I will respond to a further comment left on my user talk page here, where the discussion started. You asked what sparked my interest in Blumin?  I have news alerts on the Sentinel class cutters.  One of them was among the vessels that searched for Blumin, her sons, and boyfriend, after their plane disappeared, in the Bermuda Triangle.  Those articles referred to Blumin as someone notable.  So I looked her up.  Sure enough, the references suggested she was notable, and I was considering starting an article about her.  Then I realized an article about her had existed, and had been deleted.  I found your nomination(s) disturbing, for the reasons I have already explained.  In particular, you have suggested your nominations were based on policy, when I am unaware of any policy that mandates deletion of articles that are seen as poorly written, or based on references that have gone 404.
 * As to whether it is "crass" to question your use of the phrase "ironclad variability"... There is a cheap rhetorical trick some argumentative wikipedia contributors employ, when a contributor they disagree with makes a good faith misuse of a homonym, or otherwise writes something that isn't quite what they meant, where they rush to interpret the comment under its easier to attack surface meaning, rather than its obvious real meaning.  It is a crappy thing to do, and I don't believe I ever do that.  When my correspondents actual meaning is clear, I respond to what they actually meant, not their surface meaning.  However, in a case like this, when I think someone (you) wrote something they didn't mean, and I can only guess at what they actually meant, I say I don't know what they meant.  I strongly dispute your characterization of this as "crass".
 * As to whether you had spent hours working on the wikipedia, prior to misusing a homonym, or near homonym... hey, we are all volunteers here. No one has to apologize to for a spelling mistake.  If a spelling mistake triggers a confusion, or a misunderstanding, we seek clarification, and accept the clarification offered, at face value, and go on from there.  Sometimes I make spelling mistakes, and an opportunity to correct what I meant, when my mistake triggers confusion or a misunderstanding, is all I ask.  Are you asking for something more than this?
 * Let' be clear, even a badly written article represents a lot of work. Something like two dozen contributors worked on the Jennifer Blumin article, making over five dozen edits.  How much work was that?  Probably, collectively half a dozen hours, maybe a dozen hours.  How much time did you spend complying with WP:BEFORE, prior to your nominations?  Did you even spend two minutes, five minutes?  In my opinion, you did not spend enough time, since you did not spend enough time to find the copious references that firmly established her notability.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As per the usual convention, of keeping discussions all in one place, I will respond to a further comment left on my user talk page here, where the discussion started.
 * I hate shills. There was a wiki-ID that spent something like a thousand hours, and made something like 18,000 edits to impede my work, who used to accuse me of being a shill.  Frankly, their pattern of bad-faith editing strongly suggested to me that their accusations were an instance of j'accuse, and it was they who had been hired to be a shill.  The editing pattern of that wiki-ID strongly suggested it was used by multiple individuals, each with their own idiosyncratic use of English, and each with a different mastery of wiki skills.  That ID was finally indefinitely blocked, for edit-warring, and then a second time, for sockpuppetry.  I never accused them of being a shill.  I didn't think I had clear enough proof.  Your comment says these several wiki-IDs engaged in a "clear" violation...  Okay, if it is "clear", then it should be easy for you to marshal clear evidence to back up your accusation.  An article I started was edited by a PR company.  I can prove this, because UK reporters went undercover and taped the CEO of that PR company offering the work they did sanitizing a specific wikipedia article as proof of how undetectable and effective their stable of shills could be.  This recording documented that those UK PR shills were targetting my edits.  I don't doubt that other PR agencies write wikipedia "content plan(s)" for their clients.  I am very curious as to how you know there was one here.  In 2008 Dick Pountain, a UK technology journalist, described how a comment from a friend of his triggered him to test, for himself, whether wikipedia quality control had been taken over by a bunch of bullies.  He was surprised his friend said this, but, after his experiment with creating a good faith first article, he wrote that wikipedia quality control had arrived at "an online equivalent of the midnight door-knock and the book bonfire..."  He created the test article using the wiki-ID Afonka Bida.  If you looked at the first dozen edits by Afonka Bida would you conclude it was a paid shill ID?  I left Pountain a note, in 2009, at User talk:Afonka Bida.  I see they responded, in 2013.  I'll have to leave them a reply.  Anyhow, Pountain's article is a cautionary tale, that should be required reading for every wikipedia quality control volunteet.  The speedy deletion of the article, by people who did not know who Leon Trotsky and Benito Mussolini were, should be regarded as a huge black eye for the wikipedia, in general.  I think the Afonka Bida example shows why I think you were overly confident that your intuition that the article had been written by shills.  's wiki-ID actually contains "shil".  Are they one of the wiki-IDs you are sure are shills?  If so, they don't seem to be very skilled shills.  Presumably PR firms that employ a stable of shills employ shills who are actually familiar with wikipedia tools, who would show the signs of being skilled editors.
 * So, what is the justification for your AFD, anyhow? what you have written here is different from the justifications you put in the AFD(s). If your real justification is that you suspected it had been written by paid shills, do you think you should have said so, in your nomination?  You wrote:
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * As to whether you had spent hours working on the wikipedia, prior to misusing a homonym, or near homonym... hey, we are all volunteers here. No one has to apologize to for a spelling mistake.  If a spelling mistake triggers a confusion, or a misunderstanding, we seek clarification, and accept the clarification offered, at face value, and go on from there.  Sometimes I make spelling mistakes, and an opportunity to correct what I meant, when my mistake triggers confusion or a misunderstanding, is all I ask.  Are you asking for something more than this?
 * Let' be clear, even a badly written article represents a lot of work. Something like two dozen contributors worked on the Jennifer Blumin article, making over five dozen edits.  How much work was that?  Probably, collectively half a dozen hours, maybe a dozen hours.  How much time did you spend complying with WP:BEFORE, prior to your nominations?  Did you even spend two minutes, five minutes?  In my opinion, you did not spend enough time, since you did not spend enough time to find the copious references that firmly established her notability.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As per the usual convention, of keeping discussions all in one place, I will respond to a further comment left on my user talk page here, where the discussion started.
 * I hate shills. There was a wiki-ID that spent something like a thousand hours, and made something like 18,000 edits to impede my work, who used to accuse me of being a shill.  Frankly, their pattern of bad-faith editing strongly suggested to me that their accusations were an instance of j'accuse, and it was they who had been hired to be a shill.  The editing pattern of that wiki-ID strongly suggested it was used by multiple individuals, each with their own idiosyncratic use of English, and each with a different mastery of wiki skills.  That ID was finally indefinitely blocked, for edit-warring, and then a second time, for sockpuppetry.  I never accused them of being a shill.  I didn't think I had clear enough proof.  Your comment says these several wiki-IDs engaged in a "clear" violation...  Okay, if it is "clear", then it should be easy for you to marshal clear evidence to back up your accusation.  An article I started was edited by a PR company.  I can prove this, because UK reporters went undercover and taped the CEO of that PR company offering the work they did sanitizing a specific wikipedia article as proof of how undetectable and effective their stable of shills could be.  This recording documented that those UK PR shills were targetting my edits.  I don't doubt that other PR agencies write wikipedia "content plan(s)" for their clients.  I am very curious as to how you know there was one here.  In 2008 Dick Pountain, a UK technology journalist, described how a comment from a friend of his triggered him to test, for himself, whether wikipedia quality control had been taken over by a bunch of bullies.  He was surprised his friend said this, but, after his experiment with creating a good faith first article, he wrote that wikipedia quality control had arrived at "an online equivalent of the midnight door-knock and the book bonfire..."  He created the test article using the wiki-ID Afonka Bida.  If you looked at the first dozen edits by Afonka Bida would you conclude it was a paid shill ID?  I left Pountain a note, in 2009, at User talk:Afonka Bida.  I see they responded, in 2013.  I'll have to leave them a reply.  Anyhow, Pountain's article is a cautionary tale, that should be required reading for every wikipedia quality control volunteet.  The speedy deletion of the article, by people who did not know who Leon Trotsky and Benito Mussolini were, should be regarded as a huge black eye for the wikipedia, in general.  I think the Afonka Bida example shows why I think you were overly confident that your intuition that the article had been written by shills.  's wiki-ID actually contains "shil".  Are they one of the wiki-IDs you are sure are shills?  If so, they don't seem to be very skilled shills.  Presumably PR firms that employ a stable of shills employ shills who are actually familiar with wikipedia tools, who would show the signs of being skilled editors.
 * So, what is the justification for your AFD, anyhow? what you have written here is different from the justifications you put in the AFD(s). If your real justification is that you suspected it had been written by paid shills, do you think you should have said so, in your nomination?  You wrote:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * "Obviously you are going to recreate or bring back the article and that is your right. But if it ends up as an advertising article as before, then I will probably end up putting it into WP:AFD."
 * "Obviously you are going to recreate or bring back the article and that is your right. But if it ends up as an advertising article as before, then I will probably end up putting it into WP:AFD."


 * }
 * Please re-read this passage. Frankly, it reads like a tacit acknowledgement that you (now?) realize that Blumin was a notable individual, all along.  You say you will make a third nomination, if you think my draft is an "advertising article".  Woah!  You thought it was an "advertising article", and apparently so did the other individual who weighed in at the AFD.  That is a narrow slice of opinion.  I wrote, above, that press coverage of Blumin characterized her as a widely admired innovator, so an article that reflects this is not "advertising".  I am disappointed you haven't seen fit to respond to this point.  I suggest that, if I were to put up an updated version of the article, and it was one that triggered "advertising" concerns for you, a more appropriate choice for you would be to explain your concern on the talk page.  Specific concerns, voiced at the talk page, might be convincing, and, if so, suggest easy fixes, by excising or rewriting the specific passages that triggered your concern.  I am still guessing as to which specific passages trigger this concern in the deleted version.
 * WRT the two keeps opinions in the 2013 AFD being from SPAs... You already said this.  I used the email button to write to, and informed her that you suggested her opinion should be discounted, because she was an SPA.  Are you aware that one of the criticisms of the wikipedia is that contributors are disproportionately male.  Tammytoons explained her participation on User:Tammytoons.  She started participating after hearing about this anti-female bias. Geo Swan (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Scope creep,

I read through the articles for deletion page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_physical_therapy_assistant_schools_in_the_United_States

However, it isn't clear as to why this page has been marked for deletion. Can you provide the reason this content has been marked for deletion?

Thank you, kt3486 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt3486 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep,

Thank you for your explanation. However, this leaves me confused. I chose the format that you refer to as a "directory listing unfit for WP" based on other Wikipedia articles I found under "Lists of schools". Does this mean that ALL lists of schools should be deleted from Wikipedia? Or is there something I need to update or change about my list of schools to better fit into Wikipedia's lists of schools.

Thank you. Kt3486 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reviwing the Page
Unfortunatly is no image of Bernhard Berset on wiki commons at the moment. If ther is one, or I am able to take a picture of him, I will add an image to the article. I wish you a nice week-end and thank you for your work on wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Image
Unfortunately, I don't have an opportunity to meet Mr. Anzaldua since I relocated to the Philippines. No chance I can fly to Texas or whatever state I can meet him such as a con. Ominae (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Bocchino-Dente Memorial Plaza
Bocchino-Dente Memorial Plaza may not be a famous park but without this Wikipedia page, how would anyone in the world know who Bocchino and Dente were? Is it not the mission of Wikipedia to educate the public? I created this page to enlighten Brooklyn residents on why that particular plaza carries those names. I am offended that you've selected this page for deletion.--Queens Historian (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Friendship Medal (Cuba)
Thanks for reviewing this page and for your suggestions. I've started adding some citations from materials I've found from Google books.

I have yet to find a picture of the medal that fits the required licensing for inclusion on wikicommons, but I will keep looking.

Thanks again. Jmbranum (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback
11:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Tobacco Road FC
Hey there, I've moved the AfD discussion for this article to a new discussion page at Articles for deletion/Tobacco Road FC (2nd nomination). ansh 666 05:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Illegality of Facebook reference count
Re your edit on Hawar News Agency, removing a hit count of facebook mentions. Your comment was "Removed facebook ref, illegal" - which wp policy makes it illegal? Thanks, Batternut (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: A page you started (Elena Osipova (sociologist)) has been reviewed!
Re: User talk:Ungesellig

Hi, many thanks for your having reviewed my aticle stub. Unfortunately, I haven’t got Elena Osipova’s image. The fact is that Igor Kon’s textbook (Kon, I. (1989) A History of Classical Sociology. Trans. H. Campbell Creighton. Moscow: Progress Publishers. ISBN 5-01-001102-6) including Elena Osipova’s essays was a must read at English lessons when I was a student at the Faculty of Sociology of Moscow State University. Best regards, Ungesellig (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Pankaj Munjal
Okay, here's a different tone. If you persist in tagging articles for speedy deletion without any evidence that they qualify, you will be blocked for general disruption. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me be very clear. G4 is for reposts of deleted content.  You must demonstrate conclusively that the page as it stands has been previously deleted.  As it's been edited repeatedly with significant additions by multiple editors, it doesn't take special user rights or knowledge to see that it's not identical; as such, unless you made a simple misclick that you wouldn't now be defending, the only ways you could G4-tag it are gross incompetence or intentional abuse of the criterion.  If you leave me further messages of the sort, you'll be ignored unless you get to the point of being blocked for incivility.  Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Phyllis Christian
Hello, Scope_creep - I see that you have initiated an AFD on the page Phyllis Christian but I am not sure why, since it seems to me that the subject satisfies Wikipedia guidelines for notability and is adequately sourced. In any event, I have added references, and replaced the YouTube ref that you removed as being "illegal" (not sure what made it so), and would be grateful if you could please spell out why you think the article qualifies for speedy deletion. Proscribe (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)