User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 2

Biography comments
Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for your prompt comments on biography posted for Ivan V. Polyakov. The article created is a draft translation of the article in the Russian segment. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 The english version will be filled with all necessary references and links within few days and all corresponding links will be also corrected.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivp.office (talk • contribs) 23:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Regarding the compensation for the article. I'm not receiving any compansation for that. It is personal initiative to create the english version of the article as Mr. Polyakov is doing business worldwide and english version can be interesting for english speaking persons. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivp.office (talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

context
Yes thanks for that, context yes, one line not an article - I should have left it - cheers - thanks for your message JarrahTree 23:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hesham Nazih wikipedia biography page
This was my first attempted to create a biography page for Hesham Nazih and it was missing all the links, these are some of the links that will added to the page plus much more info about Hesham. http://www.elcinema.com/en/person/1069877 https://en.wiki2.org/wiki/Hesham_Nazih http://www.broadwayworld.com/people/bio/Hesham-Nazih/

If you could please help as this is my first time to use wikipedia to create a biography of someone. Thank you ( Mhagin)Mhagin (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the deleting admin responded to you on this. If you have further questions, please let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep article Montrell Teague don't delete
Hi..I'm Codreezy I'm writing to inform you not to delete my article, Montrell Teague. I created it upon his request and the article shall be within the Wikipedia articles. He is one of the youngest and influential drivers in the business currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codreezy (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see my response on your talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy
Hey there!

I saw you declined my speedy on Alessandro Sperduti. I kind of agree with you -- maybe I was being a bit too trigger-happy -- but at the same time, no work seems to have been done on the page and I could easily tag it for some other issue. It's not really an article as much as it is a sentence -- it's barely a stub. Would you be opposed to moving it to drafts so that it isn't flagged by someone else?

I tagged it, too, because I thought there was a COI issue; usually when articles like that are created, they're on "rising stars" and people of the like, and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Maybe I was wrong, but still -- how about we move this to drafts or hand it over to a WikiProject?

ɯ ɐ ɔ 💬 20:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. As a friendly suggestion, I would encoruage you to reread WP:CSD. The A1, G1, and A11 tags were not close to applying, and while A7 could have been argued at the time of placement, the claim of being an actor with a significant role in a show that broke Italian TV records meets the low bar of a credible claim to significance in my mind. COI is unlikely in my opinion if you look at the new user's edits on other pages, and even the page itself. I'm saying assume good faith here since there is no obvious evidence of a COI.


 * I'd oppose moving this to draft, to be honest. The issue with this guy is that he's an Italian actor who just had his first big English-language TV series, so most of the sources for him are in Italian. If you look at the Italian Wikipedia article on him and translate it, you find enough significant roles that he musters a pass of WP:NACTOR. That article is poorly sourced, but the sources that you find in Italian do seem to confirm that he has had multiple significant roles. I placed a translate tag on his article in hopes of getting some of the content from the Italian Wikipedia translated and sourced, and I think that is unlikely if we move it to draft. The article as it stands now is a stub, but it gives someone who has a better grasp of Italian something to work off of. If we move it to draft, that's unlikely to happen. Hope this helps explain my thinking. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Bulgaria
There are literally no sources for this article until WW2. Sources should be provided or the offending sections should be removed. -- ccxvi 03:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC) "A church council of 1352 led to the excommunication of heretics and Jews, and three Jews who had been sentenced to death were killed by a mob despite the sentence's having been repealed by the tsar." - the writer of the article you've been asked 3 years ago to provide sources. You've been warned yesterday and the warning was deleted without removing the offending section. We are not going to tolerate you anti-Bulgarian campaign in the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.247.224.188 (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.247.224.188 (talk)

Exactly your article is NOT constructive and it is pure DEFAMATION of Bulgaria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.247.224.188 (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see my response on your talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not the right way to post anything without a source. When the DEFAMATION of BULGARIA  will be removed? Expecting a written apology from you on the same page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.247.224.188 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please accept my apology. Bulgaria is awesome. Sincerely, Mr.Wikipedia. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

From 231Pacific re article (reviewed by you) on Tony D Triggs
Dear TonyBallioni

Thanks for your criticism of my article, which I have taken on board.

My latest edit has thrown up an alert that there are reference tags without content but search as I may I just can't find them. Please advise.

Also, you commented that 'the formatting makes it difficult to navigate with such a long lead above the table of contents.' I didn't myself create a table but one has appeared just before the bibliography and it tabulates its subdivisions. It seems to me inessential but correctly placed. Once again I'd be glad of your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 231Pacific (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the ref tag issue. For your formatting, breakup your main article into sections like you might see in other biographies like Terry McAuliffe (randomly selected biography, but you can see it in others). TonyBallioni (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Overcoming Obstacles suggestions?
Hi TonyBallioni,

Thanks for your feedback. I wanted to ask if you had any suggestions to make the content on the Overcoming Obstacles page since you suggested it for deletion. Would removing the outcomes section help? Thank you!

Jebadgirl (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Jebadgirl
 * The current article reads like it is publication of the organization in my opinion. That isn't bad per se, but is an issue with the encyclopedia. I think getting rid of the outcomes section could help, but generally it is just presenting the article in a more neutral tone. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

From article Yu Liu (entrepreneur) Thank you
Thank you for your note. I was an ex-employee. What can I do to make the COI more transparent and remove the COI notice? Thanks again!Alibabaxixi2 (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've responded on your talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've added a COI link. Does that mean this notice can now be removed? Thank you again. Alibabaxixi2 (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. When you messaged me I didn't quite get what you meant. Could you explain?

--IAMHELPFUL (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)IAMHELPFUL

Why did you delete the "Donald Trump "compromised" claims" page
Why did you delete the "Donald Trump "compromised" claims" page? It's an event covered by mainstream news — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momomo952 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Tony, I trust that all is well with you. Thank you for your message, actually Kafitwe wa pa bowa is my father who passed in 1993. I wanted to add some information about him. For reference you can consulat the Congolese government gazette in 1980 he was a minister of justice and he was Director of Gecamine from 1970 to 1993.

Regards

Leon Kafitwe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kafitwe (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Earl of Ilchester
Thanks, Tony. I'm a little rusty.PR (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Opinion
hi, a discussion has been opened to delete some categories about churches among them catholic and orthodox I would like to have your opinion here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 21--Warairarepano&#38;Guaicaipuro (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you not agree that 65.100.114.216's edit to Liberalism
Was vandalism? It violates NPOV, was unconstructive, and disruptive. With all the years of warnings on his talk page, I would of inserted the {subst:uw-vandalism4} template. L3X1 Complaints Desk 20:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There had been no warning since June 2016 and since it a shared IP with a ton of warnings, my intuition is that it is probably a school or other shared computer. I always start with the disruptive editing warning because it is essentially the same as the level 1 warning for vandalism, but it also includes a link to the welcome page, which I find useful. I don't think a 4im warning would be merited for a shared IP address that has had no vandalism history in 6 months, especially when the page edited was under pending changed protection, so it is unlikely that their editing will have an impact on how readers see the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , also, as an update, it has been blocked for two years as a likely school IP by an admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , Ok, thanks for explaining. L3X1 Complaints Desk 20:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Message concerning "Leo Smith" deletion
I am against you deleting my article. He is a footballer, plays for a well-known team in one of England's top 5 divisions. Wrexham has such a rich history, and my aim is to create a wikipedia page for each of the players.

Please, please, please do not delete. cymrocymraeg1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymrocymraeg1 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I tagged it for deletion under the biography of living person's criteria because it has no sources. It is currently at articles for deletion where the community will discuss it to see if it meets our criteria for footballers or our general notability guideline. I'm not an administrator, so I can't delete it, but if the discussion reaches a consensus to delete, an administrator will delete it. You are free to express your views at the entry at AfD and argue why it should be kept, but it would be most likely to be kept if it was based on the two notability criteria I mentioned above. Hope this is helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Message concerning David Bradish deletion
Dear Gentlemen, thank you for your suggestions but I disagree with your points of view.

A few Wikipedia members were helping me while shaping the article by sending warnings or reminders to provide written permissions from the third parties while posting e.g pictures. It's worth to make a small research and check names who gave permissions. Discography that still exists and is available on a market is not a proof at all? Links to other musicians who worked with David and exist on Wikipedia is not proof? And a website that contains original press clippings, posters or letters from the world biggest organizations is not good enough? I feel offended reading that this musician is vain or doesn't deserve a place here. It sounds too personal and I am starting thinking why? I doubt any of you read the whole story on him. You just took a look at the links and sent this article for deletion without saying anything that might help to improve this article. Not everyone is an Internet geek here and needs simply some help sometimes and time of course. You experts should know that gathering information might last. It is a time process and in some cases 13 months might be not enough. Especially when the musician is in Cuba now without any access to the internet. Some of the musicians with whom David worked and still works live in Cuba. It is obvious that no one of these great artists out there will come here to confirm anything. It is all about politics Cuba vs. the States (as far as I know,correct me if I am wrong, Wikipedia is an American creation) and the lifestyle itself (lack of internet, living a life and creating art, instead of sitting in a cyber world).

Secondly, of course that the article was created in a sandbox and moved to another section. That was the first Wikipedia tip. To go to the sandbox and work out there. What is wrong with that one?

22 links provide to David's official page where you can find original scans from the press (mostly in Swedish). Swedish press clearly described his achievements in a music industry. Maybe it is worth to ask a swedish-speaking member of your Wikipedia police for any translations. I would like to remind some of you that Sweden back to the 70s or 80s was a rural country that didn't care about any of these bureaucratic order. David who made a huge impact on a Swedish music branch and society itself, is a simple example of an artist who made a lot and the history simply forgot about him.

Agata Mayer (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Agata Mayer

Deletion of
Hi TonyBallioni,

I'm the bot who is deleting  . I noticed your edit on Roberto Cacciapaglia in which you added  . This template is deprecated and deleted. Please stop adding  . In case you want to support the Persondata project you can help with the migration of the dataset to Wikidata at KasparBot's tool. See Persondata or contact my operator T.seppelt in case you have any questions.

Thank you very much, -- KasparBot (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve John E. McDougall
Hallo TonyBallioni. This is in reply to the message you left me on my discussion page. Thanks for reviewing my article on John McDougall. I have two problems about your suggestions. Mainly my complete Wikipedia articles are based on the sources that are listed under External Links. Therefore I think it is not helpful to mark parts of the text with tabs, because the complete text refers to these sources. As a result I really don't know where to set these Tabs. Currently I am working on the Lieutenant Governors of several US-States that do not have a EN WP article yet. These are cases were good sources are rare and therefore the text is normally short. For this reason I think footnotes and tabs are not helpful and as stated above I would'nt know where to set them.

My second problem is the curation page. I would be glad to use it as suggested. However I just feel insecure with this tool. I will not give up and eventually (I do not know when) may understand the proper usage of this tool. I am trying my best to meet the standards of the EN WP. I hope you can understand my above arguments and you can accept my articles as they are. At this point I have nothing better to offer --WAG57 (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Using footnotes helps the reader know where your facts are from. Just listing the references doesn't help me if I'm curious where you got a specific tidbit. You can do this pretty easily using the cite template at the top of your editing screen that says "cite". I'm not sure what gave the impression I was urging you to use the curation toolbar: it's a tool for new page reviewers to quickly review articles and leave messages with the page creator. It left most of the message on your talk page for me. I just had to type in the bit about using footnotes :) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hallo TonyBallioni. I understand your point and I'll try to use the Cite template in the future. I'm sorry for the confusion about the curation page. This was my mistake. As stated I will try my best to comply with your suggestion about the Cite template. --WAG57 (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2
Hello , We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October. The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to. Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten. This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody,  and
 * A HUGE backlog
 * Second set of eyes
 * Abuse
 * 1) this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting  in  a community ban.
 * 2) this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in  a community ban.
 * 3) This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, TonyBallioni. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! —Tom Morris (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Tsend Munkh-Orgil
Thank you for your help with the messy situation I created with the article history for Mongolia's current foreign minister.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I've mad a few formatting changes too. Thanks for catching it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi TonyBallioni, I am a new member as you probably already found out. Thank you for helping me understand the policies of Wikipedia.

Thanks,IExistToHelp (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Rocket.Chat
Hi Tony, after the references added by the community, do you still feel the coverage does not amounts to what is needed under WP:ORGDEPTH? If so, would you mind explaining why? Thanks in advance for your time. Gabriel engel (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, Gabriel. I've looked at the sources again, and I do not think they meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. They are generally not in-depth coverage or from sources that would not ordinarily be considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, but when I looked at the references from related articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appium I honestly cannot understand how their references meet the guides and ours don't. They even won the same awards. Can you please explain? Gabriel engel (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay about it. Wikipedia is a 5.3 million page encyclopedia with 15,000 unpatrolled new pages and a limited number of volunteer editors to check content to see if it conforms with our policies and guidelines. There is always going to be an article you can point to that is sinilsr to an article at AfD, but that hasn't been considered for deletion. The question is why the article under consideration should or shouldn't be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but this definitely not the case, as you can see on the article history. That article was considered for deletion but "declining because of changed circumstances since 2013: "Appium win in 2014 the Bossie award of InfoWord about the best open source desktop and mobile software". Repost to AfD to challenge notability again." So this is just clearly double standards. Both projects have won the same awards, but in our case this is not considered as important. Can you please explain why? Gabriel engel (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The most recent discussion was closed no consensus which means the community was not clear as to the result, and after two relistings there had not been more comments. I do not believe if that article were nominated for deletion again in the future, it would be kept, and I would have !voted to delete it if I had come across the AfD at that time. There is not a double standard here. The Wikipedia community discuss each article on its merits at AfD, and at the end of a discussion, if a consensus has been reached for delete, it is deleted. If a consensus has been reached to keep, it is kept, and if no consensus has been reached, it will be defaulted to keep, but is likely to be renominated again at some point. Your article is being considered under the same process, and the community will weigh whether the sources meet our guidelines for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the now-archived section regarding rio2016.com
I've asked CP678 (the operator of User:InternetArchiveBot) to add it to the dead links list. However, the bot is currently down. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (George Thornhill) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating George Thornhill, TonyBallioni!

Wikipedia editor DrStrauss just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hi, I've reviewed your page. Only changes were to capitalise "member of parliament" as it's an official position. Thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on DrStrauss's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Dr Strauss  talk  18:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the close
Thanks for closing at Talk:Waterloo–Reading line. I can do the moving and cleanup if you like, over the next few hours (and if any won't move easily I can let you know). Dicklyon (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've done about half of the moves, but no cleanup yet. If you want to go ahead and finish them, that's fine by me. Feel free to drop a line if there's something that needs extendedmover rights. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm on it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mostly done. A few more cleanups to do; might take a break. Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Dicklyon (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for finishing this up post-close! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

COI
FYI: User talk:Ethanbas (recent warnings). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I've been aware of it, and have some other concerns as well. I've commented on the thread he created on the participants page and pinged you there so you're aware. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Lála
I only deleted the redirect with the intention of making a new article so don't worry I will create an appropriate article.Reason being the redirect was illogical and erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albknight74 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Craig Brown (actor) page
Hello, I received your message requesting more information for the page and have added a bunch. As well, I tried adding several references to reviews for shows he has done and I'm not sure if it is showing properly. New to Wikipedia and any help would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.173.66 (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply on the talk page for this IP. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Hello , Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. We now have New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a MASSIVE backlog

The future of NPP and AfC
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. The coordinators will do their best for for the advancement of the improvement of NPP and AfC and generally keep tracks on the development of those things. Coordinators have no additional or special user benefits, but they will be 'go to' people and will try to keep discussions in the right places. This very much involves this project too, especially with growing renewed interest around the site about what WP:ACTRIAL was all about.

Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. Discuss this message here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from this list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Jason Y. Ng
Hi TonyBallioni, this is HKEditors and you left us a message about Jason Y. Ng' page. We are a group of independent freelance editors based in Hong Kong and have no connections with Ng or other authors. Can you highlight the sentences that you believe are "somewhat promotional"? Where necessary, we are happy to remove and/or revise them to comply with Wiki's policy. Thanks.

HKEditors
 * I have responded on your talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, I get what you said and I've taken out (hopefully) all of the promotional language from Jason Y. Ng's page. I'm a freelance editor but I don't get paid for creating or editing Wiki pages. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HKEditors (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Tony, it's been two weeks since I responded. Could you please remove the banner from Jason Y. Ng's page as all promotional language has been removed. Thanks. - HKEditors
 * Peacock template has been removed. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump
Where do you get the idea that something has to be discussed on the talk page before it could be added to the article? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Trump is a highly visible biography of living persons article, and that category could very arguably be seen as negative. There should be a consensus for inclusion to make sure that people agree it is appropriate and in line with our policies. I've added a similar comment on the article talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
I've now read the article, thank you, is there anything else i should know for NPP? --DashyGames (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Paid Editing
Thanks for the note, but I do find this to be a bit out of left field. I worked on a bio page I found to be thin, in an industry I know very well based on previous (though unaffiliated) employment history, in an attempt to make it better. I am a big proponent of leaving Wikipedia pages better than I found them, and I genuinely felt my contributions fit the bill.

Since you are the first person to directly bring this to my attention, how might you suggest I change my contribution style to prevent issues like this moving forward? JonathanBentz (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Good work closing RMs
AFAICT, you're the last person who closed anything from the RM backlog. Good work! It's starting to build up a bit...

There's one RM near the bottom there that I initiated and that has a lot of debate. I'd love to see it closed one way or another; obviously I think I'm right but if the decision went against me that's OK. I also have no problem with non-admin closure.

I don't want this to seem as if I'm forum shopping; I really just looked down the page history for the last time something near the bottom was closed, and you're the first person I saw. Homunq (࿓) 20:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , that is quite the RM. I just read through it and while I feel I have a decent grasp of the concepts involved, it might be better for an admin to close it. I try to stick to the relatively uncontroversial RMs, but I would be willing to consider closing it if were also fine with it since her proposal of electoral system seems to be one of the main options being discussed right now. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I expect her to see that you've mentioned her name. User:BrownHairedGirl, if you're OK with Tony closing it, I think you could say so here.
 * Again, by speaking here, I don't want to be putting my finger on the scales in either direction. All sides in this debate have in my opinion been quite reasonable, all deserve a fair hearing and an impartial decision. In suggesting that I'd be OK with a decision that goes against me, I do not wish to minimize my sincere convictions on the issues as I've expressed there. It's just that any decision is better than limbo.
 * Thanks again for considering this. Homunq (࿓) 23:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'd be fine with you closing it. Whether you want to do so is another matter, because the nominator posted such huge volumes there that the result is an absolute mountain to wade through. I don't think I have ever seen an RM so overwhelmed by one person. If you feel up to that, then good luck! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * and, the close is done. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * I want to ask some quick questions about what this means. Is that OK? I know you've waded through a lot so I don't want to put any more on you if you don't want me to. Homunq (࿓) 03:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. I tried to be as transparent as possible in the close statement to explain the process I went through to come to the close, and welcome any other questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not issues with your close — you were clear, and thanks. Just want to know what I should do going forward. The article and general topic needs cleanup and probably splitting. So, breaking out of this annoying indent level to a list of questions, from easiest to hardest...

I think those first four questions are not too hard; and I think I could probably get away with just WP:BOLD as long as I maintain some self-awareness and discretion. But that last one, I really don't know. If any of this seems like it's above your pay grade, just say so. If you do, I'll err on the side of caution. But I'd rather not have to err; I think I can be helpful on this stuff. Homunq (࿓) 04:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess that I should get the relevant categories and templates renamed and fixed to agree with the new naming?
 * Is it OK if I mention the primary alternate names (voting rule, and maybe also voting system) in the first line of the article?
 * If I'm gonna spruce up the article, is it OK if I refocus it slightly towards what I see as appropriate for the new name? Not really cutting anything out, just rewriting the parts about how it relates to other things to reflect a slightly different scope.
 * Is it OK if I make "voting system" into a dab between electoral system and Electronic voting? (For the latter, election technology would be better, as the template, but seems it's been moved.)
 * If I were going to split this up, do you have any pointers for how? My first instinct would be to carve out a good 70% of the article and move it to voting rule or 50% to single-winner voting rule, but it seems pretty clear to me that whatever good faith I had in my heart that would look pretty bad right after this closure. But the article does really need some sections broken out. Should I just keep hands off, or should I do my best to color within the lines, and if so, what are the lines?
 * I'll try to answer concisely, not meant as being rude :)
 * I'm not very familiar with category processes and they would need to follow whatever procedures are in place for categories. You could link to the close here has worked with categories on some other moves I have closed and could provide more advice. Templates you could probably boldly change any text.
 * I think that would be fine, be bold, and if that doesn't work, discuss on the talk page.
 * I think that would be fine, but I also think you have a fair amount of people who were involved in the discussion that would be interested in helping. WP:BRD is good here as well, and I'm sure that many of the people who commented would be happy to help with any adjustments to the content that needed to be made.
 * I would working on Voting system (disambiguation) and make it a hat note. Just my advice, but I think it would probably be the easiest and least disruptive.
 * I would suggest opening up a conversation on the talk page about splitting. I would not take any offense from it, and actually assumed it would happen given the conversation.
 * As a piece of personal advice, I would suggest waiting a week or two before opening up a splitting discussion. I think you would be fine to open per WP policy and I don't think it would be POINTy at all, but you have clearly put a lot of thought into this and care a lot. It is really admirable. That kind of dedication can make having a discussion not go the way you want be emotionally draining, and further work might not be as good as it would be if you took a step back. That's how I would approach it myself, but I also don't think it is required and it is really up to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems like good advice from Tony. But please may I add that in any future discussions, @Homunq should be much much less verbose?  The RM discussion was overwhelmed by posts from Homunq, which made it very hard for people to follow the discussion.
 * As to categories, I suggest leaving them until all article moves have been done. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks again to both of you. Homunq (࿓) 05:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think your voice would be useful again over there. Thanks. Homunq (࿓) 17:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I left a comment. Not sure how helpful I can be towards the actual content conversation, but hopefully it might be helpful in terms of the process. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It is helpful to have somebody there who isn't "on a side". If you have any advice for me, I'm open. Homunq (࿓) 01:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep bugging you on this. I realize that I need to adapt my pace to others at least as much as they have to adapt to my higher energy on this article. But it's frustrating to me; from my point of view, I make good-faith efforts to discuss my intentions, and try to improve the article... and then I'm summarily reverted without real discussion, in at least some cases for reasons that seem to have more to do with how I acted in the past than with the merits of the specific edits that are being reverted. So I'd appreciate you either saying another word over there, or if you think I'm the only one whose behavior should change, just saying so here. Homunq (࿓) 23:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message again, . I'm a bit busy in real life right now, but I'll try to have a look and say something within the next 24 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. Actually, since Number57 is engaging, I don't feel as urgent a need for you to drop by. I was mostly upset by BrownHairedGirl; what she did felt to me like arbitrary reversion accompanied by drive-by personal insults. I know she's busy and deals with a lot of sealions so I understand her side but it still felt as if she could have done better. But now that the discussion is moving on that's water under the bridge. Homunq (࿓) 15:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This matter has gone to WP:DRN. I see no need for you to participate but I thought you should know. Homunq (࿓) 14:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Kika Silva
Don't erase that article on Kika Silva --Danrolo (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

John Crumbley
Do not delete the article of John Crumbley. He is one of the most notable high school baseball coaches in the state of Florida's history. The winningest of the Tampa Bay area, he has coached many former and current major leaguers dating back to his days as head coach of the Jesuit Tigers. He is not just notable in Tampa, but throughout the state of Florida, coaching four state championship teams. --Debosilla (talk) 6:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Baltic Estonia
Hi, Why do you want to delete it? I would like to explain the article "Baltic Estonia". The article wants to explain how wide and deep-rooted actually are Estonia´s ties with other Baltic states especially Latvia. It gives some new information about that how these two countries are one unite in many aspects. The thing is that there are some wikipedia fighters from Estonia who have fulfilled wikipedia with in my opinin 100% propagandistic stuff there they try to "prove" that Estonia is not Baltic but "Nordic". Those authors know perfectly what are the Nordic countries in reality and what aren´t but they try to brainwash wikipedia readers and make them to believe that things are so like they believe. The article Nordic Estonia and Estonian ammendments to article nordic countries is biased and does not fulfill the wiki criterions in my opinion as it is stump speech and propaganda. Behind there is 1-2 estonian persons with Swedish roots. They represent in real life sort of 0,..0001% of Estonians. Their activity is ridiculous https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Estonia_cannot_into_Nordic.jpg Sorry for being a bit emotional but the way how wikipedia is used as propaganda tool is very annoying, hypocritical and based on cherry picked and completely marginal facts... It is regrettable that such things happen in wikipedia. The article Baltic Estonia wants to point out that Estonia is really a Baltic country. This is a question of dignity and staidness what we unfortunately seem to lack as we want to be anybody else.

I kindly please to remain article Baltic Estonia as separate article (at least as long as "Nordic Estonia" exists!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Räcx2 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your questions. The best course forward here is to join the conversation at AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Maraal
Hi, I request you not to delete the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thedwivedi#Proposed_deletion_of_Maraal Maraal is a project undergoing at IIT Kanpur. It is a defence related project hence not all the details have been put in public. As soon as it goes public there will be lot of sources to back the claim. Since it is scheduled to go public within next 3-4 days, I created the page. I am working on the page and soon it will have all the details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedwivedi (talk • contribs) 09:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have restored the potential hoax tag because there are zero sources to confirm the existence and Wikipedia doesn't take its contributors research for publication. I will hold off on nominating it for a deletion discussion for a few days to see if appropriate coverage becomes available to meet the general notability guideline, but if I do not feel the guideline is met in two or three days, I am likely to send it to WP:AFD. Also, you might want to read WP:COI, since you do appear to have a connection to this project based on your message above. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

But...
We lose information this way. The way I did it, the redirection indicates that all Ignatius I were Patriarchs, the way you did it does not convey that until after you read the whole list... Regards. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , you'll note that none of the articles linked to on the dab page actually have Patriarch in their title. MOS:HONOURIFIC is what controls here. The specific naming conventions for patriarchs would also suggest this because people such as Ignatius of Antioch are not commonly known as Patriarch Ignatius in English. No information is lost because the Patriarch Ignatius I page redirects to the Ignatius I page if people are searching for them. The numeral at the end is disambiguation enough. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, if this is the policy I'm gonna have to fix several things I did... The information is not lost but is least readily available. Thanks for your info. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I'm going to create a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy since you have created about 30 redirects and dab pages pretty quickly. They will help sort out what the best way forward is! I'll ping you in it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Common claims of significance or importance
I made my comment in the wrong section, and have now moved it.  DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the note. I think you also accidentally moved my comments about being a notable professor's wife up as well by accident. I've moved it back down. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Contestation of Speedy deletion nomination of WRENN
Hello, thank you for your feedback on my article WRENN. I have reviewed your reasoning for the page's speedy deletion and have found some flaws I would like to address with you. While you are not incorrect in saying the article is significantly similar to a previous version, it does not qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G4. This is due to the fact the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and thus according to CSD GD, excludes the page from deletion. Upon reviewing the previous deletion discussion which came to an end on May 17th, 2016, one can see the reasoning behind the deletion was arguably a case of WP:TOOSOON due to the fact the articles about this subject were not as reputable as they needed to be in order for the page to remain in the database. In addition, the largest reason for keeping the page in the last discussion was to help establish a differentiation between two artists who both were going by the same name. It was established that neither were notable and therefore it was not Wikipedia's job to help differentiate the two. Yet, upon further observation the revised version of this page does not mention that dispute, and instead stands on it's own, with a firm backing of reputable sources such as Billboard, Alternative Press (music magazine), and The Fader. Not to mention establishing proof of two nationwide tours, and multiple musical appearances on TV shows airing on prime time networks (see: Fox, The CW, Showtime). In conclusion it is obvious to see the previous reason for the deletion no longer applies and therefore does not qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G4, or truthfully, any deletion at all. I look forward to hearing your thoughts after a secondary review. V.Putnam (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I did not see the original article, but the AfD seemed to deal with similar claims, and the Billboard source that was cited I could not actually find. deleted at as G4. He might want to weigh in here. Barring him restoring it, you would need to go to WP:DRV to recreate the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * See Articles for deletion/WRENN (2nd nomination) for new discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you to both of you for your feedback. You will see I have added the correct link to WRENN's feature in Billboard. I am glad that the issue of speedy deletion has been resolved, yet I still disagree with the nomination for deletion. I would appreciate if both of you would take a look at the updated page and let me know your thoughts.

Response to speedy deletion of Evita Robinson
Tony, thank you for your letting me know about this issue. The article for Evita Robinson was originally created by a new Wikipedia editor during USF SOLIS Wiki≡quality: Black History Month, so it was extremely discouraging that it had been deleted within days of being written. I ensured that the formatting of the article adhered to Wikipedia standards and even rewrote parts, but it was still ultimately deleted. After the AfD process, I saw the comments of the administrators discussing the article and was happy to see that one individual was supportive of keeping the article. Below is my response contesting the deletion (posted on the article's talk page) of this new article for Evita Robinson:


 * This page should not be deleted because there are more than plenty of sources to warrant its notability, as can be seen through a simple Google search of "Evita Robinson" or "Nomadness Travel." Several of the sources are credible as well, particularly The New York Times, Mashable, Huffington Post, and Ebony. Evita Robinson, as stated in the article, is a pioneer in the urban travel movement, a defining factor in her notability as an influential young black woman. The remaining sources used may not be the most popular; however, they are representative of diverse perspectives, either within the travel industry or of African-American media. I don't believe this page should have been deleted in the first place, but I have rewritten it (using some of the feedback from the AfD process) using additional references to strengthen its notability and highlighting the importance of the content written. If the article is found to be insufficient, it should be marked as a stub and encouraged to be expanded rather than deleted outright. --PersnicketyPaul (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I decided to recreate this page for today's edit-a-thon event Wiki≡quality: Art+Feminism celebrating Women's History Month. This article has been created in an effort to increase representation of African-American individuals, as well as women more generally, on Wikipedia. I sincerely hope you'll consider my argument for keeping Evita on Wikipedia. —PersnicketyPaul (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for the note. I am not an administrator, so I cannot look at the deleted version of the page. I know that the recent AfD had concerns with the notability of the subject and the general sources available to be found were addressed in the AfD and not found to meet GNG. This is why to me it looked to qualify for G4. I'm sorry for any discouragement you might feel. WP:DRV is generally a good place to go if one of your articles has been deleted, and you believe new information would have led to a different outcome. This is especially the case when the AfD was so recent. An admin will be able to look at the pages and the deletion discussion and figure out whether or not the consensus reached at the AfD applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

RE: Mark Dice
I'm working toward arbitration. I suggest we all do. meatclerk (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , arbitration enforcement is not a happy place to be. It'd be much better if you did not try to escalate it to that point, especially given the apparent WP:MEAT at work here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Arbitration. Done tonight. Have a good night. meatclerk (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Evita Robinson
Hello TonyBallioni. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Evita Robinson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required.''' Thank you.  So Why  13:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So Why  and TonyBallioni, Thank you for your time and consideration regarding Evita Robinson. I'm happy that the article has been noted as substantially different from the original deleted version, and I hope this one will instead be marked as a stub rather than deleted in the near future. —PersnicketyPaul (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, as I mentioned above: not being an administrator myself, I could only look at the AfD, and the new article itself. Glad that the new version is different. Thanks to SoWhy for reviewing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Groningen Journal of International Law
Hiya, In regards to your marking the Groningen Journal of International Law for speedy deletion, I can provide the following references that verify the work of the journal: I do not see why you are marking the page to be taken down? Kind regards, User9228 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Book1
 * 2) Book2
 * 3) Book3
 * 4) Book4
 * Hi,, I nominated it because it didn't seem to address the concerns raised at the AfD discussion of it. , an admin declined the deletion on the ground that it was different than the article that was deleted. , another admin, nominated it for deletion again on the same G4 grounds. I have not touched the article since SoWhy declined it. Out of curiosity have you ever used another account or have you been asked to edit on that article by someone else? TonyBallioni (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I created a new account as my previous one was blocked due to the username not following the policy. My previous post above gives you 4 relevant books that make reference to the journal. Furthermore, I have put in more referencing on the page. This is an improvement from the previous page, is it not. Can you give me direct indicators as to what you see a problem with? Kind regards, User9228 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for the response. The second G4 nomination has since been declined, but the admin noted that it likely still has the same issues as before. Since the original AfD nominator is involved at this point, I will let them see if they want to nominate it for AfD a second time. From my looking at what you provided and the page, it doesn't appear to meet the criteria of WP:NJOURNAL, which would be the basis for any future AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Remove the deletion issue from the page.
This page has references and sources. They'll be published shortly. Remove your deletion nomination. Hamidyasir (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * you are welcome to make that argument at the discussion page for this article, but my searches reveal no actual sources, and the sources you have been adding to the article fail verification in that they don't actually mention the subject. I see no need to withdraw my nomination at this time, but if sources are provided that do meet our standards, I gladly will. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Email
Done. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've revdel'd their other contributions. It's the same message, but it might be worth including in your email. Primefac (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just sent them to WMF. Thanks for your work and accessibility. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

NewLabour Party
Hi TonyBallioni. Could you please reconsider your closing of the move discussion? To suggest there was a consensus of any kind is rather farcical. Thanks.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've relisted it because I don't think further discussion will hurt, but I do think the close was within discretion, and that another reasonable closer could have closed it that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks for relisting.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 14:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Nather Jarrar
Hi Toni,

i noted your messages on the article. I need help on the issues and citations. It shows it is an orphan whic i do not understand clearly. I noticed the person has been tagged in the article of the Official Club.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahabi1 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your message
Hope you don't mind me replying here as my email address contains my surname. I'm not sure if you're the cause, but given recent happenings, I haven't been in a particularly gay mood lately. When I'm not happy, I sometimes sometimes say something stupid and/or offensive. I hope I haven't just done so here. I think that also plays a part in it. As for the violence stuff, I post at ANI because that's the best way to get attention. Something needs to be done, and asking an admin privately will delay response. Someone's bound to be watching ANI, and there's no guarantee an admin's talk page has plenty of stalkers. I've reported suicide threats before on ANI with no problems. Adam9007 (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, appreciate the privacy concerns, just emailed because of the violence concerns and not wanting to up wiki-drama. I get ANI because of the attention standpoint, but have seen ANI posts about similar things where users have tried to play counselor to the threat, so wanted to raise the possibility of doing it privately. Anyway, hope you feel better soon, and sorry that you are feeling unhappy. And don't worry about whether you said anything stupid or not-- I tend to be stupid so whatever you say can't possible offend me :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just checked my talk page and its archives, and you don't seem to have caused me much stress (unless we've interacted somewhere else?) :). I'm planning on taking a WikiBreak, but I have 2 outstanding GANs. Adam9007 (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh, AfD and MfD, and I'm always sensitive to people's feeling and like to take responsibility fort anything dumb I might have said. Anyway, good luck on the GAN's. Like I said, while we disagree on some stuff, I do appreciate your work. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Saper Law Offices
Hi there, hope I'm doing this right!

You recently deleted a page I created for Saper Law Offices. I'm wondering (1) if there is any way I can still access the page and (2) if there are changes I can make to get it reinstated.

Thanks! Peter.jay.cramer (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * deleted the article as an advertisement. I'll defer to him, because I don't have access to the text anymore. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Teach17 Replying to your request
Thank you for your feedback on my article. I have reviewed your requests and I would like to explain several things. I am student and education enthusiast. The article I created is purely based on existing facts, the sources I inputed demonstrate all the information that is contained in the article. The organisation is unique in the region and does incredible job in insuring all children have access to excellent education. Nothing in the article is exaggerated and everything is properly grounded on the media articles, websites and other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teach17 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks, your username suggested an official connection to the subject, which is why I asked if you were a paid editor. Always glad to have more education enthusiasts on here. Sorry for the multiple warning templates, since you kept editing without replying it looked like you were ignoring them. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Bestinmexico replying to your proposed deletion of Hospices of Hope article
Hi. I have been out of the country this past week so I have not been able to get back to you about the proposed deletion of the Hospices of Hope page. I just wanted to ask about some specifics of what I can do to make this page more suitable. I have been using some pages of other local and small charities as a reference point for this page, such as Build Africa and Children in Crisis, and from what I can see, the types of sources I have provided are very similar and I have provider a wider range from what I can see. I am happy to work to get this page more suitable and find better sources if necessary but wanted to get some clarity of on this. Thanks, Bestinmexico (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the message. I'm a bit short on time now, but the best way to bring an article up to standards is by having multiple in-depth secondary sources covering it. I don't have time right now to look through, but the sources I saw looked like sources that confirmed basic facts (like locations being opened) or non-independent sources. I could certainly have been wrong, and will take a look at the article again when I have more time. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)