User talk:Nthep/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

PETER WYNGARDE BIOGRAPHY

The accuracy of the article is disputed by Filbert007 (talk · contribs) who appears to be in contact with Peter Wyngarde. The differences are significant - see Draft:WYNGARDE PETER (Authorised Biography). In starting this section I offer no opinion about the variations but only to encourage anyone interested to discuss here, not get into an edit war on the article. Nthep (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Nthep,

Thank you for offering to discuss this.

I have updated a revised draft of my version of the Biography ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:WYNGARDE_PETER_(Authorised_Biography ), which I invite you to read. As you will see, I’ve listed in detail all my source material, and clearly identified the segments obtained from Mr Wyngarde himself. I stand by what I said in my post (Peter Wyngarde Talk) at the weekend (28/05/16) – specifically, that if you can provide any material that disproves the content of MY ‘Article’, and/or are able to further substantiate the claims you make in the sections currently in contention (see below), then you will never hear from Mr Wyngarde or I again, The main items of contention are:

Peter Wyngarde’s date of birth:

I would be willing to email to you a copy of the February 1942 article from The Totem Cub Scouts Magazine (as reference in my ‘Article’) in which 8-year-old Peter is pictured with his friends from the 4th Shanghai (Telephone Company) Cub Pack. This would add further testimony to demonstrate that he could not possibly have been 16 at the time he entered Lunghau.

In addition, I have a wristband he wore when in hospital recently, which clearly gives his date of birth. I can easily scan and forward it. (We, of course, have his birth certificate and driving licence, both of which show his age, but we are not willing to disclose those for obvious reasons).

Statement about Peter’s supposed homosexuality:

You appear to blindly accept as gospel Donald Spoto’s account of Mr Wyngarde’s association with Alan Bates – quoting from his book, ‘Alan Bates: Otherwise Engaged’ (also referencing Lewis Roger’s article, which is based on the same source).

The assertion is that Mr Wyngarde’s ‘supposed’ homosexuality was “well-known in acting circles”. Yet in spite of making such an emphatic declaration as a point of ‘fact’, you fail to validate the allegation with any first-hand testimony of your own, which is vital given the gravity of the statement. Without it, it’s mere conjecture!

The term “well-known” suggests that this ‘knowledge’ was prevalent within acting circles, meaning that the majority of actors would’ve been privy to it. If that’s the case, then you’d have had little difficulty in finding more than enough individuals to corroborate this assertion whilst conducting your own research (assuming that you stepped away from your PC occasionally, so as not to rely entirely on Internet gossip, which can be a notoriously unreliable source of information).

If Spoto had conducted a more thorough investigation, he’d have come into contact with several actresses who’d have given him a contradictory account. Perhaps he did, but then the agenda was to sensationalise Bates’ private life. To discover that the male lover actually slept with girls would’ve proved somewhat inconvenient!(?)

The nick-name ‘Petunia Winegum’:

My argument is as above. (In actual fact, this name came about in an early 1970’s sketch by The Two Ronnies, and wasn’t predominant in acting circles in the early to mid-Sixties, as Spoto asserts!).

Minor Points:

I have absolutely no record of Mr Wyngarde having ever worked in Germany, as you state in your article.

The Hellfire Club – The Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society is not “defunct” as you claim. It merely transferred onto Facebook, and can presently be found at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/813997125389790/ The page was hacked into in January, 2016, and restarted as a Group during that month.

If you intend to write about a Living Person, then it’s IMPERATIVE that you do more extensive research than you would if you were writing, say, about the production of light bulbs! Inaccurate or inflammatory content can lead to unaccountable damage and distress, both to the subject person and their friends and family. Unauthorised biographies (I understand that Spoto’s account is being challenged by AT LEAST two other parties, both in the UK and the United States!) and Internet forums are not always the most reliable sources of information. By building your article almost entirely on these particular foundations, you’ve succeed only in buying into a decades old game of Chinese Whispers, and have merely rehashed already embroidered stories!

In respect of the incident of ‘Gross Indecency’: This happened over 45 years ago. Mr Wyngarde has paid his dues a thousand times over. Under European Law (Ruling C-131/12 – ‘Right To Be Forgotten’), he is entitled to have all references to this incident removed from any online/written source (we would have no hesitation on insisting that this Directive be executed in this particular instance). As previously stated, the facts concerning this incident have been added to and distorted over the years, and have been repeated ad infinitum online. Thus far, our legal representative has been successful in having 27 pages containing mention of this incident, and/or vitriolic and inaccurate information blocked or removed from the Internet* (thankfully, the majority of misinformed bloggers tend to delete these yarns voluntarily when challenged, simply because they’re unable to substantiate them).

We currently have four more ‘Incidents’ pending (Refs: 9267494628489; 8364293-034736; 32649036575 & 1193774526489) with online search engines etc., and are also in the process of preparing libel cases against two prominent authors. We will be requesting that Wikipedia also remove any reference to this incident without delay. While we don’t wish to go down that route in this instance, we will if necessary.

Once again, if you’re able to provide more detailed and verifiable source material than you have listed at present, or if you’re able to dispel anything or all of the information/source material listed in my biography, then you’ll hear no more from either Mr Wyngarde or myself.

Our legal adviser has suggested that we give you 7 days from today’s date to consider whether you intend to stand by your Article. If you are adamant that your 'Article' should remain, then we'll request Third Party arbitration from Wikipedia. Regardless of the outcome, we will be requesting the removal of the inflammatory passages listed above under the relative Directive.

We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Regards,

Filbert007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filbert007 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 31 May 2016‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filbert007 (talk • contribs)

@Filbert007:

1. Let me repeat what I said previously. I have no opinion on the article as it stands, my only interest in seeing that discussions etc are conducted in line with Wikipedia processes. The way you were proceeding by mass change without references and lack of talking eould, if continued, likely to have led to a block from editing for you.
2. you keep referring to "your article", the article is not owned by anyone nor is it owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is an article conpiled and maintained by anyone who wishes to edit the page. The content is not fixed and my only edits to the page have been to correct tags made by you.
3. There is merit in discussing the reliability of sources like Spotto but making remarks about people who have edited the article isn't likely to make them or anyone else more willing to discuss issues with you. So I would suggest that less disdain towards others who have accepted a source at face value would improve things.
4. Dates of birth are not easy to substantiate as even birth certificates have bern known to be wrong. Personally I don't set any great store by the current version eithet and the best option may be that there is dispute between various sources.
5. Leading on from above is the concept of neutrality. I do not defend the status quo but neither would I support a hagiography. If there are warts in Peter's character then it is correct that they are mentioned as long as they are a) sourced and b) undue weight is not being applied.
6. Wikipedia is hosted in the US so you might find little support for any claims to disappear under EU law. Don't take my word on this I am not a lawyer though just expressing an observation on what I have seen elsewhere on Wikipedia.
7. You keep referring to "we" please note that under Wikipedia terms of use accounts on for person only and are not to be used by many people. As long as only one person accesses the account there is no issue.

Nthep (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding.

In reply to your points:

1. I am new to Wikipedia, so did not fully understand the process. This has now been addressed.

2. I refer to 'My Article' to distinguish it from 'Yours' - I thought you would understand and appreciate that!

3. I HAVE attempted to discuss the reliability of sources. My personal opinion,n based on the content of 'Your Article' is that you haven't done no real research on this subject, other than trawl the Internet for already embroidered stories.

4.I appreciate your (for want of a better word) 'admitting' that you don't set any great store by the document currently held in the National Archive regarding Mr Wyngarde's date of birth. As I stated in my message to you yesterday, we have several documents that would prove that he couldn't have been 16- years-old (i.e. born in 1928) at the time he entered Lunghau.

5 & 6: Regarding neutrality: I agree that such a biography cannot be weighted too far one way or the other. However, Mr Wyngarde feels - as do his friends, family and fans - that he has paid his dues with regard to the incident in 1975. Some murderers haven't been hounded to this extent!!! It is his RIGHT to have it forgotten. If it takes a lawful ruling to achieve this then, regrettably, 'we' are willing to take it that far.

We have a very experienced Barrister working for us, who is well versed in International Law. He advises that if you decline to remove the passage voluntarily (as an act of goodwill), and Wikipedia refuse to adhere to our wishes, we can have the Page blocked from all European search engines.

6. Whilst I understand Wikipedia's terms of use, I refer to 'We' when discussing this matter with YOU, simply to convey Mr Wyngarde's displeasure with 'Your' account of his life. Again, I felt that you would understand why I used that particular word!

The question now is, what next? Would you be willing to voluntarily remove the passage relating to the incident in 1975? Would you be prepared to make clear that the information you lifted from Donald Spotto's book, 'Alan Bates: Otherwise Engaged', are not statements of fact? Are you be willing to state that, as the 'Author' of the contested piece, you "don't set any great store by the document currently held in the National Archive", and concede that Mr Wyngarde is more qualified than anyone in the world to know when he was born! (Again, I am prepared to submit evidence supporting the 23/08/33 date).

Might I assume that you've read 'my' version of the biography(?). If so, would you concede that it is much more detailed and better sourced than 'your' version? If the answer to both those questions is "yes", would you allow me to replace 'Your' version with mine? Needless to say, if you have any objections and/or acquire any contradictory evidence, then you'd be entitled to edit or change it - that would be your prerogative under the terms that Wikipedia stipulate. I would have absolutely no argument with that.

I'm not trying to make demands. But I do feel that the source material I have access to is far more extensive and reliable than that currently peddled by online bloggers!

I hope that I can look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Filber007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filbert007 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

As I keep stating, I am not the owner or author of the article, so it is not down to me to make any decision or action and to be blunt about it, I don't actually care. I am only trying to help you make your case without getting into an edit war which is where things were heading.

I have looked at the draft article and I see two issues with the sourcing. Firstly it is unspecific so nobody apart from yourself knows what source supports what piece of information. Secondly a lot of the sources are unverifiable as they relate to content not publicly available. Please see WP:V for a full explanation on what are "good" sources.

Actually no I don't regard Peter as a reliable source for information about himself, there are numerous examples of actors being economic with the truth about their ages - another reason for independent secondary sources being required.

The right to be forgotten applies to searches, not, afaik, the recording or publication of the information itself, the debate on Wikipedia would ve whether or not the incident is notable enough to be mentioned and if so whether undue weight is being given.

Wikipedia is a collegiate effort, so content is decided by consensus. Your continued use of terms like you and qe seems to be failing to appre iate this, there is no owner of the article to be addressed as you. Asking me whether I agree courses of action is fairly pointless because a) i have no opinion on most of them and b) anything I say or do is not binding on anyone else. You are welcome to edit the article in any way you wish but I would caution you that the way you have attempted this so far will in all probability lead to problems for you because you are not meeting Wikipedia requirements about independent reliable, verifiable sources. Nthep (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I have listed every magazine interview (date of publication) so anyone who so desires can look it up. I've also offered to forward on request copies of any document, at any time, should Wikipedia and/or a reader request it.

As stated yesterday, I used the terms 'My' and 'You' to distinguish between the two articles whilst conversing with you, in what I hoped might be a friendly manner. I can see now that you're not willing to get that concept. I just can't understand your quoting rules and regulations when this is meant to be a civil conversation. I've seen contributors discuss matters on the Talk pages without having constantly watch every term they use. I hoped that given this opportunity, you wouldn't be so pedantic! I KNOW no one OWNS the article(s). I get it! Other people can edit it if they so choose. I have four Degrees and a Doctorate, so understand plain English!

Re. the 'Right To Be Forgotten': the Legal Adviser who represents Mr Wyngarde is well aware of the law. He has been successful in having comments removed and/or blocked from 27 websites around the world to date. As I said before, Mr Wyngarde, said Legal Adviser and I(I didn't use the word 'We') won't hesitate to use the law again, if necessary.

As far as I'm concerned, the matter is now close. I've tried to discuss the matter with you judiciously. If Wikipedia has a problem with this the article (the author of which cannot be referred to here), then they can remove it (I'm aware that you're a Wikipedia Administrator). Filber007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filbert007 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Administrators don't govern content only process. That's why my opinion has no more weight than anyone else's over the content of any article. 234 people other than you and I have edited Peter Wyngarde and they may or may not have opinions on these issues. That there has been no response on the article talk page means that there may not be any strong opinions either for or against your suggestions. Now there has been that opportunity for discussion there is less excuse for outrage at major change, so if you consider that your content improves the article, go ahead and make your changes but don't be surprised if there is negative response. Knowing you are right and proving it are two different things. Nthep (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2016

Delivered June 2016 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

00:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

user:72.136.164.103

Block user:72.136.164.103 for vandalism. 2602:306:3357:BA0:9D38:74A2:E5ED:A90C (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Why are you doing speedy deletion and you are stupod and f***** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pahhdh (talk • contribs) 16:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Because you know full well that what you were writing was false and made up. Nthep (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

• New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
• Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
• New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Fox Trap (film)

Hi. I saw you deleted a page called "Wikki/Chicken (film)" because it was titled incorrectly. Should the same be done for Wikki/Fox Trap (film)? I wasn't sure if this article qualified for speedy deletion because of the title name. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Happy editing! --My Pants Metal (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't deleted Chicken - just moved it to a correct title Chicken (2016 film) without leaving a redirect. I wasn't aware of Fox Trap, I'll look at that later. Nthep (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I actually just noticed that it was moved and not deleted, haha! Sorry about that. --My Pants Metal (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Fox Trap and The Domino Effect are not notable as yet, so I've proposed deletion for both. CSD isn't appropriate for films either on title or release status. Nthep (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - July 2016

Delivered July 2016 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

12:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The Winter Ghosts

Hi Nthep, thanks for The Times review, I gave now updated the article... :-) GrahamHardy (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

great. Nthep (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

User talk:183.171.179.107

Can you delete the user page? 123.136.107.63 (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

there is no user page to delete and the talk page contains a valid, if dated, discussion topic. Nthep (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the help

Thank you for providing me with the template, your help has boosted the project much. Iazyges (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivana Raymonda van der Veen (2nd nomination)

Hello Nthep,

Perhaps other editors wouldn't agree that the discussion went way off topic, but I do believe that it will be hard to get input from the community if that back and forth situation remains on the AfD page. Recently, material from this AfD was moved to the AfD talk page because it was deemed toxic and irrelevant, so there's obviously a precedent. Anyway, could you please tell me how long I have to wait to renominate the article for deletion if there's a "no consensus" closure because of the material that you reinserted? Is there an official waiting period? There are two Wikipedians (including me) that believe the article should be deleted. The other person was merely sent by the subject to defend the article, but has zero experience on Wikipedia. That vote has no weight. There is no Keep rationale based on policies, so it's a 2-0 situation. Is that enough to avoid a "no consensus" closure? I'm guessing the answer is no, so again, please, how long would I have to wait before nominating the article for deletion again? Many thanks in advance. Dontreader (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

By all means hat the section where it has possibly gone off topic but don't remove them entirely, especially not just to a user talk page. No idea about how long to wait if this ends as no consensus. You might just be better walking away and letting others see if the article can be improved. Can I make a gentle reminder that BLP applies on all pages - WP:BLPTALK. Nthep (talk)

Many thanks for your reply. I would have responded sooner but my Yahoo Mail has quit notifying me of new messages promptly. I had to reload the inbox, and suddenly I saw many messages. Anyway, I've never hatted anything. I've just never had the need to do such a thing. In fact, I don't know what hatting is exactly. Perhaps if you have some time you could please take care of that, and that way you would decide what's relevant and what's not. I would be very grateful. Things were going sort of well in that AfD discussion until that person showed up, and then it all went to hell, and no more votes have been cast. I just think the place scares people away in its current state.

I know Ivana very well, and I can assure you that there's nothing else out there that can be added to the article. She has done nothing of interest since I created it. The article is based on a previous version that was speedy deleted. I looked under every stone, I swear. There's nothing more to add, and she doesn't have any planned projects that could ever be regarded as notable. She just makes YouTube videos. When I created the article I was always worried that it would be nominated for deletion, but I thought I could barely defend it enough for a Weak Keep closure. However, now I see that it cannot be defended. It simply doesn't belong here. Rebbing thinks that it's some sort of revenge against Ivana, but although I cannot bear her, I angrily quit my support for her months ago, yet I didn't touch the article back then. My very recent shocking discoveries through SimilarWeb exposed the article as misleading. I wish I had known about that service before I created the page.

And thanks, yes, I must always keep in mind the BLP issue. I appreciate the reminder. What made me so upset was that what Ivana's messenger said is exactly what caused me to stop supporting her. It instantly brought back very disagreeable memories. I can't explain or else I'd be making the same BLP mistake again. Please help me with the hatting if it's not too cumbersome. Whatever you do is fine with me, if you find time to do it. I think all I need is one more vote, but I fear no one will cast it. Many thanks again for your time and help... Dontreader (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Now the comments have been added to, it's probably not worth hatting now. Although it may be a case that once the AFD is completed that the whole discussion is courtesy blanked. Nthep (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That sounds great, Nthep. I don't know how you admins communicate with each other, but for Ivana's sake it would be an excellent solution to blank the discussion, as you suggested. I sure know that what I did was very wrong. What I said was true, but it definitely raised BLP concerns, and my observations were little more than a display of resentful behavior. If the result is no consensus I won't nominate the article again for deletion. I am quitting my participation in AfDs. Many thanks, and have a great day. Dontreader (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up too much, we have all overstepped the mark at some point. The good news is that you have realised it yourself. Don't give up on AFD either, I've looked at your contributions and mostly they are pretty good. I have two suggestions for you. 1) don't participate in AFD where you find you have a high personal connection with the subject. 2) before you save your comments, preview them, count to ten and then consider if they are reasonable, fair and abiding by BLP or any other relevant policy before hitting aave. That's what I have to do sometimes. You have a great day too. Nthep (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Nthep! I really appreciate your support and advice. I really do try to do the right thing here and in real life, too, but a few mistakes can have very serious consequences. I will follow your advice very carefully. Just a couple of days ago I wrote a final thought in a reply, and it was an outrageous thing to say. I would have erased it if I had done what you suggested. I feel much better now because I was totally demoralized less than 24 hours ago with Wikipedia in general. I had totally lost faith in the project, and I was also afraid of hurting more people. Since I don't edit that often, I can also choose moments for editing when I'm in a decent mood, which was not the case recently due to temporary personal problems. Thanks for saying that my work here is usually pretty good! It means a lot to me. I'm very grateful for your kind message. Have a great day! It's 3:23 am here, so I should get some sleep! Dontreader (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Hello, could you please provide a source to the "official annoucement" that it is Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union rather than Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union? Jacqueline2008 (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC) I've got it now! https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-ministerial-appointment-july-2016-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union Jacqueline2008 (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

All good things come to those who seek. Nthep (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request for File:Jerrybrassiere.jpg and File:Yankeedoodlemousescreen.jpg

@Nthep Can you please undelete File:Jerrybrassiere.jpg and File:Yankeedoodlemousescreen.jpg. I want to work on it. YoshiFan155 (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

See your own talk page. Nthep (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What can I do about it to restore them. I read Image use policy. YoshiFan155 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Read the links I gave you. Nthep (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

How do I write full fair use rationale. I read the page you requested me. YoshiFan155 (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The page contains several non-templated examples. Use those as a basis for writing your own. Do it on your sandbox page. Nthep (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

QMUL

I understand and consequently I added a reliable source now. Sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for the advice;) Knowable (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isobel Pollock-Hulf, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ICI and National Physical Laboratory. 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) 09:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Good catch on Tania Pérez Cordova

Thank you for picking up that the information had been copied from another website. I saw that an image added to the article was a copy, but I missed it with the prose. —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It just looked so copyvio that the search was worth it. I don't think the artist wants to be a subject of an article anyway looking at the edit history. Nthep (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

images

Thank you very much, so after the photographer sends the email, after how many days can we upload the picture again from the day he sends email of consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emyskate1234 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

answered at WP:MCQ. Nthep (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

A deleted article that has been possibly recreated

I noticed you moved an article, Ariane bellamar, to Ariane Bellamar. I was wondering if this was a recreation of an article deleted at AfD per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariane Bellamar, because it looks a lot of the one that I remember having been deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: It looks very much the same but with a bit extra (Have to say the unusual formatting if nested tables sniffs of socking). I've tagged it for G4 deletion as I'd like another admin's opinion on it. Nthep (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nthep: @NinjaRobotPirate:Hello everyone, I'm very new to Wikipedia, so I'm just learning the ropes. Late Saturday I began editing an article I found posted on Ariane Bellamar. There were some problems with it, so I talked briefly with Jim1138. I went back and edited the article more carefully. This morning I saw it was tagged for speedy deletion. At first I planned to contest it (as I had put a fair amount of effort into researching and updating the article), but when I went back to the previous deletion I realized the issue was not one of content but of notability (again, I'm learning). One of the things I did when editing this article was to clarify information. It seemed that a number of the facts I found had be overblown or slightly skewed. After reading WHY the previous article had been deleted, I now understand (and agree) that this subject likely does not meet the "noteworthy" requirement as set forth by Wiki. Therefore I am not contesting the deletion. Thank you for your work on Wikipedia. Gamergirl1 (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gamergirl1: don't worry, we've all been in this position. Chalk it up to experience. Nthep (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nthep:Will do. Thanks. :) I do have a question though. Why was the Ariane Bellamar article unlocked to be recreated in the first place? I can see in the history that AidenRice requested it be unlocked for a "Human Rights Update" before AidenRice created the new article. The only human rights update that I can find any reference to in the media involves Bellamar claiming that hers were violated based on (again, her claim) that she was fired as a result of her C-section conflicting with a television shooting schedule. Do the administrators verify requests before unlocking? I realize there are probably a number of request and that would require a great deal of verification, but I was curious about the process and how it works. Gamergirl1 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I suppose there is probably an article about the procedures somewhere...I just have to find it. :) Gamergirl1 (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gamergirl1: The title has never been locked from editing or creation (salted) so I've no idea what AidenRice's edit means, he could have just created the article again but instead chose to create it at Ariane bellamar (article titles are case specific after the first word). Controversial moves e.g. recreating a salted title, do merit examination. Nthep (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC) PS you don't need to ping someone on their own talk page.

Ok, thank you. ...and no more pinging. Next question, I see a draft where the article used to be. It's an outdated draft with erroneous information in it. What is a draft (in terms of Wiki) and what is it's purpose? Is this something that can also be edited? Gamergirl1 (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Just seen the draft, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt at the moment and just left a comment but if there isn't some significant changes fairly soon the draft too will get deleted. Wikipedia:Drafts exist to provide a place for articles to be developed safer from the threat of speedy deletion but blatent attempts to bypass the deletion policy are not accepted. Nthep (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you again for all of your help. I apologize for asking so many questions. Gamergirl1 (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ask away, it's not a problem. Nthep (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

2017 Formula One Season

which you deleted has been recreated again.[1] Can I suggest SALTING? Its creator has recreated it two times after it was speedy deleted....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

redirected and temporarily protected. Nthep (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

UT-Austin

Hi, You have deleted my page, Department of Religious Studies-UT. We would like to use wiki to stream line our information process for our faculty. Why have you deleted our page? I have permission from the department since I am a worker for them and have been tasked with creating this content. Can you restore our page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatSanch (talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@KatSanch: As has been pointed out on your talk page, Wikipedia is not a web host. If you really want to use Wikimedia software there are many sites that use the software and allow web hosting. Otherwise you could talk to the university's IT staff to see if either UT already uses the Wikimedia software or would be willing to install it onto the university's servers where you can use it. You have realised, I hope, that by posting the material on Wikipedia you make it available to anyone in the world to read and/or edit - not something I beleive you or your manager want. Nthep (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)