The term "progressive" is a euphamism for extreme far Leftist. It is considered outside the mainstream Jewish community if Jewish at all. It is anti-Zionist, Israel and against believers of Classical Judaism. Any description of its influence is pure pr. Their loss of income reflects their lack of readership and influence.

Someone did a "drive by" to leave the above message.

I will eventually move it further down, per common Wiki custom, but for now- I can't identify the alleged use of progressive - can someone, whether the driver or someone reading this, care to leave a clue? -Pi314m.

Welcome Pi314m!

Hello Pi314m,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Job Entry Subsystem 1 (JES1) for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Montanabw^(talk) 19:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note yesterday and earlier today added some more details to the article. In particular, I made reference to both IBM's "proclamation" about JES1 ("..the most important...") and the technical article in IBM Systems Journal. Pi314m (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For work on various models of System 370. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

noted. Thanks Pi314m (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chidush is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chidush until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give IBM ESA/390 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into IBM System/390 ES/9000 Enterprise Systems Architecture ESA family. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding more details. It's not just a simple move; due to how IBM made the (3 part) intro Sept '90, it's a MERGER, not a move. Pi314m (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the TALK page for

IBM System/390 ES/9000 Enterprise Systems Architecture ESA family

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IBM_System/390_ES/9000_Enterprise_Systems_Architecture_ESA_family

Pi314m (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Melech (Anglicized from Hebrew). Since you had some involvement with the Melech (Anglicized from Hebrew) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are creating redirects that will never be used. For example, aveilim (mourners) is never going to be typed in the search bar. If you are going to create redirects, please use redirects that have a small chance of being used. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the "Melech (Anglicized from Hebrew)" and the "Aveilim (Mourners)" redirects is for use in articles. Pi314m (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aveilim (Mourners). Since you had some involvement with the Aveilim (Mourners) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mouseover-ing on aveilim (coded as: [[aveilim (mourners)|aveilim]] would show the desired 1-word translation. For more details, the REDIRECT would point to Bereavement in Judaism#Terminology and timing which is a collection of 1-liners that have internal links to parts of the larger article, which in turn, in many cases, have a Main article header/hatnote.

One comment above is that [[aveilim (mourners)]] would be more useful in lowercase than my initial [[Aveilim (Mourners)]]. I agree.

This layering is something new, and can be seen in per a simulated quote:

"A neighbor of the aveilim ..."

Moving the mouse to "aveilim"
will show "aveilim (mourners)" and
clicking will bring the reader, via #REDIRECT [[Bereavement in Judaism#Terminology and timing]] to . . . the 1-liners.
Clicking on that 1-liner's internal link will . . . bring forth more and more detail, as needed. Pi314m (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Petira (passing). Since you had some involvement with the Petira (passing) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aveilim (mourners). Since you had some involvement with the Aveilim (mourners) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop with your disruptive editing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Throwaway code:

If by "disruptive" you mean what looks like "throwaway code" - the new redirect to demo the layering I was trying to describe, your accusation is actually subject to a well known Talmudic principal: BeMooMoe Hu PoSail, the accuser actually has that fault and is most comfortable accusing others.

BeMooMoe means with his fault. PoSail= he disqualifies (other definitions also). Sorry if I appear to be rude, since I don't really want to feel under attack and I'd like to see here why I shouldn't take this accusation a bit wider. I'm trying to be helpful, not disruptive.

Even when it comes to a search bar, why do you assume that it means Wiki?
Google can suggest something without getting caught up in upper case, lower case, paren/comma/etc. It's a plus here. -

Google "throwaway program" OR "throwaway code" OR "throw away program" OR "throw away code" site:wikipedia.org

One snippet says:

• It is not deliverable code, but is not throwaway code either, being typically retained for use in regression testing.

Here, it can be the model for the Lower case of "(Mourners)"

another says

• It might just be a very narrow implementation of the functionality but is not throw away code. It is of production quality, and ...

Why not open up the discussion to whether my "layering" is a good-enough interim implementation of the Mouseover feature that one Wiki article says Wiki doesn't yet have.

/* timestamp this, and accept fellow Wiki person's request to not answer on THEIR talk page; likewise, for now keep this just HERE */ Pi314m (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you to please discuss your edits on the talk page first? You are routinely adding in confusing information, and you are using ref tags when you shouldn't be. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Job control (computing) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bot. It was a case of missing a (newly) "broken" line. Pi314m (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 6 was weakly against the two redirects you created with the explanation that they be used as "mouseovers" to explain the foreign language terms. However, if you feel strongly about them I would suggest that you start a discussion somewhere in project space (perhaps one of the village pumps) about using them generally. If there is consensus in favour of the idea in such a discussion then it's likely that there would be little opposition to recreating the redirects either as was or in slightly different form (depending on how the discussion goes). If you do start that discussion, it would be courteous to ping those people who participated in the RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion on the talk page re: WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted (AGF) your recent change. Please describe at Talk:Zmanim: What is it that you want to be able to accomplish by adding those tags to the section headers that you can't do now? I just don't get it. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your participation and welcome your comment at WP:AfD. However, I find your posts there to confusing because you don't indent at all. Please try to follow what other editors do. Example:

• Keep:

reasons --Signature Editor 1.

• Delete : --Signature Editor 2
• Comment:

lengthy comment

lengthy comment continued

lengthy comment

lengthy comment

--signature of Editor 3

By doing this, we can figure out who said what. The way it is, you completely dominate some of the discussion and it is hard to figure out who is talking. By formatting as above, we can get a better sense of what the consensus is and who is speaking. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page watcher) Dear Pi314m; (Copy: David Tornheim)

The guidelines for indenting posts are outlined in Wikipedia:Indentation. Hope this helps.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 20:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to PDP-15 does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by the statement in Z/Architecture that both MVPG and MVCL are atomic. Details are in talk on that page. Clem Dickey (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

detailed response is @ Talk:Z/Architecture Pi314m (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on PerfectDisk, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Gesher HaChaim requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the AfD on MyDefrag, you state "A DeFrag program, described in the second sentence as "inclusion of a scripting language" is not notable?".

No, that's not notable. That's interesting, but not notable.

There's a lot of interesting things in the world, but that may not make them notable. And there's a lot of totally uninteresting things in the world that are, sadly, notable.

In this case the definition of notable is that the program has some sort of coverage in something that would be considered reliable and general. If you know of any reviews in something like PC World, then you hit notability no problem.

Maury Markowitz (talk)

above is re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MyDefrag Pi314m (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted you at Dot matrix printers for two reasons. The first is that I don't see why we need two articles on this topic. Is there some reason why we need separate articles on dot matrix printers and dot matrix printing? If not, then the correct solution is to rename ("move") the existing article, not to create a new article with a different title.

The second reason is that even if we need two articles, the article title guideline would require the new article to be Dot matrix printer, not Dot matrix printers. Except in special cases, we don't use plural nouns as article titles.--Srleffler (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deal with dot matrix, dot matrix printing, the tidbits from the CZECH (translated) article, and the various other articles, all with Wiki notes atop them, I did a mini-blow-it-up/start all over. My goal was an article from which to not only have a stand-along but also a collection of sources for the others too.
As for single/plural, the goal was to incorporate not only DEC dot matrix printers, which would not by itself justify the plural, but also -- as it makes sense -- incorporate info re other brands/implementations. The article already had some info along these lines.
Although I didn't incorporate DETAILS re the serial vs. parallel interface issue, a MAJOR matter at the time due to people needing collections of various types of cables (boxes under some administrators' desks), etc. etc. FOR THIS REASON, PLURAL is the correct usage.
A box of apples, oranges and grapefruits might be called by some a box of fruit, and by others a box of FRUITS, since there are multiple types.

Even if my example is a bit "fruity," the reason for the plural can be justified re " Except in special cases, we don't use plural nouns as article titles." Pi314m (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more direct answer is: The concept of DOT MATRIX PRINTING is also, logically, about laser printing and inkjet printing. Dot Matrix PRINTERS are hardware. Pi314m (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There currently is an intermix of CONCEPT (including the article on Dot Matrix) and Implementation. Rather than change the tires while the truck is rolling, I'm building a new box (to mix metaphors). Editing OUT what is in the wrong place, if I'm successful, will also be part of this; citations too. Pi314m (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report: I added re impact vs non-impact to the Dot matrix article. There actually were TWO NYTimes articles that addressed this, but I only cited one, and not even the better of the pair. The HARDWARE info is in the wrong article. Pi314m (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article can't be at Near-letter quality because that is an adjective phrase. See WP:NOUN. Your comment "'printing' is about the effect/output; 'printers' is about hardware. This article has at present just one sentence about SOFTWARE for ..." doesn't make sense. The article is about the method of printing, not about printers per se. If it were about printers, the correct title would be Near letter quality printer. I started a page-move discussion at Talk:Near-letter quality

You should not have moved the article back by copying text from one page to another. That's not allowed. For technical and legal reasons, articles have to be moved by using the "Move" button at the top, or by starting a move discussion on the talk page, which will call an administrator to help with the move.--Srleffler (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have merged the articles Handheld PC and Palm-size PC into Palmtop PC. I also note that your merge was challenged in that it was not properly carried out. Once it was challenged you should not have re-merged without obtaining consensus on the talk page.

You appear to have merged the articles in such a way that the original articles no longer exist. Of greater importance is that the article edit histories also no longer seem to exist. Your merge would therefore be a copyright violation as the contribution history for the text that you moved has in fact been lost. Wikipedia takes copyright attribution very seriously.

I would advise you to completely undo what you have done (if you don’t someone else surely will), propose the merge at the appropriate talk page giving your reasons (which on the face of it are not unreasonable), and await suitable consensus (which would most likely be forthcoming). You should also follow the merge procedure precisely in order to preserve the edit histories of the source article. If the source articles and edit histories have been deleted, you may need to seek administrator intervention to find out where they went and to restore them.

I assume, of course, that you have never merged articles before, and that you are acting in good faith. In which case, good luck in future contributions.

Forget that, I see what you have done wrong. You put the source articles in quotes in the merged-from templates. I have corrected the error, and moved the templates to the correct place. Someone else may well still reverse the merge on the grounds of no consensus, but that is their issue. 85.255.236.16 (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pi314m, stop trying to merge the two unrelated articles Handheld PC and Palmtop PC. These are two different classes of machines and it does not make sense to discuss them in a single article. As I told you already, don't carry out such edits without prior discussion or against consensus, as you did twice already. If you continue these kinds of edits, they will have to be regarded as vandalism which may led to a block. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Wtshymanski's comment right after yours (TALK,Palmtop PC,19:30, 21 January 2018) I reviewed sources, did more research,and after noting/commenting that the "stable" articles had few if any sources,I made sure that my renewed efforts was better. I didn't ignore your comments,and if anything I was trying to act on the comment
"Explanation of the difference would be very valuable."

As for "as you did twice already" it really was once per Wiki encouragement of "Be Bold" and then after "Explanation of the difference would be very valuable." I too can and hopefully will learn from what you said on the article talk page as "You can start a merge discussion and if,

at the end of this discussion (typically after several months), there will be consensus for a merge, we can carry it out. Otherwise, the articles stay separate. Pi314m (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yichus -> Dayan (June 11, 2018) ... below is the first, which is intended to stay as a subsection

(Disambig ua tion Lin-k not ifi cation for mmm dd) RETAINING:

• • Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yichus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dayan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Irving Bunim, Agudath Israel 09:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Family Red Apple boycott, Brownsville 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yisroel Belsky, Eclectic 09:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Wig, Snood 09:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Data General, Skunkworks 09:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• ADABAS, DB2 09:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• CACI, SAIC 09:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• PerfectDisk, VMS 09:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Pi314m,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Tzvi Hirsch Braude for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing at Mikveh.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pi314m, I've noticed you have made several recent edits to the article Pencil. Although I initially reverted them for breaking the article's formatting, I believe that they should not be reinstated anyway due to the following reasons:

• Taking excessive information away from the lead section is against the Wikipedia rules. The relevant Manual of Style page states:

  The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic

  Your edits remove the bulk of the content summarising the topic and reduce it to a simple definition.

• The alternate names you gave only apply to "normal" pencils. According to the relevant Wikipedia policy page:

  When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph.

  As the article's topic covers various types of pencils - for example, coloured pencils, these names are misleading.

• Adding the list of pencil types is unnecessary.

  The article already has a types section further down, and adding it up above is repetitive given that the extant section is pretty short.

• The "Ongoing marketplace success" section is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy states that:

  Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context.

  Also, the info you provided is too US-centric.

I apologise for being so harsh, but I would appreciate you making more effort to be familiar with Wikipedia policy and layout before making future similar changes.User:Axisixa [t] [c] 09:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gunkies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The citations in this article do not reach to the level of significant coverage of the subject, rather they are just mentioned. I don't believe this meets the criteria of WP:N or WP:WEB.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster _talk 19:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Computer History Wiki is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer History Wiki until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ... discospinster _talk 17:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tzvi Hirsch Braude is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tzvi Hirsch Braude until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood what we mean by "citation" when we have a maintenance tag indicating that a citation is needed. (As for example in Data center).

Please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Data center management should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data center management .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pi314m, I would be interested to learn of your interest in the BLAST protocol. For myself -- Wikipedia editor "Synchronist" -- that question is easy to answer: I am Glenn Smith, its original author. And so perhaps we even know each other? Synchronist (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on ClassifEye (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matzav is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matzav until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Reyk _YO! 12:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jehiel b. Jekuthiel Anav, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ladino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pi314m, and keep up the good work.

When using the citation template, such as you did recently at The Jewish Press, there is a space at the end for quotes. I fixed it for you, here's what it looks like now:

 |date=November 29, 1993|quote=The New York Times published a Jewish Press circulation number of 125,000 in 1993, and, in discussing competition and readership, estimated that "About 250,000 ... currently receive a Jewish weekly newspaper.}}

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 65.3 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. StonyBrook (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Emanuel Quint.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

If possible, could you clarify some basic information such as nationality and period of activity?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|SD0001}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

SD0001 (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: I added Categ. re 20th/21st cent. rabbis, also modified "rabbi-stub" to "Israel-rabbi-stub" Pi314m (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Association of National Advertisers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Direct Marketing Association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ClassifEye is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClassifEye until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Britishfinance (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Give musar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Give musar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Torah Educational Software.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your new article on Torah Educational Software.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subsystem, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 99Electrons (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, HRO Today, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nakh (Bible acronym) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakh (Bible acronym) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on outsourcing. Just a quick tip to consider using an Template:Under Construction when doing a series of edits as it helps prevents edit conflicts and stops people worrying if something isn't perfect. I'm currently not planning to edit outsourcing myself but obviously you're triggering my watchlist. I'd currently note the article does not mention how some outsourcing (e.g. cleaning, catering) is not core business and can be easily substituted whereas others e.g. bespoke software maintenance may be difficult to switch to another supplier or bring back in-house. Also the article may not indicate the risks of an outsourcing supplier withdrawing service through collapse, contract enforcement or possibly threatening to increase costs through being in a monopoly supply position. Just a couple of thoughts. My concentration is really elsewhere. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've used Under Construction in a few situations, and perhaps my hesitation to over-do it has tipped in favor of using your suggestions to perhaps make a bit more use thereof. As of the supplier problem, thanks for the reminder. I know how important it was in the Y2K era, when there was both fear and legitimate concern that a supplier's Y2K failure could "domino" into an unanticipated problem. Once again, thanks. Pi314m (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit - it is "McDonald Av" because that is what literally on the street signs. Every other avenue is abbreviated "Av." and it should be kept that way unless we change every other entry to "Ave." Otherwise it looks out of place. Better yet, we could remove the abbreviations, but I don't think that will be necessary.

And there is no need to put (Brooklyn) at the article. Unless there is another McDonald Avenue with a Wikipedia article, the parentheses aren't needed per WP:PRECISE. I just want to sincerely say, though - good work on the Brooklyn avenue's article. epicgenius (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ClassifEYE is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClassifEYE until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Peacock (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blackline (software company), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is certainly notable, and I assume you are going to expand it. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday you merged the merged the former Continuous data protection article into Backup. I can understand why you did it, but you thereby wiped out a separate article without any prior discussion on that article's Talk page. I believe that's a violation of WP rules, and I intend to be up your tuchus about that.

But what really bothers me is that, after I spent about 5 hours editing your inserted sub-section into early this morning, you reverted all my editing. IMHO myy editing was necessary because the Continuous data protection article left out an inconvenient fact about many recent "CDP" backup applications, was poorly worded in places, and had references from 2007 - 2012 that were basically marketing blurbs for software that no longer exists—in one case written by a marketer whose software company went out of business after an uncontested fine for bribery.

I really don't understand why you did the revert. You don't seem to have done any previous editing on the merged-in article, so why would you be so determined to prevent any changes except your own? I've spelled out in detail here why I made the changes I did after your merge. The only item I deleted was the sentence about bandwidth throttling, and that's because the only reference for it other than the Pogue article that glancingly mentioned it was a marketing-oriented article from 2010.

Come on over to the Talk page for the article, and let's see if we can work out a compromise that won't require me to take further action. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered another thing that you did that's definitely a violation of Wikipedia rules. You "merged" the first paragraph of "Information Repository" into the Backup article, and then deleted the entire "Information Repository" article. You weren't entitled to delete that article under rule 4 of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. That's because IMHO that article does have "relevant or encyclopedic content", even though it describes a system that is a superset of what SoleraTec had developed by around 2008. Your tuchus is likely to be very populated, especially after I inform SoleraTec LLC of what you've done. Again, come on over to the Talk page for the article, and let's see if we can work out a compromise that won't require me to take further action. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I said I intended to do, but you promptly messed that up by moving my clarified version of the "Create synthetic full backups" paragraph to the front of the article, and by totally wiping out the "Automated data grooming" paragraph because you couldn't logically fit it up front under "Backup types". I'm about fed up with your "my way or the highway, even if I don't understand what I'm editing and violate WP rules" approach to the Backup article. If I don't get a response from you by 3 p.m. EDT this afternoon on Talk:Backup, I'm going to file for a 3O.

(Below is a copy of what I added to Talk:Backup)

This is not a response to the anatomy-attacking and other threats, but just to highlight that "Automated data grooming" (which perhaps I should have worked on earlier) is now ahead of "Consolidation." Explanation? The flow/sequence is now Deletion ("Automated ..."), then consolidation, followed by compression, etc. Pi314m (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your messed-up response (including refs that aren't to the articles intended) is not nearly good enough to make me put off the 3 p.m. deadline. You seems to have a conceptual problem with the basic sequence of the article; see the article Talk page for my full explanation. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here follows a set of comments intended to convince you that your trying to "help out" with the "Backup" article is not in fact helpful, because you didn't ask anybody on the Talk page what would be helpful. I'll start with a relevant personal non-IT anecdote. Since having two operations for severe spinal stenosis last summer, I have to use a rollator outside my apartment. I frequently have to speak sharply to members of the waitstaff at my local Japanese restaurant, where I remove the basket from my folded-up rollator before storing both pieces in the coat closet. They insist on "helping" with removing the basket and putting it back on, and have already bent the basket hooks twice. At my local pizza/pasta restaurant—which has only a revolving door, I frequently have to speak very sharply to other customers who insist on "helping" me by spinning the door too fast while I am maneuvering the rollator slowly through it. I understand that blind people have learned not to stand at street corners, because passers-by—seeing the white cane—frequently insist on being "helpful" by grabbing the blind person's elbow and dragging him/her across the street without first asking the blind person whether he/she wants to cross. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With that in mind, let's proceed to a summary of the "Backup" article's history. Mainly between 2007 and 2011, the first 7 screen-pages of the article evolved as a comprehensive summary of what every computer-using person should know about data backup. It had very few references, because Wikipedia standards in those days permitted Making Stuff Up from generally-accepted "crowd wisdom". It was rather wordy, because editors had to assume minimal prior IT knowledge on the part of the reader.

I first edited the "Backup" article in November 2017. I had written a 10-screen-page article about a particular enterprise client-server backup application, which other Wikipedia editors insisted (via an RFC in September 2017) I drastically reduce to 2 screen-pages that were less than a historically-based condensed User's Guide to the application. I soon guessed that most of the application's features added since 2007 were common to competing client-server backup applications, because I knew the then-owner of the application discussed in my article was a large corporation with knowledge of backup requirements of medium-to-large enterprise customers. So (acting on a suggestion I solicited in the Teahouse) I moved the description of those features to a new 2-screen-page "Enterprise client-server backup" section at the end of the "Backup" article—using the references from the other article but omitting any explicit naming of the application. There followed an epic-but-friendly three month battle with editor JohnInDC, during which I found terminology for the equivalent features in two competing enterprise client-server backup applications—and was therefore able to make the new section reasonably application-independent by adding references to those equivalent features.

For 5 months I avoided editing the first 7 screen-pages of the "Backup" article, because I didn't want to disturb prior editors of a fairly-satisfactory summary of the requirements for and features of personal backup applications. Then statements in "Storage media" started bothering me, because I knew from the backup hardware experience of my friend that they had become obsolete shortly after 2007. The result was another epic-but-friendly three month battle with editor JohnInDC, resulting in a moderately-reworded but much-better-referenced section. Almost 6 months after that I faced up to the lack-of-standard-terminology problem that pervades the first 7 screen pages of the "Backup" article. The main result of that 4-month battle—as much with myself as with JohnINDC—was the standardization throughout the article of the terms "archive file" and "information repository" and "backup method". I don't much like "archive file", but it's non-proprietary (I don't think the creators of Multics—if they're still alive—can sue) and is generally used within Unix-derived backup applications.

There are 3 lessons to be gained from this history summary:

1. There are two separate main parts of the "Backup" article aimed a two separate classes of readers—users of personal backup applications and users of enterprise client-server backup applications—and the features described in the two parts are different.
2. Revising the personal applications part of the article actually took almost as much time as creating the enterprise client-server applications part, because it had to be done carefully in order to avoid destroying 7 screen-pages of mostly-satisfactory text.
3. The effort involved in editing both parts produced good results because it involved cooperation between two editors.

DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've been given the necessary historical background of the "Backup" article, let's talk about why your trying to "help out" with the article is not in fact helpful. Having looked at a sample of your other contributions, they seem to fall into three main groups: (1) added descriptions of 30-year-old 4GLs and IBM System/370-related hardware, (2) added information about and discussions of Orthodox-Jewish-related concepts and institutions, and (3) discussion of advertising-related companies and software. I see no indication that your limited technical background has included involvement with an enterprise client-server backup application, although you may use a personal backup application.

You also seem to have an strong urge to merge and simplify descriptions, but accompanied by a willingness to sacrifice the precision of those descriptions. An example is what you did for the "Continuous_data_protection" subsection of the article. The reason I called the references there "marketing" is that they all basically say "it's nice to have backups at more frequent intervals than is normally done with scheduled scripts", but they don't talk about any performance hit. But if you look at the 2017 Carbonite reference you left in (Mozy has been merged into Carbonite), it says "we noticed no performance hit at all while using Carbonite to back up about 0.5GB worth of frequently-changing files ... That's probably because it's not actually done in real time, just on a tight schedule (okay, so maybe there is scheduling): 10 minutes if a file is saved once, 24 hours if it's save[d] more than once." By contrast my 2010 ComputerWeekly reference you deleted says "Because true CDP copies all delta changes, a system can be restored to any point in time required. This can be especially useful if you need to roll back to a point before a corruption event took place, for example. [new paragraph] Because they depend on fixed-interval copies, near-CDP/snapshots only allow you to roll back to a given point in time. For this reason, true CDP offers a recovery point objective (RPO) of zero [my emphasis], while the equivalent for near-CDP/snapshots is the last time a copy took place." Your link for "snapshots" at the end of the sub-section doesn't go anywhere, which is just as well because a correct WP link to "snapshots" goes to an article on "the state of a system at a particular point in time"—a capability used for near-CDP backups instead of a kind of backup (the ComputerWeekly author also got the terminology wrong in 2010). Isn't this, as I suspect, too technical for you—so you consider it too technical for any article reader?

Other examples of how you sacrificed the precision of the "Create synthetic full backups" and "Automated data grooming" paragraphs when you moved them from the "Performance" sub-section to the front part of the article: As I've explained on the article Talk page, creating a synthetic full backup is a process that is not under the control of the user of a personal backup application—but for a fundamentally-different reason is under the control of the administrator of an enterprise client-server backup application. What I didn't previously explain is that automated data grooming is now required for an additional enterprise purpose—the implementation of the GDPR "right of erasure". I inherited a little business selling guitar method books written by my teacher; the last time I sold some books to an EU customer, I was legally obliged to e-mail him offering to erase his sales record from my database within 30 days—and to implement that I would use the newly-enhanced automated data grooming capability of my enterprise client-server backup application. I found out about the legal obligation by taking a seminar on the GDPR offered by my college alumni association, but evidently it's not simplified enough for what you think belongs in the article. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to "automated data grooming", I should also mention that "usually implemented as a customizable feature" is an incorrect and totally inadequate substitute for the descriptive paragraph that was in the "Performance" sub-section—which you will find I've copied into the article Talk page section. Personal backup applications usually don't have this as a customizable feature (CrashPlan was an exception, but that turned out to be a designed enterprise "push" application that for a few years was also marketed as a personal backup application). OTOH enterprise backup applications have to have this as a very customizable feature, because each enterprise has its own "regulatory requirements"—as stated in the descriptive paragraph you wiped out in the name of "neatnikism" in creating the inadequate sentence in the front part of the article. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited FOCUS, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hyperion and Excel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you participate in an RfC in Talk:Backup that concerns your presence? Please and thank you. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I replied/added to Talk:Backup

There really is enough material "out there" on Enterprise (backup) to justify a standalone article, especially if a history section is given its due. Pi314m (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi314m: I truly think that you can make the standalone article work, and I'm sorry if it seemed like (well really DID) amplify any bad light that was being shed on you. I feel like I forgot for a while to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. The statement I asked of was more of a precautionary measure as I wanted to make sure that any concerns were put to rest. Clearly I've got a long way to go to become a WikiOtter but I mostly came here just to say sorry regardless of whether or not it came off that way because to me it really felt like I was giving that vibe. If you need another view/opinion on a matter you can always ping me. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put your edit summaries inside /* ... */. That's for indicating, and providing a shortcut link to, the section under which you edited (see Help:Edit summary#Section editing). Nardog (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mjs1991 was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:HRO Today and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:HRO Today, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mjs1991 (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Mjs1991 (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding unacceptable article merging-in without prior discussion. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pi314m. The discussion is about the topic Backup.

Sorry about that. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In connection with that discussion, I've been directed to apologize to you for myself using the Wikipedia-fraught v-word (which I've now struck-through) once on the discussion page and 3 times on the "Talk:Backup" page. I've done nothing to my quotations of User:Matthiaspaul. However I reserve the right to right to later use the v-word in connection to what you did to the "Information repository" article, where you merged-in only the two-sentence lead and completely deleted the rest of the article—which contained (and now through my efforts contains again) a description of a type of application that has been implemented at least twice since the article was created in 2007. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Association of Outsourcing Professionals is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Association of Outsourcing Professionals until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see here if you haven't already, "There is a clear consensus that the 'Enterprise client-server backup' section at the end of the article should be separated from the 'Backup' article into a stand-alone article. The content is now at 'Enterprise client-server backup'". That means the split is not just until you feel an "urge to merge"; it's permanent unless and until we get consensus to merge the two articles. Of course you may edit the split-off article, with history (good luck finding any) or anything else, so long as the editing is not destructive. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to build upon what I said in my 04:01, 1 July 2019 comment in the 3rd RfC Discussion: If you were editing periodicals for a publishing company, and made changes to the periodicals' content that decreased the average readership by the percentages that you have achieved, I think you would shortly be out of a job. As I said in that comment, the combined average weekday pageviews of the split "Backup" articles (eyeballed by me as 570 + 15 = 585) have decreased from the average weekday pageviews of the un-split article exactly a year ago (eyeballed by me as 670) by about 13%. I just did the same weekday pageviews calculation for the "Outsourcing" article from 3/7/2019 - 6/27/2019 (eyeballed by me as 1550) vs. the same article and its 9 later-merged-in counterparts—"Business Process Outsourcing" was the biggest at 1700—for exactly 1 year earlier (eyeballed by me as 1200 + 7 + 3 + 20 + 0 + 8 + 1700 + 4 + 4 + 0 = 2946). Your results there were even more damaging to readership, with average weekday pageviews down by 47%. For this reason I'd really like to re-merge the "Enterprise client-server backup" article into the "Backup" article—because I don't think most readers can find the split-out article, but I can't do that if you're going to mess up the merged-back article the way you did back in May 2019. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^{[April Fools!]} Based on a wiki-recommended source's data, the Paris article dropped from 9,795 pageviews per day in 2015 to 6,704 after the edits to Backup/Outsourcing, a 31.6% loss; the Tokyo article held nearly steady (from 6,106 to 5,896 - a 3.4% loss). Is Paris Burning?

What you're talking about in the paragraph directly above would be an textbook example of post hoc ergo propter hoc, but in my 04:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC) comment above this sub-section I'm talking about the effects of your edits to a related set of articles on the weekday pageviews of the survivor of that set. See my comment in the sub-sub-section below. BTW, thanks for showing me how to do underlining, which I though had been disabled in Wikipedia. Can you show me how to do smilies? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Smiley (smilies) below. Pi314m (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^{[April Fools!]} The 2 year old and the 98 year old, average age 50, who were unable to move a light-metal folding table are the statistical counterpart of the (plumber-fixed) backup being discussed regarding reduced readership of the (computer field) backup articles.

Proof: Editing of the Paris article must have been outsourced while the Tokyo article's editing stayed home.

As for this section's name, someone wrote about Columbus sailing in April - a clear typo that probably was meant to read August. For those a bit confused, Columbus' sailing date is linked to Tisha B'Av, for which the secular date would clearly not be April.

To whom is the above primarily addressed? Initials matching Data-Base Admin, but this is not meant to antagonize, just to indicate that a message left on my TALK page suggests he may have an "urge to merge" (back). If asked to vote re concensus to merge (back), I don't plan to vote against. Pi314m (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have the feeling you're referring to me, which AFAIK it's OK to do directly in a User Talk page. As far as your edits having reduced readership of the "Backup" article, let's go to a more direct proof. Here's a permalink to a pageviews analysis of the article, using a custom range starting on 8 March 2019 and ending on 28 June 2019. Notice that, after you started editing on 21 May 2019, the weekday pageviews start drifting down from about 670 to about 570. The only exceptions, other than sudden spikes that I attribute to "Fight Club fans", are during the brief period when I was editing the "Continuous data protection" sub-sub-section. Painful though that analysis may be to you, I think the drift proves my point—which is why I won't vote to merge back the articles and let you do internal edits on the survivor. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've both given ourselves wiggle room: you can vote against or vote neutral. I can vote in favor or, more likely stay neutral. We both still have a choice. As for pageviews, it's a good idea to keep in mind that if someone clicks "X" moments after reading the first few words, it counts the same way as if reading the entire page. Useful and enjoyable content may bring repeat visits, so content does count, but I don't think either of our statements have fully addressed this point. Pi314m (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your 01:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for showing me how to do underlining, which I though (sic) had been disabled in Wikipedia. Can you show me how to do smilies?

I considered placement: whether to answer above or go-with-the-flow (which on Wiki I know some prefer/keeping new entries linearly choronological). He who gives us what we have (including Cogito) gave me the thought that I should further recognize your personal comment way above, and add that Refuas/Refuat HaNefesh precedes Refuat HaGuf, so perhaps I can link the "smilies" topic to the "smiling therapy" topic of Norman Cousins ((it wouldn't surprise me if you had followed his Saturday Review magazine - you might also look at this, written by his daughter Sarah)), and bring you to being less "sharp" - the word you used twice in your personal non-IT anecdote above. Here is my on-topic response:

Part of doing smilies depends on one's browser. The barebones ColonRightParen is cute, :) .. but the yellow image in this sentence () depends on Wikimedia's software working with the browser. The specific paren-enclosed text I used is: '''{{emoji|263A}}'''. More details can be found at Template:Emoji. Pi314m (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The daily pageviews of the "Backup" article went up on 1 August from under 600 to 1337. There's no high-intensity dispute currently going on about the article, so I don't think the increased viewership is from "Fight Club fans". Instead my guess is it's a result of ransomware and malware being in the news, such as in this story and this story on the Ars Technica "front page". If I'm correct, the IT-affected people reading the article should also be reading the "Enterprise client-server backup" article—because the backup application features discussed there are necessary for fashioning an enterprise's (and that category includes non-profits and local/state governments) coordinated response to such threats. Is your effort to "dumb-down" the "Backup" article, to which my split-off was a defensive reaction, more important than that response? I suggest you consult with HaShem about that tonight and tomorrow. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pi314m! You created a thread called Help with using a photo from Hebrew Wiki - to use in English Wiki at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please . Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. AddMore-III (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have declined your filing at WP:3O. Please read the page carefully before opening a case again. 3O is intended for situations where there is a thoroughly-discussed matter between two editors where a third-opinion may be of use. Requests should be worded neutrally and must include a link to evidence of discussion. Your request did not meet these requirements. You are welcome to re-file with more neutral wording and including a link to where a discussion has occurred, or to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your post at orthodox Judaism, and your request for a WP:3O where you asked if your edit was vandalism. You attempted to add A LOT of material, much of it questionable. May I suggest you open a section on the talk page of the article, and discuss just ONE of your proposed edits. One that is properly sourced. Discuss with other editors their objections, understand their viewpooints, and see if you can achieve consensus on the point you want add. For example:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Work permit (talk • contribs)

Please note that the above "You attempted to add A LOT of material" is in error - I merely restored most of the text deleted by a single editor (in several edits), and which was the subject in the article's TALK page "Deleting most of the article" section, in which several other editors objected. My goal has since been clarified in a subsection below it, "Scissor vs. Ax: a discussion". Pi314m (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too have been wanting to apologize for aggravation I surely caused you between late May and early August 2019. I'm sorry that I speculated on the ANI page that—because of your (yeshivah, although I didn't say it) education—you don't have the ability to read technical English at a high-school level. I wish I hadn't felt the need to embarrass you.

However, in your "accepted (publicly)" comment that provoked me, you showed that you really have no idea how to conduct a rational argument with a non-frum person. Get this straight: My 1950s Reform Sunday school only taught boys to read the Hebrew alphabet well enough to memorize their way through a Bar Mitzvah in order to make grandparents happy. I chose to study Israeli Hebrew as a language for 2 years when I was in my 30s. For a weird historical reason I worked with a number of frum programmers at the NYC Transit Authority when I was in my 40s, and—thanks to their lending me a Hebrew-English copy of the prayers—I volunteered as a "tenth man" for Minchah for about 3 years. Thus your Hebrew phrases mostly go over my head, and so does your probably-Talmudic method of conducting an argument.

I think you are aware of this limitation, which explains why you never discuss on an article Talk page edits you plan to make. I feel sorry for you, but (considering you recently edited into the IBM 1401 article a mention of the Honeywell 200 Liberator converter) you're probably only a bit younger than my 78 years and too old to change. I hope that in the coming New Year you can find a way of being a Wikipedia editor that is compatible with your limitation. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pi314m, I hope you'll excuse my taking the liberty of suggesting that you try practicing a different form of chessed in the New Year. As I've said above, last spring IMHO you demonstrated that you really can't read technical English at a 12th-grade level. This is understandable if you were schooled in a yeshiva, in which you mostly studied Yiddish and Aramaic and Hebrew after you became Bar Mitzvah—and in which you were not allowed to study biology for fear that it would undermine your Orthodox Jewish faith. Realistically this puts limitations on what you can accurately write on English Wikipedia. For example, what I did to the Continuous Data Protection article since I re-established it was mostly to add quotations from references—some spelled-out from refs that were already in the article—to help you and others understand the important not-too-technical distinction (of which I also had been previously unaware) between real CDP and near-CDP that was already in the article but had gone over your head when you "merged" Continuous Data Protection into the Backup article.

My suggestion is that you concentrate on improving Yiddish Wikipedia, which exists but evidently has languished. IMHO (non-Orthodox, to be sure) it would be Tikkun olam to improve Yiddish-educated Jews' understanding of medical science, so that they wouldn't injure and kill so many of their children (per recent New York Times articles I'm sure you've read) by misunderstanding disease immunization. This would in my view require you to translate and simplify certain English Wikipedia articles, doing so in a way that would glide around Darwinian evolutionary concepts that Orthodox Jews would consider unacceptable.

That would be a difficult task for you. It would take years of work, and almost certainly require the assistance of other Orthodox Jews—some with medical degrees. But by undertaking it you would IMHO really be performing a mitzvah in its secondary meaning.

Shanah Tovah! DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Halo effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blind spot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your edits on CompuServe a few months back, you invoked a reference that's not defined. I couldn't find it with a quick check through the article's history, and I'm not sure what the original reference was to generate it myself. Do you still have that reference on-hand to fill in the details for it? --Xanzzibar (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fixed; thanks. Pi314m (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you are writing bios, please try to make them a little fuller. I almost considered Cinda Hallman for deletion until I read the references: I didn't realize how important her CTO role was until I read the references, and another key point of notability is that she was CEO of a major company. For William B. Helmreich, the books are important, and our practice with academics (And usually everyone) is to list all the books , generally using the links from WorldCat, though only the most cited few journal articles.

Another problem is your reliance upon anecdote. In Matzav.com this is realy a concern, because 1/the point of the anecdote has nothing to do with the article, * and 2/ it is not clear from what you say whether "the situation" refers to the situation in Israel at a particular point in time, or in general, or from a particular one of the several points of view; and in reading Matzav, it still isn't clear. (In the articles on on the 3 newspapers YWN , Vosizneias and Hamodia, it would really help if you could indicate their relative positions & affiliations. --I mean not just political positions, but in affiliations withing the various parts of Orthodoxy. You may be the WP editor the best able to do this. )

I have looked at some of the deletion discussions with notices on your talk page. I think much of the difficulties could have been avoided had they been a little fuller. Try not to rely on a single authority for a definition of something that might have multiple meanings. Try to have more than 1 example for usage. Be very careful about claims for "first" or "invented" -- another place where ore than one source might help. Put terms likely to be unfamiliar to a general audience in context. And in citing be ware of the possibility of including a short quote--one sentence at the most (using the cite templates its the field "quote=" ).

And more generally, in a WP discussion, arguments for something are more effective if they are as compact as possible. I hope this helps.

* I would normally remove this paragraph as irrelevant, but it would help if you could first add some more appropriate content. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matzav is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matzav (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 10:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matzav.com is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matzav.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m

Thank you for creating Split screen (computing).

User:Insertcleverphrasehere, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice article... I found a few sources to demonstrate notability so you should be good in terms of new page patrol.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited IHS Markit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Yaakov Moshe Hillel, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. PATH SLOPU 14:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did not get a response to this question, but did you try WP:VPT, or did you find the answer somewhere else?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glenn Sirkis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Sirkis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 21:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Center for Initiatives in Jewish Education, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 10:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Before you continue merging the Irish TV articles, I hope you will look at the conversation at Talk:Television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Merging_19xx_into_Television_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland to see if there's consensus. Also, it seems important to do the merges correctly. So far, you've just pasted the article content together in a big heap. Do you plan to go back and clean it up? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

plan to clean up after the mess that it now resembles? Of course! This is taking "a bit"(+) longer than ... Please see above Talk page. Pi314m (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:HRO Today, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Initiatives in Jewish Education is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Initiatives in Jewish Education until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HRO Today is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HRO Today until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Slashme (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pi314m, while it is ok to change non-templated references to cite news templates, as you did at Simcha Eichenstein, to achieve uinformity in an article, you should know that non-templated references themselves are inherently ok and a perfectly acceptable format which generally should be left as they are. They are not considered bare URLs, as you have implied in this edit summary, that could use fixing, because they are not susceptible to link rot as all the pertinent information is already included therein. StonyBrook (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Noach Dear, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 05:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rags to riches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kohan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ira Zlotowitz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ira Zlotowitz (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ira Zlotowitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC Radio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page House & Garden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Infomercial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page STEM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like you're combining both citations and explanatory notes in the references section of Cinda Hallman, and it's unclear which references apply to the prose and which to the explanatory footnote. You can find tips at WP:REFNEST and Help:Explanatory notes. Schazjmd (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Susan Madakor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Madakor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lunchbox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rambo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am way behind reading the archives but you did not get a response to this question. Did you find the help you needed? I would have no idea how to answer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. No, the problem still exists. The suggestion given to me for a C2C Speedy was rejected by someone who, to be generous, might merge Phys Ed and Physics, because Market research and Marketing research sound alike, while rejecting research funds for computer recognition of the difference between "Tea with milk" and "Tea with Molly." Am I being harsh? I extended both the Market research and the Marketing research articles, after doing research.Pi314m (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Marketing Research companies of the United Kingdom requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SETVER (DOS command) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SETVER (DOS command) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.   // Timothy :: talk  08:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pi314m,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Euromonitor International for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

John B123 (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Euromonitor International requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euromonitor International. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I’ve looked at this article several times and I’ve just seen here on your talk page that it was proposed for speedy deletion. If it is nominated for AFD any time soon it may not survive. I think the problem with it is that the sources you’ve provided are mostly references to the company’s reports rather than coverage of the company itself. That’s probably harder to find but it’s what is needed if this article is going to stick. Sources about the company, not mentions of its reports. All the best Mccapra (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m

Thank you for creating Olomeinu.

User:Whiteguru, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

The lead needs to make it clear that this is a Jewish Magazine for youth and children

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Whiteguru (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru: - I made the lead shorter and more direct. Thanks for leading me to make the improvement. Pi314m (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m

Thank you for creating Community Magazine.

User:Whiteguru, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

You have created one page on Community Magazine; I have tagged four dead links (which are not admissible because they are primary links, i.e., the magazine itself). While it is good that you have created this article, more work will be needed for it to survive. Thank you.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Whiteguru (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru: I moved the PRIMARY links (CommunityM.com / Community Magazine) to a section ('Features') and moved the HatNote re Primary there); I added to the section a Bergen-county JewishLinks ref. Pi314m (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)  Resolved[reply]

Hi I’m looking at this article you just created and having trouble with the sources. The ref to Sefaria is fine but the source itself is clearly wrong. I can’t find any reference to this individual in the Jewish encyclopaedia page you cite (ref 5) or in the book of destiny (ref 6). What am I missing? Mccapra (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

clarification: he was named YOSEF at birth/Brith (meaning day 8); centuries later some people wrote Joseph; the Hebrew for his family name has more than one Anglicization. The Artscroll citation uses only the English "Yosef ibn Yachya." May I ask why Sefaria as "the source itself is clearly wrong?" Pi314m (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your note. Sefaria says he was born in 1494 but his works were lost in a book burning in 1414, so something is badly garbled there. On your notes 5 and 6 I see individuals with the same name but not the same dates or countries of residence. Clearly there were many people with the same name over time, but the refs you’ve provided don’t seem to relate to the same individual. The variants Yusef/Yusef/Joseph aren’t of concern at all. Mccapra (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The burning was 1554 (Artscroll), not 1414 (Sefaria). The burnt works, slightly different Anglization, matches Artscroll. As for confirming #5, it's in the chart, not in the wording, and it has both his mother's and his wife's names too. Pi314m (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Digital Music News, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Praxidicae (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Get of Cleves, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Get of Cleves, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I reverted your recent edit to FreshDirect because the citation that you used made no mention of the company using "Just In Time" systems. I could not find any citation that indicated that FreshDirect used these systems. I also had some concern about the source itself, which appeared to be a whitepaper from a company website and not a legitimate third-party news outlet. ThePhantom65 (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restored; add two more citations, one Harvard Business School (hbs.edu),the other a food industry periodical. Pi314m (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I moved Preferred Health Network to MediSys Health Network. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. If you looked at Flushing Hospital Medical Center as it was earlier, it had TWO RedLinks, one for MediSys, the other for Preferred. I right-clicked on the wrong one and . . . oops. Once again, thanks. Pi314m (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently created a page at Tachash/stub; this seems pretty clearly the wrong title for an article. Your creation edit summary said to "Please see Talk Page", however there is no talk page for that article and I see no other talk comments by you that could possibly be about the topic. What are you intending to do here? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on his TalkPage:

Tachash/stub: What are you intending to do here?

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Tachash/stub ( Delayed/distracted - a day late a dollar deducted: Tachash/stub? ) Yes, I was delayed/distracted. I also learned from experience:

trying to create the talk page before the actual page gets it deleted, and there are also sometimes delayConsequences too. Pi314m (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Tachash/stub, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error 503 workaround= edit from IP/using an older browser, that can handle larger edits, especially to add subsections, edit from main session, then when done de-sectionalize. TAG: WMFe504 (WikiMediaFoundation error 503).

WP:VPT has been notified. A summer 2020 reboot of a wiki server that was supposed to cure the problem didn't do so. This workaround goes back to at least Nov. 2019:

• Error: 503, Backend fetch failed at Sun, 24 Nov 2019 19:13:36 GMT Pi314m (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pi314m,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username John B123, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, M. Moran Weston, for deletion, because there's already a page about that topic at Milton Moran Weston II. Please don't be discouraged; we appreciate your effort in creating new articles. To avoid this in the future, consider using the search function to find pages that already cover what you want to write about.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|John B123}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

John B123 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: I've incorported the details of both articles into the older one's shell, correcting some details of the latter. Yes, at some point "Milton" was used, but that is not how his name is recorded in the institution that is the source of his religious ordination, which says "The Reversand M. Morgan Weston, Jr." "Milton" is not part records for National Negro Congress; they have "M." (and no 'II').

"II" is unusual, since the standard sequence is Sr, Jr, III, IV, etc. You asked that I reply to the note you left on my TalkPage. Are you able to make the proper move/redirect(s)? Most of his life and legacy refers to M. Milton Weston, not II, not even Jr. Milton is not part of that. II is questionable. The pattern of wiki articles is to name after how the person is best known. Pi314m (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pi314m, I've replied on the article's talk page and also moved the pages. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pi314m. I removed an empty note template that I believe you added recently. Just thought I would let you know.

By the way, nice username! I've been a big fan of pi since I was a kid & still have a couple dozen digits memorized. = paul2520 💬 19:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pi314m (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Hampton Sheet, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...
(the nominator may have violated WP:NPOV; see below) --Pi314m (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hampton Sheet is short-descriptioned (what a word!) as "local high-society newspaper" and, according to the FOUR (4), yes FOUR, NYTimes citations, fits in with the Cindy Adams/Page-Six type of writing. The New York Times even attempted (how boring, I saw it online at NYTIMES.com) a knockoff of PageSix.
The wiki article is not written in the PageSix style - it's not my thing - and someone may think that it's WP:ADVERT, but to say it's S-P-A-M is definitely in violation of WP:NPOV.
I know that there is a wiki process for filing re WP:NPOV, but I'd prefer that the nominator self-revert the 'db-spam' tag.

To do another imitation, (FOR NOW, at least) 'nuff said. Pi314m (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to add citations from NYPost &/or Advertising Age, the 1929-founded so-called "bible" of advertising (or, if not them, then perhaps AdWeek). Pi314m (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pi314m. I came to this page because it was listed at Lint errors: Unclosed quote in heading. This is a high-priority lint error, because it is not local, but affects the table of contents and everything following. On this page, the entire page following the table of contents is turned italic. I edited this page, fixing this and several other lint errors, carefully preserving the appearance exactly, except for fixing the italic leak. Then IP user 72.251.70.178 reverted me. I restored my edit, explaining, "IP Use[r]: I fixed many lint errors. The only one in a position to challenge my edit, which was indisputably beneficial, would be the owner of the page, viz: Pi314m." (I carelessly omitted the r from User.) Then I noticed the "drive by" message and your reply were unsigned and undated, so I used {{Unsigned IP}} and {{Unsigned}} to sign and date them, as is normal for unsigned talk page comments. Then you asked for a rollback and El cid, el campeador did that for you.

To revert to a previous version of a page, go to the page history, choose the version you want to revert to, edit it, and save it without making any changes (or with such changes as you wish to make).

There are a number of Wikipedia editors hard at work to eliminate lint errors, especially high priority lint errors, from Wikipedia. As of now, this is the only page in all of English Wikipedia with Lint errors: Unclosed quote in heading. Is there a reason to keep this error? If you actually want the page in all italics, you can accomplish this without the high-priority lint error by using <div style="font-style:italic">, and from there to the end of the page, it will be all italics. (This will result in a low-priority missing end tag, but low-priority lint errors are not much concern; there are many user talk pages that have unclosed <div> tags in order to get a special effect on the whole page.)

I don't want to cause trouble, so I'm not going to re-do my changes, at least not without your OK, but when this is the only page listed at Lint errors: Unclosed quote in heading, I would expect that somebody is going to come by and fix it again.

For that matter, is there a reason to keep the drive by comment and your reply unsigned and undated? It's your talk page, and you don't need a reason, but in my opinion, it's helpful, because anyone coming to your talk page might might wonder, "Gee, I wonder who posted that, and when." Is there a reason to hide this info? —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note that I took my action without really researching too much of the page history (as I probably should have, I just assumed it was a harmless request), and I did not mean to re-instate a lint error (frankly I don't know what that means but it sounds bad). In any case, either of you please let me know if there is some way I can assist. Cheers. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 21:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bold name is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bold name until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Jonathan Frankel (entrepreneur), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CUPIDICAE💕 14:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert them soon. Please respond at Talk:LexisNexis. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out the {{WikiProject Hospitals|class=|importance=|needs-coord=|needs-image=|needs-infobox=}} template on the talk page of hospital articles that you create. This helps the WP:HOS project identify which articles need to be worked on. Every hospital article should also have an Infobox Hospital template on it. I have updated the talk pages for the most recent hospital articles that you created.

Thank you for your contributions. WP:HOS -- Talk to G Moore 12:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Pi314m (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Kabbalist rabbis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"My bad?" - the goal was to make a subcategory, preferably named simply [[Category:Kabbalists]] or, if it fits in better,

[[Category:Kabbalist_rabbis]] Could you instead of deleting it, move it to where it can be of general use. I started gathering info for a bio; one of these categories would be of use. Pi314m (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My oversight! There already is [[Category:Kabbalists]] Pi314m (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Yeshiva of South Shore requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rockefeller University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colin MacLeod.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Datability is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datability until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Celestina007 (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Datability is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datability until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Celestina007 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marketing research companies by country has been nominated for merging to Category:Market research companies by country. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marketing Research companies of the United States has been nominated for merging to Category:Market research companies of the United States. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kenandy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Pearl.com, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Chief Minister (Talk) 15:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

update: The above SPEEDY was declined by Bbb23. Pi314m (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:AFC process for the draft to be reviewed. GiantSnowman 16:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Becker's Hospital Review, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices or evidence that its been cited I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I've noticed your contributions while looking over new pages. Thank you for your contributions.

I have noticed a common theme through your new articles, and thought I'd let you know about it. From both a stylistic and policy perspective, on Wikipedia, quotations should not be used as a substitute for exposition. So, in an article, rather than saying Acme Co "is well known for producing various widgets" which are "used among several well-known companies"^[1], you would say, Acme Co is a producer of various widgets which are used by many companies.^[1]. Note that both instances are still referenced. This will make for higher quality prose in line with the Wikipedia manual of style, and potentially the copyright policies too - since we should generally be paraphrasing source material (although even close paraphrasing can be an issue: WP:PARAPHRASING).

I hope you don't mind me offering this feedback. Thank you again for your contributions.

Local Variable (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

meaning that I should replace the direct quote of:

"the state shares in the medicine costs of those participating in the program."

with

personal/out-of-pocket costs for medicines are reduced or largely paid for program participants by the state.<ref ...> Pi314m (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi314m: Yep, pretty much! The idea is to summarise what the source says in your own words. Then add a reference for verifiability (which you've already been doing). FYI, when you reply to someone on a talk page, you can write {{re|username}} to alert them, replacing username with their username (I noticed as I kept an eye on your talk page). Happy editing! Local Variable (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Locomotive207 was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

reads like a resume

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Andy Kurtzig and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Andy Kurtzig, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 22:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited VAX Killer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DEC Professional.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "unsure if this is the right place in the tree"; indeed, your intuition seems to be correct, as CategoryStubs takes us to the generic stub tag (Template:Stubs). I added it to the correct stub categories, although someone else has to integrate it with the other subcategories, as I don't know how to do that. Curbon7 (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tachash, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tachash. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This draft cannot be accepted and has not been reviewed because Tachash has been a locked redirect since 2012. The submitter of this draft may:

• 1. Discuss unsalting the redirect with the locking administrator, User:Drmies.
• 2. Request the unsalting of the redirect at Requests for Page Protection.
• 3. Request the unsalting of the redirect at Deletion Review.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tachash and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Tachash, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert McClenon, this is very strange, especially since this editor uses some of the same sources (and has some of the same odd conteent) that were used by the socks--see this version. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:@Robert McClenon: I put in the time to read some history of the decade-ago Tachash wiki article. My draft article is based on external writings (as cited) and a small subset of the various versions by the "frequently totally rude" sockpuppets. I'm not trying to take sides with any of them. I also used a Hebrew concordansia (concordance listing) as part of my research.
P.S. The Bible reading of the second day of this week's Rosh HaShana / Jewish New Year Holiday included the article-mentioned person-name Tachash.
P.P.S. A look at the various computer topics I've edited should make it clear that Tachash is not my prime focus. I do, however,

feel I should follow up somewhat. Wikipedia's non-human agents (see above) seem to be doing a "tickler" re 6-month Wiki policy, etc. P.P.P.S. Is now a good time to bring up what I think is called WP:OWN, that just because others abused the invitation to contribute this single article should be given treatment worse than contentious Middle-East-related topics. I can understand that the decade-ago bad situation should be prevented, but is total lockout the only way? Pi314m (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pi314m - Either request the unsalting of the redirect at Requests for Page Protection, or request the salting of the redirect at Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. This is Richard Lary. Yeah, I know, anyone can say that, but if you email me at "richard atsign lary period com", I can verify it.

While I am flattered as hell to have my own Wikipedia article, I have to question it on two counts:

1) Notability - MS/8 had a total of maybe 50 users throughout its lifetime. And yeah, it did a lot considering how primitive the hardware was, but objectively it wasn't much of an O/S (as I remember, it provided three "services" - a disk driver, a list of file block addresses passed from the command line, and a location to jump to to get back to the command line).

2) Emphasis - I did stuff at Digital that was orders of magnitude more cool, and more impactful to the world20:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)75.163.226.226 (talk), that the stuff I did at Poly, and I believe that stuff also did not rise to the level of notability needed to have my own Wikipedia article. Emphasizing the Poly stuff distorts my bio.

I currently have a sentence with my name in it in Wikipedia - that's enough for me...

   Richie

P.S. From the way the article was written, I'm sure we knew each other at Poly, but your edit history didn't give me enough clues as to who you are - who are you? Respond to the above email address...

Hello, Pi314m. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hampton Sheet, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hampton Sheet".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Becker's Hospital Review, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Andy Kurtzig, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Andy Kurtzig".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NursingHome stubs has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sumanuil. 04:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish astronauts has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi314m. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Edmond J. Safra Synagogue, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Digital Music News is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Music News until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article VAX Killer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VAX Killer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]