Coming here to ask why I deleted your article? Read this page first...

If that doesn't help, read these FAQs.

1. Why did you delete my page when I hadn't finished writing it?

Answer: Don't create new articles unless you are sure they meet wikipedia's criteria, particularly notability and verifiability. If you want to practice, there is the sandbox facility and Wikipedia:Articles for creation where you can get a second opinion from a more experienced contributor. And if you really can't help yourself, use {{underconstruction}} so other people will know you are still working on it.

2. Why did you delete my page for advertising? I wasn't trying to advertise!

Answer: Read Wikipedia:NPOV for guidance on how to word an article so that it doesn't sound like an advertisement.

3. Why did you delete my page for advertising? It was about a non-profit organisation!

Answer: Non-profit organisations advertise all the time - it's still promotion and the rule applies to them just as it does to commercial bodies. See no 2 above.

4. Why did you delete my article without warning?

Answer: Because you are not entitled to a warning if you don't follow the guidelines. See no 1 above.

5. Why didn't you do a google search and find references for my article and put them in for me instead of just deleting it?

Answer: Because I don't have time to do the boring bits for you. I have enough boring bits of my own to work on, thank you.

6. You have a very interesting view of neutrality. The authors you give credence to have a definite point of view and you discount those that disagree.

Answer: There is of course no answer because this is not a question. It's a snide comment added by someone who doesn't understand the NPOV rule. Possibly a Ricardian revisionist.

And please SIGN YOUR POSTS, otherwise I don't know who is asking me the question!

Archives: 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

I'd appreciate it if you'd move "‪Elie Cartan Prize‬" out of my user space. We are having an editathon today (4/20, until 5pm CDT), and this is a way for less experienced editors to add to a stub page that I've created. Wkrif (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)wkrif[reply]

Neues vom Suderhof is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. Neues vom Suderhofis classified as a stub article, and thus all material on the page and related to the page is, by definition, under construction. All edits must additive or helpful.

Continuously blanking a page, creating a redirect, and making it difficult for people to navigate the page is neither additive or helpful. Germanhexagon (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, those articles are part of the the Neues vom Suderhof article, and thus are notable. Furthermore, as I have previously discussed, Neues vom Suderhof, itself is a stub article and by definition, lacks many of the features of a good+ classification article, and relies on the Wikipedia community, and in particular, the German-interested community to make improvements. The stub pages are not only noteble in itself, but also so that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany community can make edits on it. By continuously blanking pages, you are disrupting the knowledge process. Germanhexagon (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article you are discussing is a stub. It is in the nature of stubs to be a starting point for a community of people to work together and improve it.

Thank you for compromising and putting up a template to encourage edits. It is much more helpful than blanking a page and ensuring no one will edit a page. Germanhexagon (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is part of the main article, notable, and has already been been classified as a stub by the German Wikiproject, and thus should be left open for community input. Germanhexagon (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Deb (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Saw you twice when NPPing. Got bored, decided to go through your contribs. Amazing. Great Wikignoming as well as content creation. Thank's for your work here :D Vermont | reply here 00:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deb,

Thank you for reviewing the article for Jason Loscalzo. However, I have a question about the decline of the submission, as I was decline for a reason "A7: No credible indication of importance".

I want to make a point that people who got to this position got articles before, like: Rusty Jones (American football), Garrett Giemont, Barry Rubin (American football), James Hardy (American football coach), Moses Cabrera, Markus Paul, Mike Woicik – just to name a few.

I think Loscalzo does have importance, the same as every other coordinator in the NFL.

Best wishes.

StanleyKey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb,

First of all, thank you for the quick response (short or long!).

As to the points you were referring to:

1. I see, as you mention, that he's not meeting the criteria of sports notability, but as I mention before the general rule of thumb allow including coordinators in the NFL - as exceptions.

2. I'm not acquainted with Mr. Loscalzo, never met with him, or even living in the same country, so I don’t think there's conflict of interest. I'm only a Football fan.

3. Is it possible to move my article to a draft submission, so I can iron out the creases? If not, there's any possibility to retrieve my original submission?

Again, best wishes for you and your family.

StanleyKey (talk)

Hi, it seems that you mistook the Banco Mifel as advertisement because of the source I used for the page. I knew that pages without any sources are almost likely to be considered for deletion since the information could be made up but unfortunately in the case of Banco Mifel that was one of the very few pieces in English that I could find to add information and use as a source. Is there a way to revert the deletion or do I have to re-edit the page again? AquilaXIII (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why you feel Friday the 13th: Killer Puzzle is not notable. It has the franchise rights and I have provided evidence it is being sold by 3 major video game retailers Apple, Android and Steam, quite frankly less notable titles have not had their Wiki pages challenged. What exactly is the article lacking that doesn't make it notable? Also it's against Wiki policy to just outright delete an article without first putting up a notice that it may not meet Wiki notability guidelines and then start a talk page to discuss the notibility, you're an admin you should know this procedure. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't made any claim of notability. All you've said is that it's a game - that hasn't been published yet - relating to an existing franchise. Lots of things that aren't notable are sold by major retailers. You need to give some evidence that it's been the subject of discussion (not advertising) in multiple sources. Deb (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Also it's against Wiki policy to just outright delete an article without first putting up a notice that it may not meet Wiki notability guidelines and then start a talk page to discuss the notibility, you're an admin you should know this procedure." You're completely wrong. Articles that meet the criteria for speedy deletion can be deleted at any time, without any warning. And in any case, it has NEVER been deleted, just redirected.Deb (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb! Thank you for bringing the issues of the Aidon page I had created to my attention. I have now reviewed all the articles you suggested and tried again - is it ok now? Thank you for your help, I'm still learning! CarletonLiisa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Castellana III 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/Peter Castellana III 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. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb,

I was writing up a WP:AFD submission about this article before you WP:G11'd it.

For future reference, if needed, here's what I drafted.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree, but I've removed the promotional links from this page. I'll check the history if I need to come back on it. Deb (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deb. Please see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Why_can't_I_contest_a_speedy_deletion?. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deb: I'm not sure who you are, or why you have the power to unilaterally determine what is on Wikipedia. You have a link below where you say people can communicate with you, but it does nothing but route them to policy pages. My page did NOT violate any of the policies cited, and you seem insulated from any feedback about your actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEric Miller (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above message was originally added to Deb's user page. I've since moved it here. Mz7 (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JEric, I don't have a link "below", I have a link at the top of this page which is for you to READ FIRST if you are "Coming here to ask why I deleted your article". It explains to you the possible criteria for deletion. I also have a link on my user page which leads to the talk page, NOT to a policy page as you suggest, so I don't think you could have tried it. It would probably be a good idea for you to read some of the pages about how to use Wikipedia before you start commenting on policy and practice. I specifically informed you that the page, "Averell smith" [sic] had been deleted because it was promotionally worded. I also gave you a warning about possible conflict of interest - if you don't have any connection with the subject of the article outside Wikipedia, it would be a good idea to say so now, because articles that are promotionally worded are typically written by people who know the subject and aren't aware of this guideline. Deb (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb - re: your comment on the Mista Roe page - I was not aware of the conflict of interest policy. How should I proceed? Mollyhudelson (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you handled the "Averell Smith" issue with grace and forbearance. Don't let the "goats" get you down. Many thanks for all the work you do here at WP. Respectfully,

Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 11:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D - I look in now and then at Teahouse, to take a break from my day job (consultant) and the Wikipedia areas I am interested in (nutrition, alternative medicine...). I have also dropped Averell from my Watch list as a massive time sinkhole. David notMD (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Hoary, BeckenhamBear, It can be opinion led too. I would agree if its blatant; example an account set up specifically to write an article that bears all the hallmarks of experienced/sophisticated editing. That why I said check the previous edit history of the writer. I wrote an article about a studio and soon began to realize that a large part of it was a list of services and facilities. I knew I was potentially on dangerous ground. So I ensured that I didn't glam it up, however I slipped up because the facility had an Infinity Pool overlooking the Ocean. My slip was to mention the "unobstructed" view provided. Apparently that's real estate speak, I disagree it was blatant fact. One word in 600. The Admin with relish, couldn't type "Speedy" fast enough. (And before you check, there were other problems, but they were not insurmountable and would have been worth the effort.) Again this process is destructively way to fast, and needs curbing. Where is the Common Sense. Even Joe (above) is obviously a fan and not an Advertising Company. BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe No sooner had I typed this than I discover that Joe has shut it down. This is just the sort of speedy censorship I'm fed up with. The discussion was not finished. Admins using their knowledge to get their own way, and twist policy as suits. Then some of us are called (insulted) as "Goats". This is supposed to be a democratic forum not a personal fiefdom. BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want from me? Or did you post this by mistake? Deb (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BeckenhamBear: "Censorship"? Please spare me the hyperbole. I didn't remove anything. The Teahouse exists to welcome new editors and I can think of few things less welcoming than a lengthy, meandering spat about admin conduct and speedy deletion policy. It was not the right forum for that discussion. Nor is Deb's talk page the right place for a message directed at other users, for that matter (apologies, Deb.) – Joe (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe The Irony. Remove? I put it here because that's what Joe suggested;in writing. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine he meant that, if you had a specific issue with me, you should raise it on my talk page - not that you should try to continue a debate about general policy. Deb (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, that's what he meant. Clearly two months solid studying policy is not enough, I shall have to study more. I have to say after reading the process of how Chaz Ortiz as an article can get through the system I have lost all faith in it. By the way I belatedly read the top of this page. Thank you for introducing me to David Ricardo, or did you mean Richard III. BeckenhamBear (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deb kindly review my sandbox where I've edited my page on Bobby. Let me know if his passes all the Wiki tests and requirements. If possible kindly point what exactly conflicts and what needs to be edited. Your help is highly appreciated and will enable me to launch my first wikipedia page and contribute in a correct way to the world's largest encylopedia. Sagar vaibhav (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb,

You deleted my page on Stephanie Arnold, which for a class assignment we were assigned to create this wikipedia pages for and I have no outside connections to any organization or the author, and this was researched and writing done on my own. I looked it over and I'm not sure how it seems promotional? Is it the citations that I've added? I have taken the wikipedia course and looked at the NPOV page as well, should I just rewrite it? Any advice would be nice.

Thank you,

Tmontford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmontford (talk • contribs) 16:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb,

I have read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deb thoroughly and I understand that you deleted my page "Quorum (Company") because you determined it was a means of promotion.

I would like to respectfully request that my page, "Quorum (Company)" be reposted. Please consider the context I provide below about myself and my relationship to the topic of the post.

I am indeed related the Quorum company. I volunteered to build our Wikipedia page and prior to doing so, I looked at many other articles about similar companies and matched their structure. I was exceedingly careful to write with a neutral tone and cite many different sources. I believe that the topic "Quorum (Company)," is notable given the media coverage and direct mentions on the record by Members of Congress. I would be grateful if you would point me to the parts of my post that you find problematic or promotional and I would be happy to make the necessary edits.

Thank you in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrosen (talk • contribs) 19:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-Kit Rosen, username Kitrosen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrosen (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are hosting an edit-a-thon and had a page deleted that we were working on. We need to access the draft to continue editing it.The username was marileeit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdylibrariangirl (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Philroc. I noticed that you recently removed content from January 19 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Philroc^{My contribs} 14:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for supporting the move request and then implementing it. But you weren't aware or forgot you have to close the discussion. Could you do that, please?

I do appreciate your giving feedback to another editor who was perhaps doing some new-to-them things at User talk:FloridaArmy#What do you think you're doing?. But hey, no one is perfect, right (and me first in not being that), so I disagree about the harsh tone there. --Doncram (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Don. As admins, our role is mostly educator and facilitator, and only enforcer when absolutely necessary. Your comments to FloridaArmy seem a bit over the top. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't read his whole talk page. Deb (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read much of it. I get that he's been creating a lot of low-quality stubs. But, some of the things you're complaining about are kind of silly. Redirects out of article space, sure, that's something we need to control, but redirects in? They don't do any harm, so why should anybody care? Edit summaries are indeed to be encouraged as best practice, but they're not strictly required, so calling a lack of edit summaries, disruptive, seems excessive. And adding categories is also something that's not strictly required. Good to do, sure. But, we've also got people who specialize in categorization and come along and add them to new articles. So, again, nice to have, but not something to get bent out of shape over if it's not done. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, I don't agree with you that the role of the admin is "mostly educator and facilitator". You don't need admin tools for that. This contributor is thumbing his nose at project standards and guidelines because he knows he can get away with it. Just check out what other people have asked him nicely to do, and you'll find he's ignored them all. He really couldn't care less that he's producing substandard "articles" that others then have to clean up. Admin-bashing is easy and I've had enough of it in the past that calling me "silly" is not going to make much difference. Deb (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know the history. I've been involved with some of it. I showed him how to set up talk page archiving, and he followed my suggestion. And I showed him how some of the referencing tools work, and I've seen at least some effort to use them. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain why you're ignoring all his failings. Thanks for the pointer to the archive; I hadn't realised he'd already been blocked for disruptive editing. I see you are another of the many people who have reminded him about using edit summaries. Do you see any evidence that he took any notice? Deb (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Greetings, all. FloridaArmy comes on as a modern-day John Appleseed of stub articles, created through an explicitly stated, self-admitted process of casual and cavalier indifference to Wikipedia's standards (let alone encyclopaedic standards). The stated intention of such activity is to allow others to build upon the supposed legacy of such stubs, an approach based, of course, on the severe misunderstanding of Wikipedia's communal and collaborative architecture. In reality, Wikipedia promotes collaboration and initiative but does not condone intentional sloppiness. The abundance of rules, guidelines, and essays about rules, as well as the existence of functioning Committees and Arbitrators, are conclusive proof that Wikipedia does not suffer giddy gadflies gladly. Deb's tone could've been more gentle but the observation's made could not have been more accurate. -The Gnome (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed that someone previously created an article for Anfernee Simons, but got deleted before I had a chance to see what progress was made there and see if I could do anything to fix it up myself. I say that because I actually had a few interesting notes/references to put in mind for talking about this player (who's currently projected to be a first round pick as of the time I'm sending this post out to you). For starters, he's projected to be the first American born high school student to enter an NBA Draft directly out of high school (or as a postgraduate, depending on what sounds better) since the NBA put up the age limit for players to enter the NBA Draft back in 2005. Also, there's the fact that he originally was interested in going to the University of Louisville, but due to the FBI scandal(s) the university was involved with, he wound up withdrawing his intentions of going there soon afterward. Admittedly, I don't know much about his high school stuff, nor do I know where to find his statistics best (seriously, I don't pay that much attention to high school basketball), but I can certainly help find the sources needed to help make sure it doesn't get deleted again, especially in the likely event he gets drafted. I'm also not sure what the previous article had, but again, if it had a good enough structure without the necessary sources included, I'd gladly take care of that part to fix things up there! So what do you say there, Deb? – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb You seem to delete a lot here.

My article wasn't a duplicate and I had cited all information from reputable sources . While it was my first article on this account alone I've made several approved edits .

Cheers Min Minnii93 (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb ,

Thankyou for the response but after reading your feedback . The names were capitilised so Im wondering exactly why this article isnt ready still .

The citations are correct an its more verified than some wikipedia articles which have been approved.

Thankyou

Min

Hi Deb,

you deleted my page "The Splendid". If i am removing the link to facebook, would it be ok?

Greetings, Hansafreak1

		Welcome to Women in Red's April 2018 worldwide online editathons. Focus on: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/71|April+Further with Art+Feminism]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/72|Archaeology]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/73|Military history (contest)]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/74|Geofocus: Indian subcontinent]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred --Rosiestep (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Can you please unprotect the article? It has been unjustifiably fully protected to stop people adding correct information by Oshwah. Thanks. Aiken D 12:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC) @Oshwah:, any comment? Deb (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been sorted. Many thanks. Aiken D 12:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good. One less issue to think about. Deb (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was protected to stop the addition of more BLP violations to the article and pending the search, gathering, review, and insertion of reliable sources to it. Once this was done, the protection was immediately lowered. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Deb, I was doin' something else and happened to notice that today was your first edit day. Thanks for staying on board the Goodship Wikipedia. Have a great day! ―Buster7 ☎ 20:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re:

COI? Please be aware of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. Deb (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Deb - I have no affiliation with the Author or the publication in question, beyond having met him at the Sydney launch in April, 2017 and studying the author's book Scoundrel Days in the curriculum subject of Contemporary Experimental Writing at the University of Qld. I also have no affiliation with the Australian artist Anthony Lister whose wiki entry I edited. I will not be making any articles with COI - COI is an ethical component of my honours thesis.

I am an Honours student: Australian literature 1788 - present and I am Particularly interested in contributing to wikipedia knowledge base on the creative works of Generation X (b. 1965-1984) Australian poets, writers and visual artists.

Thanks. Deb (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the COI nature of the page, however I do believe the subject to be notable. I think I could do a WP:HEY with it, so could you REFUND it to my user space? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(for convenience: User:Bellezzasolo/Dembo M Badjie) how's it looking now, is it ready to be moved to mainspace and developed further there? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellezzasolo: Looks okay - put it this way, I wouldn't delete it. Deb (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter the pink (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi Deb,

I saw you deleted my post. I am not affiliated with Gabi. But I will try to create a more objective version. Please can you let me know how to access the deleted page so that I can rework it? Peter the pink (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just deleted User:Webmaster at Kentucky Today/sandbox, created by User:Webmaster at Kentucky Today, uder G11 as promotional. Note that the CSD text says This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.

I was just abo9ut to move this to draft space, and start working with the creator to find and cite sources. In my view it was not in any significant degree promotional. I ask that you reconsider and restore this page. It is true that the page creator has a WP:COI, but this has been properly declared. Please see my recent Teahouse exchange with the page creator. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deb

I am writting you regarding my new wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerogenic_dendritic_cell

I am unhappy about the changes you made.

First change: Name of title should be singular. I understand this but as you read firt line in the article i state there that "Tolerogenic_dendritic_cells" are heterogenous pool, therefore one can´t really describe only one "Tolerogenic_dendritic_cell" because as there is variety of different subtypes in this POOL (which can be consider as singular) this change of plural into singular makes the name of the article illogicall and incorrect.

The same happened on "slovak" version of this my same page https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerog%C3%A9nna_dendritick%C3%A1_bunka where the name also have been changed to singular.

The second change: Restructuring of the article. You fused two sub articles into one, which seem to be directly connected but they are actualy not. I had a paragraph about subpopulation which included also subpopulation of differently induced tolerogenic dendritic cells. You fused these subpopulations with way of induction. It seems to be logical step but it is not and it make the knowledge incorrect. If you paragraph about population only with "natural" and "imature" it is incomplete list and this list of population include population as they were described before even if the name of the population included the way of induction. It might be confusing but that idunction-derived name refers more to the features of population rather then induction intself, because even within the population induced by the same stimuli will be functional diferences but still fall in the same group of population type. It might seem redundant at first but i find it crucial and those changes disrupt the true concept.

Howvever i agree the visual changes and adjustment needs to be made (i relied on you because i am not good editor or anything) but i think you compromised the contet by doing so.

I kindly ask you to return the page to its original name and structure.

Peter Holíček Peter Holíček (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb

Thank you for the reply. Thank you for clarification.Then I have mis-indetify you as a one who change the structure of the article, i apologize.

Have a good day! Peter Holíček (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

I understand your stance on deleting the page, Clay Lohmann; however, I am a bit confused for your reasoning for deleting the page Julie L. Green as well. I understand my COI; however, this page was already reviewed by an experienced editor prior. I reverted the changes to the external links section on Julie L. Green because they were inconsistent to other edits you made on Anna Fidler. How is listing the website of an artist an advertisement? You did not remove this on Anna Fidler's page....

If I may add a bit about the notability guideline for Green and Lohmann, The Joan Mitchell Foundation Painters and Sculptors Grant is among the top most prestigious grants for artists in the United States. Julie L. Green and Clay Lohmann have both received this award. In addition, Julie Green's The Last Supper includes over 700 painted plates to date, and has been featured in the New York Times.

Would you be willing to assist me in editing these two articles so they comply with your standards?

Thank you,

KaitlynCK (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I already made some improvements to them - removing promotional external links (which did not include the artist's personal website) - which you then restored to the article. This demonstrates that you are here only to promote these artists. I won't do anything to encourage you to continue. Contrary to what you suggest, the page was not reviewed by an "experienced editor" prior to your uploading it; the review took place after I'd warned you not to edit it, and you decided to go back to the older version. I'm in the process of trying to find out why the person who carried it out thought that the article was okay. Please note that it is possible for an inexperienced editor to carry out a review, but only an administrator can delete an article. Deb (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, I apologize for my actions on restoring the promotional links. I honestly did not know this direct edit was against policy. With so many regulations, it's hard for a newbie like me to navigate around here. I want to learn, and appreciate your help. Sorry for the drama. Thanks, KaitlynCK (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foxache (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb. Thanks for your reply. I understand and that makes a lot of sense. I'll work on notability and sources and look into someone else posting for me. Thanks again and keep up the great work! :) (User:Foxache)

Hi Deb. Thanks for your review. Fingershopping.com is a website that I used for getting bargain priced goods. I hope that's neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wongwonwon (talk • contribs) 02:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you deleted this, but there are many of the articles he created. Please can you use Special:Nuke?.See this SPI for the remaining accounts and articles. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not around this weekend. Deb (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I got notified that Anna Fusoni page got deleted allegedly for being promotional, but certainly I can't understand why, it was only a translation of an already existent Wikipedia article.--CardidSansa (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think since the deletion discussion, Visopsys has become notable. I note the following references.^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}

Do you think the article can be recreated on that set of references? Thanks, ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Deb. Could you or one of your talkpage watchers please move this page to my user or draft space so I can work on it? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of notability is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. You've now deleted this article twice despite it being cited to articles entirely about her and her work including one in NPR. Do I need to initiate a Deletion Review? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Deb (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 19. —Cryptic 17:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Notified as per Cryptic. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore this article. I was working on it when you deleted it. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why no "Under construction" template? Deb (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the edit history? I will be happy to add one. I disagree that the context was inadequate which was your deletion rationale. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." Please don't abuse your admin privileges. Also, see Wikipedia:Harassment. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What, you seriously think that the two unreferenced sentences you wrote would have a practical chance of surviving a deletion discussion? Try reading Wikipedia:Notability (music). Deb (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee that article will survive a deletion discussion. A song recorded by multiple notable artists. By all meams initiate one. You will probably be chastized for nominating a subject so obviously notable and for failing to adhere to the basics for deletions sich as WP:BEFORE and : "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." But if you are determined to waste more time by all means. I won't even participate or edit the article further and I absolutely 100% guarantee it survives. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Deb, are ypu refusing to restore an article subject that was very recently created and that I was actively working on when you deleted it? Please advise me what next steps you'd like me to take. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None. Feel free to create the article afresh, this time ensuring that it meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Deb (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I went ahead and listed ot at DRV. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deb,

Why did you delete the article Qiuz of kings under criterion A7, when it is an Android app and not a purely online game? Is this also considered web content? (Note: I did not write the page, but I was about to PROD it with the rationale WP:NSOFT but then saw that it had been deleted).

Thanks, Passengerpigeon (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing to say that it was an Android app. Deb (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that an article which says it is about web content is eligible for speedy deletion as such, regardless of whether Google-searching the title turns up results saying it is actually an app? Also, the page creator has created an article about the same topic, in Persian, at کوییز آو کینگز. Passengerpigeon (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the claim of significance is not credible. I can't see anything in the article or on Google to confirm that these are even the same game. Deb (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• According to this article the game and its creator are somewhat prominent figures. kings shoild be capitalized? Much of the coverage seems to be in Farsi. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Prime evidence of the cavalier and lazy attitude of some Wikipedia contributors when creating articles is in this title. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. They put up articles without so much as a spell check on the title! Qiuz, for christ's sakes. -The Gnome (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How hard is it fpr you tp fox an obvious spelling error on Wikipedia? I'd say you're pretty cavalier in calling others lazy. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How hard is it for a contributor to check what they write before posting up? I'd say it's the easiest thing to do, except if they're lazy. And they come on as even more lazy when they complain that other editors do not clean up their lazy mess. Perhaps I'm being too polite with such an attitude: it does harm to Wikipedia. We have better things to do than clean up after the mess of intentional omissions. -The Gnome (talk)

Hi Deb, you move the article User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) to the draft section. I can not see a good reason for this. It is an often used and cited UX questionnaire and an often refered method in UX (User Experience). To confirm this it is enough to go to Google Scholar type User Experience Questionnaire and see the results. So please move it back. I would expect that such decisions to move something to draft are based on a minimal research and are not done 2 Minutes after the article is published with just the feeling "Hey sounds like advertisement, I move it to draft". Authors must respect the guidelines, but a minimal respect of Admins for the Authors would also be a nice thing.

Best regards, Martin

Deb, Thank you for educating me on the matter of objective tone and language. In studying a topic, it can be too easy to become sympathetic or at least to adopt language that is perhaps too enthusiastic. I have stepped back and reviewed my first article (hopefully of many more articles on historical, cultural, sporting, and geographical features, events and institutions that are important to New England and New Hampshire. I believe that the choice of words is more clinical now and befitting an encyclopedic entry. I appreciate your help in getting me there as I learn this new process of creation in Wikipedia. - Alf Alphakilohotel (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Deb, I receive your message, well thank you for telling me to help in this actions.Jhoven Sulla (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons. File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/75|"Women of the Sea"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/76|"Villains"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/77|"Women in Sports"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/78|"Central Eastern European women"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hey, I'm writing to you in regards to the page you deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teknol_Inc&action=edit&redlink=1 I'm associated to the company as mentioned on my talk page. You could make changes to the article or maybe send a warning rather than directly deleting it. Also it is'nt promotional Its just an informative article regarding the company and its products that can help people out in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishweshism (talk • contribs) 07:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vishweshism: You have a conflict of interest. You should not have created an article about the company. You should not have recreated it after it was deleted. You should not try to recreate it. If the company is notable, then someone else will create a suitable article, sooner or later. Deb (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do i make an article so that on searching on wikipedia both of them refer to the same article. For example, if I want to link 'ABC corporate Office' and 'ABC Corporation Ltd' to same article, what to do??? Ritesh Chandra Sahu (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help in redirecting.. Ritesh Chandra Sahu (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for your efforts during the April 2018 MILHIST Backlog Drive. Thank you for your contributions. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete Rosa Honung as there is credible claim of significance that on top of that is well sourced. // Liftarn (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC) What is the claim to significance and what are the sources? Deb (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable on their own as one of the major indie labels, but also their business tactics are the subject of much debate as it said in the article before you deleted it. Perhaps you shouldn't be so trigger happy. // Liftarn (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article did not say this.
2. The article provided no evidence of this.
3. It's not the first time this article was deleted, and on this occasion it was tagged for deletion by another user, whom I happened to agree with. If you cannot provide reliable sources or explain the subject's notability, you cannot expect the article to be restored. Deb (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with that. I have seen that the article have been deleted before, that's why I put several reliable sources in it. // Liftarn (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you can't name them here. Every single link in the latest version of the article was already a dead link, apart from the link to youtube, which was not useable as a reference. Deb (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier if you could undelete it (and possibly move to user space), but looking at sv:Rosa Honung there is a list of references. // Liftarn (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article you created did not meet the guidelines. Why not just create a new article with the necessary references? Or even translate the one on Swedish wikipedia? Deb (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done both and they were both deleted by you. // Liftarn (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply untrue. Please do not pester me any more; you haven't given me any reason to change my mind. Deb (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The log file disagree. "14:45, 24 April 2018 Deb (talk | contribs) deleted page Rosa Honung" (this was translated from Swedish Wikipedia) and 14:51, 24 April 2018 Deb (talk | contribs) deleted page Rosa Honung (this is the one where you claimed the sources were unuseable because they were dead). // Liftarn (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I have done both" - this is the part that is false. If you continue to harass me, I will ask for you to be blocked. Deb (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 May 8. —Cryptic 14:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deb, I add all you wanted :) ... I hope this is what you wanted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 博物館院 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb, you made a revision where you moved "vice chancellor of .." to "formerly vice chancellor of..". But in reality this is not true. Shall I revert this one change?

- Sudarshanhs (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More or less. I have been discouraged by all the noise, and the difficulty of doing anything very useful. But feel free to notify me, if you see anything worth dealing with. I do not promise to be timely, but I do check my messages from time to time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Deb. Would you be kind enough to present more details about your action? What makes you feel that an innovative technology "Smart Transaction" supported by many bank professionals worldwide is unimportant for you?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMorrise (talk • contribs) 14:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading my deletion message. It says nothing about importance. Deb (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "nothing" in wiki article or "nothing" in context of not-enough-external-references? Please, give us a clear answer so that we can understand whether or not we should post the article in Wiki again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMorrise (talk • contribs) 17:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "We"? You mean you are editing on behalf of a company? That's not allowed. Deb (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, are you talking with yourself? "WE" is me and my colleague from Boston University. What makes you acting like that? Please, we would still like to get a clear answer from you. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMorrise (talk • contribs) 12:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines on conflicts of interest. What is the wikipedia ID of your colleague? Deb (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed your deletion of my two dates of importance pertaining to two different Stanley Cup championships, on the grounds that they were not of international significance, which I beg to differ. Hockey is a sport that has an internationally cultural reach, audience and participation, by virtue of 1) the prevalence of hockey leagues around the world, 2) the international reach of the NHL, despite the NHL's prohibiting their players from playing in the 2018 Winter Olympics, and 3) the diversity of NHL hockey players' origins (e.g. the nationalities of those selected in the 2017 NHL Entry Draft). To argue that hockey milestones have no international significance because the Stanley Cups mostly happen in North America, the milestones regarding someone ascending to the throne of a monarchy or a massacre occurring in a single location should follow the same logic, which is not only insensitive, but also defies the wider purpose of Wikipedia as a written compendium of knowledge.

As an aside, I appeal to the inclusion of more and more milestones that don't entail a disaster or volcano eruption or a massacre. Cultural milestones may not have the same cataclysmic effect of people dying in a man-made or natural disaster, but they nonetheless resonate with the hearts and minds of a grand majority of the world, regardless of that culture. This world is full of the bad, but it is also full of the good.

Thank you, boredwibilly

Hi Deb, I've updated the text of a new page about Amida Care to make sure it does not contain a copyright infringement. I'm making a new post now. Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakira Croce (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bot that fixes double redirects. Please stop deleting useful redirects as you did for Rose Wood Morrison and elsewhere. Deleting useful redirects is not G6 non controversial cleanup. Please restore this useful redirect of take it to a redirects for deletion discussion if you don't think it's useful. If you don't want to wait for a bot to fix a double redirect you can certaibly do it yourself. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you spot a way to improve your changes here so that it doesn't suggest Lucy carried on after Ethan? Aside from writing up Ethan's memoirs (and overegging that pudding somewhat), she doesn't seem to have done anything of note after he died and the couple had lost their property before his death. Yes, she worked with him, and probably more so than sources suggest, but I don't think she really continued anything. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb, You have deleted my page on TagoreCovers. What is the issue here? If I say something significant you delete it as being promotional. When I removed the promotional words, you deleted it as being of no significance. This is a new music group about which I was writing - every group cannot be Beatles on Day 1.

And for that matter the Beatles page is loaded with unnecessary gibberish with clear promotional indication.

So how do I write about a lesser known group on Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayanmukherjee (talk • contribs) 13:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deb, I wanted to invite you to see this discussion on removing reference from DOY years. The think is, I'm trying to start a discussion but I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia on how to start a discussion like one that happened here. I saw your name in that discussion and figure out probably you know how to start a discussion like that. Could you guide me please?--Rochelimit (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Deb, I think I just figure it out. I would appreciate if you can give me your point of view on the discussion. Many thanks :) --Rochelimit (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Presenter 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/Presenter 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. --woodensuperman 10:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a previous contributor, I thought I'd give you a heads up that a discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jan H. Gardner 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/Jan_H._Gardner 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.Bangabandhu (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how zinc picolinate is a CSD A1. It opens with "Zinc Picolinate is a type of zinc supplement that supports absorption" which pretty much identifies the subject thus getting past A1. Admittedly, there is precious little encyclopaedic information in it beyond that, but it is undoubtedly a notable topic and there is plenty of material available out there. SpinningSpark 22:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Spinningspark: maybe that wasn't a good one. G11 would have been better than A1, although you do need to know what a zinc supplement is before you can follow it. Deb (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a G11 either, zinc picolinate is a generic chemical name, not a product as such.[1][2][3] Are you going to restore it? SpinningSpark 07:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Zinc picolinate is recommended to be taken..."? I don't mind putting it back if you're willing to make the improvements. Though to be honest, I think it would benefit from being started from scratch. Perhaps I'll just redirect it to Zinc supplements. Deb (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...where it's not mentiioned at all. The correct redirect would be picolinic acid from a chemistry point of view (picolinate redirects there), but ti's not mentioned there either. I came to this through a G13 of a much more extensive page by the same editor. I don't think the editor is trying to promote a product. He/she is just naive, the G13 draft reads like a school essay. I intended to save the draft but it was hopeless and I gave up. If all the irrelevant or ORish stuff was removed we would have been left with about what was in the mainspace posted article. Ironically, an article that short is much easier to clean up and start an expansion from. I agree it's not very good, but the editor still deserves to get the credit for creating it. SpinningSpark 08:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for the redirect to be changed. Deb (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helo there. I am sorry for my rude email, and I'm happy to see you have responded on my talk page. I was overwhelmed with the truth that my article did not have any credible sources which are required by the standard guideline. I had to look over and again so that to satisfy myself and not to justify what I did to you. I couldn't handle it. It was too overwhelming.. Now I'm back and I think I'm ready to atone myself and start all over again with what the standard guideline says. Again please forgive me and let the past stays in the past and focus on the future if that works fine for you. By the way, do you really think you can help me to clarify the article which was once deleted? I have it here.

Thanks,

Muddyb (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay about the e-mail. Like you, I also edit in a minority language wiki and it's not easy to make a transition to English wikipedia which has lots of complicated guidelines.Deb (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure :-) I can write it on the Swahili Wikipedia and look for more sources. Wait. I will get back to you soon. And please, you can just reply from here, I will come visit the page quite often. Thanks!Muddyb (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do you mind if I go into your userspace version and improve the English a little? Deb (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Please carry on. And that would be much, much better, Deb!Muddyb (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deborah, is it Deb stands for Deborah? I have been confusing your gender on my weblog for quite sometime now. Blogged about the whole deletion incident in my blog. Okay, I've created the article on the Swahili Wikipedia as agreed before. Visit: HERE. Now what?--Muddyb (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the AFD comments by me please admin. Thanks a lot --Quek157 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view, but neither the long version nor the short version is fit for purpose (in my opinion) and I don't believe that procedural considerations should take precedence over that judgement. I also believe that the decision to delete was the correct one. Deb (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

noted, anyway I changed my stance there. IAR and TNT may be the best . just one clarification, then the drv is moot right Quek157 (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you asked if I have any connection to Sudipto. No, I have no connection with either Das or any of his business interests. I happened to attend one of his book launches in 2013 and got attracted to his literary works and I felt he and his works need wiki pages. I took it up. Being a linguist by profession, I also contributed to few pages related to linguistics, like linguistic paleontology and others. saolide —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/79|WiR Loves Pride]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/80|Singers and Songwriters]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/81|Women in GLAM]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/82|Geofocus: Russia/USSR]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello! Why did you delete this article? I is not duplicates an existing topic. It is a list of Karakalpaks tribes. Please Restore it.--Kaiyr (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaiyr[reply]