Vitamindaughter (talk | contribs) |
Vitamindaughter (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 247: | Line 247: | ||
==Reinstate my edits== |
==Reinstate my edits== |
||
They are all accurate. You may not remove all of them. IF you have additional information to add to balance the article you may do so but you can't remove accurate information. |
They are all accurate. You may not remove all of them. IF you have additional information to add to balance the article you may do so but you can't remove accurate information. The article was about discrimination. You are biased being German and already having removed information about feminism from another page. Do not touch my edits which are there to inform. |
Revision as of 16:26, 14 April 2017
Feminism
Du hast meinen Weblink * Feminist Berlin 1968-1974: Interviews, documents and reflections rausgenommen mit der Begründung, dies sei eine Buchbesprechung. Es ist die englische Übersetzung des Buches "Berlin wird feministisch". Mit hilfe dieser englischen Übersetzung können nicht deutsch sprechende Interessierte etwas über die zweite Welle des Feminismus in Deutschland erfahren - es gibt nämlich dazu in englisch nur ganz wenig. Ich würde mich freuen, wenn Du diese Löschung rückgängig machtest. Lucida Grande (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- Eben nicht. Es is eine Buchbesprechung, keine Übersetzung. Die Unterstellung der Feminismus in Deutschland hatt erst in 1968 angefangen is irgendwie ziemlich blöd. Das gab es bereits in die Weimarrepublik. Kleuske (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes Imgur is a reliable source. But R&T is always reliable. BeautyIslam (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please take it to WP:RS/N and argue your case there. All I saw was a GIF. Kleuske (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Cher
I like Cher okay but JEEZE, who writes that garbage ? It needs to be cut down by about 80%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.231.74.1 (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Request
Hello! Can you please improve the career section of Ryu Jun-yeol. I think it needs citation tags. Thank you! 180.191.151.238 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused why you ask me. I have no affinity with Korean pop-music and/or movies at all and to be frank, I've necver heard of this guy, so there's little to nothing I can sensibly improve. If you feel extra citations are required, you can add the {{cn}}-tags yourself. Kleuske (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi what issue are you having with my edits? I am trying to provide more sources for the information and make sure the profile is up to date.
Kindly revisit the the page by the name "YOUTH CONSORTIUM OF TANZANIA"
Dear Kleuske!!
I acknoledge your comments on proposing the deletion of the page that is entitled as "Youth Consortium of Tanzania" due to reasons of the lacking the notability by the page. I therefore inform you that, I have edited the page and you may revisit the page and advise me on what should be more added i order to evidence the notability of the page where necessary.
Regards
Abdulrahma1985 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulrahman1985 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- A lack of notability arises from the absence of reliable sources that mention the subject at hand. This is not something that can be solved by improving the article. Sorry. Kleuske (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Revert the page Lineageos and accuse me of vandalism
You accuse me of vandalism about the page LineageOS.And why you revert something before you consult the writer.How many power have you peoples idling here and what do you think of another opinions? In this case there are no signs that the developer of LineageOS support this unofficial builds.Do you know some developers??
Sie können mir auch ihre Email hinterlassen.Dann forwarde ich ihnen die Email, die ich an wikipedia schicke.Mir reicht es mit den etablierten Usern die denken , das sie hier die Herrschaft haben.
And if you cannot read : The link about unofficial builds was not mine.Mine was the remark, thats dangerous to use unknown sources. FreeBeastie (talk)
- If you think that adding "Remark :"If you donate for theandroidsoul.com, you dont know where your money goes and unknown malicious code is a danger for your device!" is somehow appropriate for an encyclopedia, I think we might have a serious Kompetenzmangel. As to my email: sie können mir mal den buckel runterrutschen. Good luck with that e-mail. Kleuske (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Kompetenzmangel is a great word! I love German! Bishonen | talk 15:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC).
John de Ruiter Article
Hi Kleuske. thank you for looking into the article. I had interest in creating and editing this article after I went to a retreat years ago which was really good and I wondered why I could only find negative things on the web about this teacher. I thought I could present a more balanced view of him and let people make their own minds. At any rate, I have noticed certain individuals that have vehemently attacked the article over the years. Look at the history. As of writing this Richard Gooi has just undone all of the edits made the the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee editors such as yourself within a day of their edits, I believe in an effort to craft a negative picture. Richard Gooi is also the one who posted the 'laughable' edits you mentioned earlier. See for yourself. Thank you. Planktonium (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you object to the edits of Mr. Gooi, you can express your sentiments on the appropriate talk page. Going behind someones back, instead of addressing people directly, leaves a bad taste and a declined inclination to be helpful. I don't know what you mean by "Arbitration Committee editors", but I can assure you I am in no way, shape or form connected to that institution or editing on its behalf. My only status here is that of Perambulatory Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia and I edit independently. Kleuske (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Ryback
I did it as a joke can't u take a joke u big bullt Abi25gail05 (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- There are plenty of websites dedicated to jokes. Wikipedia is not one of them. Though we have a Category:Wikipedia humor making jokes in articles is frowned upon, especially if it goes agains the policies set out in WP:BLP. If you cannot grasp that or are unwilling to comply, I suggest you find another website, which does cater to your whims. Kleuske (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
BLP PROD on Adam lach photographer
I just removed the BLP prod you had placed on Adam lach photographer, as the article was not eligible for that tagging. Per WP:BLPROD, "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography." The article had external links on the names of books going to a website that said that Lach was author of those books. It was not a reliable source, but links to avoid placement of a BLP prod need not be reliable source (which is a different situation than links added to after a BLP prod has been placed.) Let me know if you have any questions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Trams
Sorry, but tram stops and lines are not deletable under A7. A7 applies only to people, named animals, companies/organisations/groups (but not educational establishments), web content, and organised events. A tram manufacturer, or a tram operating company, could fall under A7, but are likely to be notable anyway. Peridon (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Peridon: I noticed. To the best of my knowledge none of the tram stops are notable per WP:GNG, so I'll take the high road and AfD them (one by one). I have no objections to manufacturers, operating companies or even tram lines (if notability is shown) but that's not the case here. Kleuske (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- You can AfD them en bloc if you want. There are articles about UK tram stops - like Pomona tram stop which I've referred the author of these Dutch ones to as an illustration of (minimal) referencing. Railway stations are almost always considered notable, but for trams perhaps an article about the line containing stop info might be better. The modern tram stop is more like a railway station than the old ones were - they were mostly just like bus stops. Anyway, please don't use A7 on the wrong things. Borderline cases maybe - is a driving school an educational establishment or not? Wrong tagging (and wrong deletion as a result) plays into the hands of the 'keep it at all costs' brigade, who would like to see nothing deleted unless it was copyvio, attack, or pure spam. When they see misuse, they want to remove the criterion rather than educate the taggers and deleters. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I followed the advice on WP:AfD and tested the water with one (unsourced and apparently not notable) example. I do not "use A7 on the wrong things' on purpose, as you may already have guessed, but "errare humanum est". If train stations and educational establishments are deemed notable regardless of any sourcing, I think WP:GNG should reflect that, one way or another, but that's another argument. Kleuske (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- You can AfD them en bloc if you want. There are articles about UK tram stops - like Pomona tram stop which I've referred the author of these Dutch ones to as an illustration of (minimal) referencing. Railway stations are almost always considered notable, but for trams perhaps an article about the line containing stop info might be better. The modern tram stop is more like a railway station than the old ones were - they were mostly just like bus stops. Anyway, please don't use A7 on the wrong things. Borderline cases maybe - is a driving school an educational establishment or not? Wrong tagging (and wrong deletion as a result) plays into the hands of the 'keep it at all costs' brigade, who would like to see nothing deleted unless it was copyvio, attack, or pure spam. When they see misuse, they want to remove the criterion rather than educate the taggers and deleters. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Quill Corporation
Hi I am trying to update this company profile with more references to back up the information and update it with the latest history of the company. Why do you keep reverting the changes citing self promotion - this is a corporation page and I am simply trying to update it with proper links and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuillDigital (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- I left a comment on your talk page concerning confict of interest. Additionally I feel obliged to point out that a) That's not a "company page" but a "Wikipedia page" and b) undisclosed paid editing is verboten. Kleuske (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
May I suggest you use Twinkle and/or you apply for the newpage patroller right?
Hello and good job on New Page Patrolling. I notice that you are not using Twinkle or other automated tools (such as Huggle), or using Page Curation in newpage patrolling. While manual tagging is acceptable, using these tools makes the job easier. In addition, I suggest that you apply for the newpage patroller right, which allows you to mark newly-created pages as "patrolled", meaning that they will not appear as yellow on Special:Newpages. This makes it easier for other users to know what articles have been checked, and what have not. Thank you and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Ken Sibanda Page
Thank you a million! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casablancathe (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Any idea what the computer is asking for, please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Please_remove_protection_of_Ken_Sibanda_page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casablancathe (talk • contribs) 22:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Elaborate your concern please & how to solve it.
Sir, if you don't mind to please be more elaborate on what concern that you think is inappropriate in the entry of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MalwareMustDie.
There is no concern of me to make any form of advertisement of a group of people who doesn't need finance support or work, they did many works yet less people acknowledge it although a lot of news mentioned their work.
Please give direction or execute as much edit as you want instead, I do not rant because of hours time I spent collecting facts that you deleted in a snap, but let's be fair here.
Thank you and look forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kljtech (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- You created the article and are the biggest contributor. Moreover, you have inserted this NPO (or its work) in many articles. Hence I suspect a Conflict Of Interest and marked the page accordingly.
- The style of the article (summing up its Greatest Hits for one) is responsible for the second concern.
I would urge you to read the Conflict of Interest page for some more detail. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
> Thank you for the response. I read the article.
> So what is the solution? What has to be done?
> Please kindly advise in simple explanation, should I delete the whole thing?
> Thank you for your time in advance, and look forward for direction.
14:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kljtech (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
In case you are interested, in addition to reverting to your version of this article, I have started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A3789. Deli nk (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Brimstone (film)
Hi! A fan from Denmark of the film still continues to do rambling, incoherent edits from different user names. He/She needs to be stopped. Have a nice day! Sebastian James (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- I looked at the article and cleaned it up a bit, but I see no clear evidence of sockpuppetry. You should be carefull since casting aspersions is generally frowned upon. If you have evidence for sockpuppetry, WP:SPI is the proper venue. That being said; this looks like a content dispute to me. I suggest you take it to the talkpage. I am not an arbiter in this and do not wish to be. If you feel unable to resolve the conflict, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may be useful. HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Re IP edits of Armenian Genocide recognition
I'm going to write the IP a warning for adding unsourced material in about half an hour. If you think I should make it uw2 vandalism let me know. Thanks for working on that. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 01:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
Hello Kleuske. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.Template:Z149 KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 13:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
AFD Mike Bivins
I noticed your comment about 2 local newspapers. Washington Post is not a local newspaper, and puts millions of copies a week into print. Were you being serious or joking? Washington Post is one of USA's largest newspapers Pittsburghangelsforever (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have a habit of not joking in AfD's. It easily gets misconstrued. He got mentioned, but that's not significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Also, this is not the venue for discussing AfD's, this is my talk page. So please feel free to sod off. Kleuske (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Rollbacker
I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi, thanks for your welcome. Best Simko Destan (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
RE:Deletion of article on Lateef Bakare
While I agree that every article should conform to the standard laid down,I still hold the thought that the essence of creating Wikipedia platform would be defeated if every article that does not meet the notability standard is yanked off.Based on my experience,I know that some folks out there can as well contribute meaningful to published articles.It is on this ground I suggest that the article in contention should be allowed to be published while we give room for outsiders to fine-tune it by the way of providing more third party reference sources to it. Instinct71 (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've decided to let the AfD run it's course and you've been notified about that. Inundating my talk-page is not going to dissuade me. Kleuske (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Facebook Scrabble League
How do I retrieve the contents of this page so I can review it against the criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesspub (talk • contribs) 12:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Re:Deletion of article on Lateef Bakare
I am very sorry if you feel offended about my comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instinct71 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't feel offended. I merely point out pestering me is useless. I've answered you both here and on MelbourneStar's talkpage. I would think that suffices, but you obviously fail to get the point. I now explicitly and politely request you to go take a long walk off a short plank. Thank you, Kleuske (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Kleuske Thanks for your unending effort. however i will soon find more sources and establish my previous source. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremysam (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Uma Ukpai
Dear Kleuske,
Kindly re-visit and review Uma Ukpai biography as claims have been sourced/updated and traces of marketing are removed.
Please publish/link up the page to other search engines, or advise any further updates required. Just so you know, I removed the maintenance announcement following the recent improvements.
Thanks, Morg4kele
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Baie dankie vir die kompliment op my redigering ("Theta nigrum" bladsy). Dis 'n groot plesier om te kan deelneem. Sterkte met jou werk. (Afrikaans) Nojon (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC) |
Kermit the Frog voice edit
The edit you undid was part of a long-term disruptive/edit-warring editor. It's one of the reasons that article is at PC1 and often gets semiprotected. DMacks (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
IfNotNow
Hi Kleuske,
I know that it isn't the best way to do it. Operating on a small time window, and was hoping someone with more time would spot and follow-up. My bad. But My complaint about the bias remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohoad77 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Then raise the issue on the talk-page, but be more specific. I do not WP:BITE Kleuske (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with OlOne. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 13:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Big Tent
My apologies for removing the "Other Examples" section for an invalid reason. I understand that there were plenty of people who put effort into this particular section of the page and to see it all removed must've come as a shock to those users including yourself. Perhaps we can instead try to think of other parties to add to the section rather than practically deleting a whole page which I basically almost did lol anyway have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.52.162.212 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't contribute to that article. Still, blanket qualifications like "all too left or right" are not exactly a good explanation. Kleuske (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
List of Best Selling Girl Groups
I wasn't aware that I needed to explain the need to clean up the article and I apologize for that. All I did was enter citations when the article called for them and clarified and cleared up sales figures that were showing up as incorrect throughout the article as well as removed any entries that were not cited and did not have adequate citation available to justify their entry within the groups they weer assigned to. Much of the issues was within the United States section which falsified many sales figures that are going against registered RIAA certifications. Other than that, I narrowed the sub categories down to the TOP 10 instead of the irregular top 12 or top 200 which seems to flood the article with information that wouldn't be useful to a researcher who needed to know, by most accounts, the top ten of something. 204.185.18.37 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)204.185.18.37
- No need to apologize. I can be wrong, too. But it helps others if you explain what you're doing. It's not obligatory, but it's a good habit. Kleuske (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
No worries, and thank you for coming back to me to let me know if I made any mistakes on my part. I just wanted to make sure the information was up to date and correct so other visitors weren't bombarded with unverified entries. Thank you again. 204.185.18.37 (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)204.185.18.37
April 2017
Hi, it’s DrHelenK. Thank you for your message, I just wondered why they were all deleted. I get that some are more a summary of other people’s work than new work, but the pulsar one seemed particularly apt. It is a summary of pulsars from my PhD. It is written in layman’s terms and contains more information than some of the other links, including a number of unique gifs and diagrams. It is relatively easy to verify that it was written by the person who completed the PhD. Is it because I wrote the article myself? Thanks again for any help.DrHelenK (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @DrHelenK: I found your addition to 'fast radio bursts' to be problematic, since the claim made on your website is highly speculative, WP:FRINGE at best and hence completely unsuitable as an external link. The paper the website cites, claims it only it lends "some credence to the possibility that FRBs might be artificial in origin" and in the conclusion the authors admit that the idea is "is more speculative than an astrophysical origin", which I think is a rather generous way of stating it. Moreover, given the remarkable simulariy between your user name and the authors name (DrHelenK and Dr Helen Klus, respectively), It seems to me you might just be promoting your own website. Kleuske (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your reply. I am talking about the addition to the page ‘Pulsar’. This is a summary of what was published in a PhD. As for my page about Solar Sails, I strongly disagree that it is fringe since I make it very clear that I am only discussing what is in peer reviewed journals, or course it is incredibly unlikely. The point is that scientific ideas can be falsified. This is what distinguishes science from non-science. Anyway I agree the title is sensationalist and I understand that you do not want it here. The fact that you removed other additions such as the ‘Pulsar’ one, however confuses me and this is what I was asking about. I am obviously not hiding the fact that I wrote the PhD/articles so I assume that you cannot add your own site, regardless of the relevance. Please let me know if this is incorrect. Again, thanks for your response. DrHelenK (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ok.
TwoThree points:- The website in question is not a peer reviewed publication
- The peer reviewed publication the website cites, clearly states the idea is highly speculative and hence WP:FRINGE
- Your additions of this particular website is WP:SPAM, WP:SELFPROMOTION (Per WP:DUCK) and a WP:SELFCITE. Not something that is looked on favorably, but a clearcut conflict of interest. Kleuske (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, but I have been asking about the page ‘Pulsar’ not the page ‘Fast radio burst’. The link I added to ‘Pulsar’ is not the same as the one I added to ‘Fast radio burst’. I get that point 3 still applies so I assume that is it. DrHelenK (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Pavel Tashev
Hi there, I have just created an article which simply described a software solution called EasyMail. This is the URL: [[1]]. The page described - what features offers this software products, what is its history and what technologies are used. BUT I received an email saying that the article will be deleted. Why is that? Please give me further explanation because I need to know what is wrong with my article. I have seen many articles like this one which follow the same architecture and type of content and I didn't know that I do something wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel.tashev (talk • contribs) 12:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Pavel.tashev: Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, requires some some proof of notability. Your project, and I checked, isn't mentioned anywhere by inderpendent, reliable sources. We can't just take somebody's word to establish notability, it needs to be shown. Also, writing about stuff you are involved in (such as your own software project) is not conducive to a neutral point of view. Kleuske (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Kleuske: There are two main source which can be used as a proof of my words. The first one is the website of the project which is [[2]]. Another source which is even more reliable is the GitHub repository [[3]]. On the website is described what the product offers and also in the GitHub repository can be seen everything which is developed since 2015. The project has three contributors and 35 different people are following it. Also, the project has been presented to Mailjet during this event here [[4]].
Removing Registered Trademarks
Dear Kleuske,
Why would you remove registered trademarks from our https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WeGoLook wikipedia page? We are officially registered for the name WeGoLook and Lookers, as well as our parent company Crawford & Company. Please do NOT remove these pertinent parts of our name in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallsoutherngal36 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Per the manual of style (Trademarks): "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context. ". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a extension of the company website. Kleuske (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Apropos "We"... Please mind the rules on conflicts of interest and paid editing. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Please Remove Speedy deletion nominations
Hi Kleuske, I am writing to ask you for removing Speedy deletion nominations of my user page, and Lau Ma Che I created. The reason is that I have fixed these 2 pages, and please re-check them if you are free. Thanks. By the way, I am new user in English Wikipedia, and I am still learning about how to perform efficient editing here, so please understand, I will prevent from making the problem again.--Review-Renew (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- There's still no credible claim of importance or significance AFAICT, so I'll leave that to an admin to decide. Kleuske (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I understand. --Review-Renew (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Reinstate my edits
They are all accurate. You may not remove all of them. IF you have additional information to add to balance the article you may do so but you can't remove accurate information. The article was about discrimination. You are biased being German and already having removed information about feminism from another page. Do not touch my edits which are there to inform.