Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Daiyusha. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! DThomsen8 (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from 1964 (film)  with this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

You have created a disambiguation, which contains one option. It's rather a redirect.Xx236 (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you please have a look at the Talk page for Digimon frontier, users are complaining that a completely unrelated "game" called "legendary warriors" redirected to Digimon frontier. I am unaware of the game but the title "Legendary warriors" isn't too farfetched for a game or one of its characters.I'll try adding more names into the disambiguation page. Thanks for reminding Daiyusha (talk) 17

05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Added 2 more options in the page. Daiyusha (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The1337gamer (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Anandapuram mandal, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Vin09 (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All i did was copy the text from the article "Anadapuram mandal"(note the difference in spelling) and pasted it in the version with the correct spelling.I did not add anything new.The "Original research" material existed even before i edited the previous article for the first time.Either way thanks for letting me know the reason for the edit, i'll be more careful next time. Daiyusha (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I checked you didn't add it originally. But, if it was not you, you should not re-add or rollback my edit. Cheers!.--Vin09 (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I re-added giving references,and you made it more readable. Daiyusha (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a change to an article, India–Pakistan relations, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daiyusha. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daiyusha. 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]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Melanesians: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the antivandalism efforts, you've been doing some good reverts! I've noticed some of your reports to AIV, and left you a couple of messages. Basically, make sure to appropriately warn users: as an example, one of your reports noted the IP address had received a final warning, but that was nine months ago. Look forward to fighting more vandals with you! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain?94.99.230.177 (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think they are same, add a reference saying the same,some website would do, manumatic is mentioned many times in the semi-automatic page itself, that kinda means manumatic not the exact same. Either way your edit just "removes all information manumatic had", that same info could be moved to a separate section in the semi automatic page. Loss of manumatic page's information is the issue with your edit. Daiyusha (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will add reference in a section explaining the difference in semi-automatic page but trust me they are the same with little difference. The manumatic article is too small to need it's own page. 94.99.230.177 (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Manumatic —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ~~~~

Hello - you recently issued a warning to 91.239.80.122 regarding his/her vandalism of the Cider with Rosie article. I thought you might like to know that the same ip address has also vandalised the Laurie Lee page (I've since reverted the changes). It may be that the user has some sort of grudge against Lee and his work, but they have also vandalised at least one other page, so a block may well be in order... Regards, Neilinabbey (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi, my edit is correct but in progress . i am complete it in about 15 minutes.Coilsherbs (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Coilsherbs rolled back my edits and your edits are back now. I understand you are copying data from French page to the English one. If possible ,please try translating before you commit your edit. Daiyusha (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed your reversion and warning to 142.129.179.37. I wanted to inform you that per WP:REMOVED users are permitted to remove posts from their user talk pages; doing so is considered an acknowledgement that it was read. The only posts that cannot be removed are block reviews while a block is in effect. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:331dot Thanks for letting me know but can warnings be also removed?? Because this user has a level 2 warning for vandalism. If he makes another damaging edit, he would get a level 3 warning because we see the previous warning. But if the warning was removed, wouldn't he be given a level 2 warning again, thus continuing his vandalism again and again. Daiyusha (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, a user can remove anything from their user talk page, with the exception of block reviews while a block is in effect. I understand what you are saying about warnings, but it is up to the person issuing the warnings to check the edit history (if the talk page is blank) and see if the person had been warned before. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

331dot is correct - users may remove warnings and messages from their own talk pages. The things they're not permitted to remove are shared IP templates, declined unblock requests (during the duration of the active block), and MDF or CSD tags. Editors are also not allowed to alter or modify messages or warnings left by others to make them appear as if the warning editor stated something different (i.e. changing "because it did not appear constructive" to "because you're stupid" - something that purposefully alters what was said in the warning by the editor). Otherwise, they can remove warnings as they see fit. On the other hand, we can also interpret the removal to mean that the editor was aware of and has read the warning given. Let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to answer them. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is this edit vandalism? 78.19.79.159 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my bad. But, It needs a description as to why you made that edit. Daiyusha (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Longsword

I added a note explaining the deletion in the Longsword (Talk). 172.4.208.9 (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, This is a message to let you know that one or more of, such as the edit you made to William Beveridge, did not appear constructive and has been corrected. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. S yes, I think you hasten a bit in your edit. If you would have read the link to the Galton Institute article, you would have understood that the Eugenics Society is nowadays called the Galton Institute and had William Beveridge as it's member. This I already explained in my earlier edit. Now I will add many sources, so it will be even more explicit. Thank you. Suomalainen konformisuus (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

My issue was not about the info you added. Your edit had wrong formatting, with a space like this Galton Institute|Eugenics Society ]].That looks small, but it sent the entire text after the society into a new line, including the square brackets. Every page has 2 versions, one the raw html like text which an editor sees and the rendered text that a user sees.Your edit makes the raw version look broken, that made me revert your edit. Daiyusha (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting mistake can be gladly corrected. Unfortunately, some time people hurriedly remove the whole edit without bothering to correct just the glitch. Suomalainen konformisuus (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure why you deleted the addition of my grandfather from Old Saybrook's Wiki. Is the source I used not to your liking? http://mychfc.org/Awardee.aspx?hero=42790

From where does history originate? People with first-hand knowledge of events write things down. These people are the source(s). It's verifiable that my grandfather was awarded a Carnegie Hero Award. Please prove me wrong that he built Hull Harbor, the first marina at the mouth of the CT river. It's now called Harbor One Marina. Please prove me wrong that he served on every front of WWII. You look up the public records; I already know his story and I will continue to publish it, every day, until it sticks.

Hello! I Would like to ask you why my edit on the Breaking Bad article's Cast and Characters section was reverted/removed. Why was it? Also, this is my account, but I sometimes am just lazy and edit logged out. Thank you for being very polite about the situation, and I would like to guarantee to you I am not a vandal! Have a beautiful day, -ICorrectThings (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Daiyusha. Please let me express my opinion that the level 4 warning you posted to Babyscarxo (talk · contribs)'s talk page was really unjustified. Their edits were in no way vandalism or deliberately disruptive. The press has extensively covered a rumored relationship regarding the subject of the article this user edited; they did not "deliberately introduce incorrect information". A level 1 warning to this user for adding content without a verifiable reliable source is far more appropriate in this context. Please retract your warning, apologize to this user, and in the future, please assume good faith in people's intentions and try to be as friendly as possible to newcomers. Kind regards, Zingarese (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for helping out with the persistent vandalism at Batman Begins. KNHaw (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Swarm ♠ 20:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a user who had recently edited a section of the Wikipedia article, List of most expensive Indian Films. You removed it the first time without providing any explanation pertaining to it. The second time you removed it, you provided a baseless explanation. It is a mistake that you think Bollywood covers all Indian films. There are many regional divisions of Indian films and the particular reason why I had edited that particular section was because the movie is to be released in the original language of Tamil, falling under the category of Kollywood films(a regional film industry). Please look into it as I only desire authenticity of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.177.212.40 (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is welcome. I've left a message explaining myself in your talk page Daiyusha (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you accept the pending change for this unsourced addition of a red-linked (possibly fictitious) event? Toddst1 (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or this latest salvo in an ongoing edit war? You are misusing the privilege. Stop now. Toddst1 (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not accept unsourced pending changes [1]. If you continue misusing the tools I will request the permission to be removed from your login account.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained myself in the reviewer comment section, also explained in your talk page Daiyusha (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your recent report at WP:AIV, please be aware that any attempt to connect a Wikipedia user to a real world identity is not permitted. Please see WP:OUTING. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep that in mind, but how do i convey that i have a hunch that there is a case of COI? Should I just say google for "Something Something" in the comment section, Daiyusha (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia values it's users' privacy and that takes precedence over other factors. In situtations where revealing private information is essential to protecting Wikipedia, information can be sent to Arbcom privately by email. In cases such as this (routine promotional editing), just reverting and then warning about a potential conlflict of interest is probably sufficient. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it wasn't a test - what do you believe I did wrong? Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You changed St. to Steet, I Guess you were going for Street, but "Steet" is a bad word, so i had to revert it, please re-read your edits before posting. Daiyusha (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I see a spelling mistake or typo in the text of an article, I usually correct it rather than revert. Was there anything else you noticed?81.149.141.199 (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher T. Adams & Sid Saab are both members of the Maryland House of Delegates and clearly pass WP:NPOL. The articles may be crap, but the topics are notable. A7 is mis-placed. Cabayi (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daiyusha. 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]

Hello, Daiyusha. 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]

I don't think this meets the criteria for A7, although I can find very little about him in a search for sources that isn't blatantly self-promotional so I certainly won't begrudge a PROD or AfD; I'm just loathe to touch any pro-Trump articles for fear of being accused of having a conflict of interest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this because WP:POLOUTCOMES says this "Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election"

And as per the page, the only election he won was a "primary"() at the district level in 2010, and as you've mentioned earlier he has no reliable sources covering his campaign or other achievements, so i nominated it as A7 as being an unremarkable politician. I'll tag not-so-obvious items with a PROD from now on, explaining myself clearly. Even so, CSD seems to be a very powerful feature,something that should not be in the hands of newcomers like me, can we have something similar to pending changes reviewer that gives out the right for CSD to people with prior experience voting on AfDs Daiyusha (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my complaint here is more than it's a PROD / AfD, not A7. Something like "Spencer Zimmerman supports Trump for 2020" (with no sources and no obvious sources via a search) would be A7, but that isn't it. As for a user rights, there is one : New page reviewer; however it's not technically possible to stop any editor reviewing recent changes and manually tagging articles. Our resident NPR guru, Insertcleverphrasehere might know more. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree with Ritchie333 here. While the guy does not appear to be notable, this article doesn't qualify for A7. That should be used in scenarios where the person is obviously and completely non-notable (e.g. unremarkable high schooler). Perennial candidates certainly can be notable, but I don't think this one is after doing a search for sources. Looking at the sources in the article, they all fail sigcov and independence by a mile. I can't really find much better online outside of routine election commentary (something which has been repeatedly discounted when checking notability of politicians). PROD might work, but might well be contested by the creator. I put a PROD tag on the article with a summary of my assessment above, and if contested the next step should be AfD in the absence of new information. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not nominate an article for speedy deletion for no content so quickly. Please wait at least 10 minutes to allow the creator to add content. ~ GB fan•

Okay, looking up your talk page I think there's 7-8 threads complaining about your back end maintenance activities. Please stop doing any more otherwise I will be forced to block you the next time I see an incorrect tagging that I have to revert. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I am new to AfD and page deletion,I've been doing this from about a week.I was previously working with pending changes review and vandalism. I must admit I tagged some pages wrongly at the start, but now i mention the reason for those tags wherever possible, CSD doesn't let you key in your description and so i cannot explain myself while nominating something for CSD. That said, i believe the 7-8 threads that you've mentioned complaining about me were probably because I put up an article for AfD, wasting some editor's time in voting about it. I've done those before reading up the deletion policy completely. I have read those now and I can assure you the ratio of those mistagging will go down. Daiyusha (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Just bear in mind when you tag something for CSD, you're asking an admin to delete it unilaterally without discussion, so it's got to be watertight otherwise I can't do it. And that you should only AfD something if you don't believe it's at all possible to produce a policy-compliant article. AfD is more an art than a science once you get past basic inclusion policies, and I don't always get it right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop - moving Menial (torture) to Draft:Menial (torture) as "Needs more work before being an legitimate article" shows a lack of any idea what will make a legitimate article. That really was an article begging for a speedy deletion rather than draftifying. Ping Ritchie333. Cabayi (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What speedy criteria would you use if in draftspace? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I too wanted to nominate it as speedy deletion as original research but when i looked at some of the examples, like scratching nails on a blackboard, based on both my personal opinion and those that i saw in tv shows, seems to be something that needs to be on wikipedia, albeit with a different name. I just wasn't sure if it was obvious vandalism Daiyusha (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you tag 3906 AD with PROD, rather than a CSD criteria? Fictional information about Paul Amadeus Dienach is not suitable content for that article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was no CSD criteria that seemed to justify csd. I see that the article has been tagged as a blatant hoax, but that topic has a book written about it, that sold well. Didn't seem to be a "hoax". Daiyusha (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you tried pinging me on Talk:DJ Heyder. Pinging only works when you add a link to the user and your signature (~~~~) in the same edit. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daiyusha. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wolfgang Glöde, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: can easily be redirected to List of deaths at the Berlin Wall where he is mentioned per WP:ATD-R. Thank you. SoWhy 14:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daiyusha. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sunil Kalda, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Winning a notable award indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI#SINGER, WP:CCSI#BAND). Thank you. SoWhy 14:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daiyusha. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Angry Ferret, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Having notable members indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI#BAND). Thank you. SoWhy 11:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy In that case I'll first nominate the "notable person" in the band for deletion first then, that page too seems failing GNG. Daiyusha (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wanted to let you I'm contest the speedy deletion request for Stafford Crossman. He clearly satisfies WP:JUDGE and has significant coverage in secondary literature. Atchom (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear you understand WP:G5, I see two articles you nominated (Paul Paddon & Viewen) in the your last 20 edits. Both were declined because they do not meet the requirements of the speedy deletion criterion. The criterion only applies if the article was made in violation of a block or ban. This means that the creating editor is either a sockpuppet of a blocked or banned editor or the editor is banned from creating articles or specific type of articles and they still create it. It does not apply to editors that are blocked or banned after they create the article. This was the case in both of the articles. ~ GB fan 12:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you tagged the page Dewan Singh for speedy deletion with the reason "Fails WP:BIO1E". However, "Fails WP:BIO1E" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can propose the page for deletion if it appears to be an uncontroversial matter, or take the page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for discussion on the merits if you still seek deletion. Thanks! Template:Z4 Iffy★Chat -- 09:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daiyusha. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jora.com, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being part of a notable entity indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI#CORP, WP:CCSI#ORG). Thank you. SoWhy 08:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When another editor has tagged a creation in main space, leave it to that editor to post at page creator's talk page. In this case, we had an ec on User talk:Vishnurajthannickal, and the result was less than ideal. Thanks, Sam Sailor 05:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)[reply]

Hello Daiyusha. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sejal Kumar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: (now) claims coverage in RS. Thank you. SoWhy 09:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Daiyusha and CSDs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daiyusha, Ritchie333 has raised some concerns about your over-exuberant tagging of articles for speedy deletion. I recommend you consider switching your focus for a while to participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, this will help you learn more about Wikipedia's deletion policies. The work you are doing is very much appreciated but please be aware that we have policies about what can and cannot be speedily deleted, and a number of editors have given you feedback on your talk page that you are being a bit too enthusiastic. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to message me either by pinging me here, or with a message on my talk page. Regards, Fish+Karate 11:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daiyusha, I have created Folk dances of Mizoram because Mizoram#Dance has only 4 dance, it is not complete and I have included 7 dances from Mizoram with reference from Academic textbooks. The 4 dances are just like a preview. Your hasty decision for speedy deletion of Folk dances of Mizoram is very discouraging and troubling to me. If necessary I can shorten the Mizoram#Dance which also I have created. Do let me know and do not put articles for deletion without proper evaluation.

coolcolney 02:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry, i immediately deleted my CSD notification within a minute of putting it up, but it still seems your article will get deleted, by some other criteria. Daiyusha (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks coolcolney

Hello. Regarding your AFD of Arild Kristo, you need to do something called WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for deletion. I see above you had the advice to slow down on CSD nominations, and it appears the same is true in this case. if you have not done WP:BEFORE, as you did not do here, then you need to do it as you end up wasting the time of other editors by nominating pages that are actually not good candidates.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:ThatMontrealIP I nominated it because the article was primarily written as one for a photographer.I thought that the references not being in English were not reliable enough. I've retracted my nomination, after doing WP:BEFORE . Daiyusha (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good move. Foreign language sources are equal weight to English sources. As a photographer there are lots of sources, including the World Press Photo item and the photographs published in Look, as well as the Norwegian National Museum. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Is it possible to post this article on Wikipedia?Namerst (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Namerst Hi, You can create an article for a company on wikipedia, but it must fulfill these criteria listed here:WP:COMPANY. The company in question should be notable enough to be on wikipedia. Daiyusha (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• IQDEMY is international and meaningful. Can you help create an article about the company? Give thanks.Namerst (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is pretty important to say that I am working for wikipedia in different languages since 2006 and I am working under my real name. This said, maybe it is obvious that everything I write is legally bullet proof, double checked and offline-source based. In case of any critical issues I also ask the concerned person for comment (at least waiting 48 hours). In case I help writing about a living person it is someone I know personally and who co-o-perates with wikipedia providing precise sources. According to the wikipedia rules and NPOV.

But...

the draft of draft was just in the beginning its just about a free wikibook, maybe just misunderstandings. The book allows a deep insight into a underestimated danger of our digital and AI basted world: By chance, by vandalismen or by mistake you can be victim of a large number of complex and time consuming legal claims. Even worse, criminals can use this effecte for their activities. Often the biography of homeless people begin with a longer period where people gave up opening letters, where debts double within weeks due to the debt business. AFS is good case with precise sources as most of these problems are discussed in a public court case. Thomas Österheld (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas Österheld Lets ignore the fact that you violated WP:OR, the policy that allows no one to write whatever they want without giving reliable sources. Now coming to that page, that was random gibberish that is simply your opinion on how to live, certainly doesnt belong in any encylopedia. Also note that Wikipedia and wikibooks are not the same

Mmmh I don't know, but maybe you are not aware of that fact that everything in your own namespace is totally invisible to anyone, this area has nothing to do with a real article. Often people start writing and structuring articles there but it is also very common to find personal remarks on you motivation to write for wikipedia - etc. -- you quite new here, correct? Thomas Österheld (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Österheld I'm new but I dont think putting a / after your name and creating an article is considered to be writing in your namespace. Your creation came up in the new page feed, only mainspace pages come there by default. Daiyusha (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what i write in article (Rhythm Wagholikar )so it is not deleted ? can i write same article with changesMukesh.bhardwaj40 (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi Daiyusha rhythm wagholikar honoured with 1. Mahatma Gandhi Samman at the Bristish Parliament-House of Commons by the NRI Welfare Society of India, 2. International Achievers Award as "Eminent Writers" in the 12th international achievers summit in association with United Arab Emirates Ministry of Economy and 3. Femina Most Powerful of the Year 2018.

aren't those awards notable for writing an article ? Mukesh.bhardwaj40 (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mukesh.bhardwaj40 The first award isn't notable as its not mentioned in any notable non-local newspapers. The second one as well.The third is for the most powerful in "Pune", not the state, and not even the country, and though femina magazine is notable, the award is still non-notable, something like Times or Forbes top 100 most powerful people would make more sense or even a Femina most powerful indians would make sense too. Daiyusha (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi Daiyusha, thank you for the response. i have one more question, since the awards aren't notable can i just write about his book since it is mentioned many notable newspaper like Times of India, Indian Express etc. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

@User:Mukesh.bhardwaj40 None of the sources are enough, all of them are in Pune local news. IE Pune Edition, TOI Pune edition etc. Besides, why are you trying so hard to promote that book, its just a review of Lata mangeshkar's songs, not even original material nor a best-seller. Daiyusha (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest me what needs to be done in order to get this article approved, rather than just deleting it without any reason. This article is for my college project and I need to get it approved to get good grades in my project. I am looking for some kind of help from experienced people like yourself.

Please help me get through this article. Suggest me ways to get it approved.

Your suraj (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi Daiyusha,

thank you for the response. you are right, i work for the company Oye Digital Marketing and company promotes product and services on social media. Wikipedia is not part of it. i was trying to learn how new article can be created and what all reference are required. as you know i started writing with article on Oye Digital Marketing. since i dint have any references i picked different topic which is for Rhythm Wagholikar but it turns out wikipedia need lot more references and solid sources than i thought. Mukesh.bhardwaj40 (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]