User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 63

Restore Ring My Droid page deleted on Jan 5, 2016

Hi,

I noticed you deleted the page I created about Ring My Droid yesterday. I have posted this reply on the talk page of the article in question too. It seems that the article I wrote was considered as an advertising article, but, it was, however, intended to be an article about an application being used by over 85,000+ people in various countries intended to help users get more info about the nature and usage of the application. This page is about an application that helps its users locate their smartphones. The application is being used by over 85000+ users in various countries including the US, UK, India, Egypt, UAE and various other European and middle eastern countries. Information about this application which is the subject of this article has been published in mainstream media outlets including 'Ahram Online' in Egypt, and a link to the article was cited as reference in addition to other links posted for reference and citation. This article was intended to help the users (which is a community of 85,000+ people in various countries) to get more information about the app in general and the usage of the app. However, in case the language of the article seemed to be 'promotional' in nature, it could be changed or modified as required. The application which is the subject of this article is also an Open-Source application was intended to be added the List of Free and Open Source Android Applications on Wikipedia so it can be referenced and used by the open source community to help people build more applications based on security concept used in this application. --Rbxi.delhi (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It is now at User:Rbxi.delhi/Ring_My_Droid Wikipedia is not WikiHow. It needs a lot of work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Korean Eyes Korean eyes

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Korean Eyes Korean eyes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wikibreaking (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wikibreaking: You had the wrong title, which made it initially difficult for me to locate the article. I've corrected it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am saying 2 separate things here. 1. That previously deleted article on the myths was wrongfully deleted. 2. Irrelevant of that previously deleted article, whether this content was *also* mentioned in that previously deleted article or not, it should be irrelevant. For example, if an article on US presidency got deleted while including the mention of Obama, then should an article on Obama himself be also deleted just because it was mentioned in that deleted article? I see no logic in this. So, I am trying to set straight how this article (specifically on Korean eyes) is legitimate & shouldn't be deleted. Then, I am going to resubmit petition on the previously deleted article (I am separating that article into 2) because it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll repeat that I hold no opinion on the original deletion. I see both are being debated at the correct forum.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the original deletion was wrongful. False claims were made on notability & the legitimacy of the references. I am asking the decision to be reviewed. Also, The second deletion on Korean eyes (I separated the article into 2 parts & uploaded only the second part referenced to English Google books) was wrongful. It got deleted just because it was mentioned in the first deleted article on the myths of double-eyelids.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Request to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabian Marley per sources presented therein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read all the links, but I read the first three all of which can be summarized as "Fabian claims to be the son of Bob Marley, but it hasn't been proven". Frankly, if it is proven, so what? Notability isn't inherited. He needs to be notable on his own merits, and a not-yet-verified claim to be related to a notable person doesn't pass my test of notability.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If one is going to provides links, start with strong ones, not garbage ones. If you think one is solid, let me know and I'll look at it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Gilles (stock character)

Hello, and happy New Year!

I come a-begging again. Note 17 in the page named above has been tagged as an error, and I can't figure out either what's wrong or how to fix it. (I went to the help page that the tag directs one to, but I didn't understand the explanation. I left a request for help, which has not been answered, and I also left a request on the Talk page of Gilles (stock character), which also has not been answered.) May I trouble you to take a look and suggest what I must do to correct this? As always, I'm eternally grateful for your help. Beebuk 07:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beebuk: I fixed it. In this section:

In the salons and private theaters

You reused the "r&r" reference, but forgot to add the closing slash. The software treats this as a new instance of the ref name, rather than a re-use of an existing ref. (Check out the most recent diff to see the edit.)

In a coincidence, I fielded a question emailed to Wikimedia by a new editor struggling with some issue, and used you as an example of a success story.

Thanks for contacting me. Hope all is going well. I see your name on my watchlist; I am so pleased you are continuing to contribute.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks! I just couldn't figure out what was wrong. Yes, after my petulant short absence I'm happy to be back. Still struggling with the Pierrot page, though. It's very very difficult to condense things to an acceptable length. I'll keep bashing at it. I'm blessed to have you as a mentor. All is well. Beebuk 14:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Le Zoute Concert

Hi,

You deleted this article G3 blatant hoax. Do you think it's a good idea to add it to the list of hoaxes, as it was here for almost 2 years? Adam9007 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Seems like it may qualify. For some reason, I thought the list was supposed to be things that made it into Reliable Sources, but maybe I'm dreaming, because I don't see that mentioned. Go for it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I'm not sure if I can as I'm not an admin, unless that only applies to archiving? Adam9007 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Many non-admins have edited that page. I think the admin note revers to the creation of the archive. The other challenge is whether you know how to describe the article. I'd like to let you do it, as it was your idea, Let me know if you do not want to.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:As I cannot remember the exact creation date, I think it's best if you do it. I'm also not particularly good at describing things. Adam9007 (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Category deletion

Hello Sphilbrick. You recently deleted Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I assume that was a mistake, and I have restored the category and talk page. If I am missing something, let me know. Cheers. --Mojo Hand (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mojo Hand: My mistake. There were a lot of cats to delete, and I must have picked the main one by accident. Thanks for cleaning up after me, I owe you one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what I figured. No worries - we are allowed to be human.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you just did this again (but already self-reverted) Are you running your deletions manually or with an automation? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux:Manually. I don't know this one happened. I select the items using a Chrome extension which can open multiple tabs, but I cannot see how it could select the parent - it isn't on the page where I right-click and select. I'll keep watching - this time I noticed it, but hit delete too quickly, but, other than the obvious fact that it must have been opened, I cannot see why it was opened. As an aside, how did you see it so quickly? I reverted seconds after the deletion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, was mostly just checking in to see if maybe you were running some sorta of out of control bot under your admin account, good to hear it was just a normal type of error (these things happen). I saw it because I have that category page on my watchlist. Thanks for continuing with the non-stop CSD cleanups! — xaosflux ^Talk 02:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I try to look at every single one, with some rare exceptions. When I see a group of cats for deletion, all of which are empty, all proposed by the same editor, I spot check a couple then go into semi-auto mode (brain, not bot) and delete each one. Somehow, the main cat ended up in a open tab to the right of some I planned to delete. I haven't fgured out how, and I will be watching. (My other exception is SisterTwister is tagging a lot of abandoned user drafts. In some cases, there is a message saying that only the template is in place, and no edits for a year. I checked the first 50 of those on a case by case basis, but I am now convinced SisterTwister knows what they are doing, so when I see that message, I spot check a few, but delete some without looking further.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hold on...

When you change "runner-ups" to "runners-up", I think many of these are a mistake. From what I can gather "runners-up" refers to multiple people at the same event/race, while "runner-ups" means they were the runner-up at multiple contests. Courcelles (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the edit that crossed my watchlist. Courcelles (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Do you have a source to support that? I've searched a dozen or so sites, and haven't once seen that distinction. One site in particular, didn't just state the rule but explained it, noting that "runner" is a noun and nouns take plurals, but modifiers, such as "up" do not.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Other than use in sports magazines, I can't find much of anything hard. And most of them sidestep the issue by using "six runner-up finishes". Which might be what we should be using, really. Courcelles (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "runners-up" is standard English, like "brothers-in-law" and other similar formulations. See the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language's explanation and a similar explanation in May I Quote You on That?: A Guide to Grammar and Usage. These were two of the first four hits when I searched for "usage runners-up brothers-in-law" on Google. The other two of the four top hits made the same recommendation but were not published sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I've been trying to look at some high quality tennis sites, and I noticed a tendency of some to form the plural that way. That might work in some cases (not easy to code in AWB but that's my problem) but not in others. For example, in the article you cited Ai_Sugiyama, I think it would work if the section “Doubles runners-up” read “double runner up”. The section lists the event and year in which the subject earned a runner-up position. However, the section above, “Singles (6 titles, 7 runners-up)” would read awkwardly if “titles” were plural and “runner-up” single, and weird if it were “Singles (6 title, 7 runner-up)”. That might mean a bespoke selection in each article, which would be a pain.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Courcelles:I would like to draw your attention to The plural of runner-up--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Water polo talk archives

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	I am truly sorry about making the mistake. Thank you for the deletions.☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Loriendrew: Not a big deal. I deleted the entire CSD category the other day :) Thanks for the barn-star.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Nayantara or Nayanthara

Hello Sphilbrick. There is a currently-open move discussion at Talk:Nayantara#Requested move 18 January 2016. Please check and see if you want to close this. Also, the talk page and the article are now at different names. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Bad timing on my part. I did the move, accepting that it was non-controversial, but it was close to the end of my editing window. Unfortunately, I don't expect to be online much in the next 3 days. Anyone reading this has my permission to undo the move if it was wrong, otherwise, I will look at it when I get home (Thursday, I think). --S Philbrick(Talk) 03:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have some time now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The article The Great Whale Society has been DELETED by YOU!!!!

Hello Wikipedia, I am the creator of the Page The Great Whale Society and the fantasy article that talks about whales.

Can I at least have the draft back so I can print it out and keep it for my self please?

thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Great Whale Society (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Great Whale Society: It was tagged as a blatant hoax, and deleted for that reason. This is an encyclopedia, not a humor magazine. You were given a warning, please look at your talk page: User_talk:The_Great_Whale_Society.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

OTRS check

Hi, Sphilbrick. In January, you mentioned that you were in discussion with User:Aatifbandey2009 through OTRS. Was permission ever provided to recreate the copy-paste page for Ghulam Qadir Bandey. Let me know. Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@CactusWriter: I did not process such a request. My discussions were more along the line of explaining why it wasn't ridiculous to delete some text that was authored by the editor. Having said that, I have transferred my OTRS time from permissions to info, and haven't processed any permissions in a couple months. I just checked, and see no record of any text permissions being granted or even requested by the same email I had conversed with.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for checking. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The article Ronald Rand (2) which has been deleted by you

I believe I had created this draft when I was unsure what I was doing in working on Wikipedia. It is still overwhelming. I regret that it was created and had caused any inconvenience as I did not know how to delete it. I appreciate your sincerest help and understanding, (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Ronjay

It is really not a major issue. Things like this are deleted several hundred times a day.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Recover and Update Nadeem Sarwar deleted page

Hello - I am new to Wikipedia and I was surprised to see Nadeem Sarwar's, a living Shia Muslim Legend reciter, wiki page was deleted. I would like to take this opportunity to get either a new article in or recover the deleted article and make edits to it. Please advise and let me know how to proceed.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moulai110 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Moulai110: Thanks for contacting me. The article has been deleted multiple times, including twice as a copyright violation. Because of this, it has been protected from further re-creation. It is policy not to restore copyright violations. You are free to create a new version in a sub=page or draft space, then someone can review it to make sure it is OK before moving to main space. Let me know if you need help understanding how to start.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Golden Laurel Bough

Hi there, Sphilbrick,

This is my first or second foray into writing a page for Wikipedia. You deleted it earlier today, and since it's been dormant for several months due to some pressing issues, I can't blame you. I would like it restored/undeleted in order to put up better references for this Bulgarian award. Thank you, and happy Valentine's Day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxermug (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boxermug:  Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxermug (talk • contribs) 21:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Eugene Thamon Simpson - please restore draft?

Time flies when you're slowly gathering source information for an article about a living legend... can I please have Dr. Simpson's draft restored so that I can continue citing sources? I left it neglected for 9 months because after it was disapproved, I was quite surprised and deflated. I also missed the 6 month warning notification... that's my fault. Dr. Simpson, after I told him I was creating a Wikipedia article in his honor, is still emailing me sources every week when his efforts are published in local journals and media outlets. I've just been really slack about updating the draft. I'm going to be out of town for a few days, but next week I can jump back on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumpet4christ (talk • contribs) 15:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Trumpet4christ: Draft:Eugene_Thamon_Simpson--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	This barnstar is self-explanatory for your outstanding unused drafts deletions. SwisterTwister talk 18:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and I especially appreciate the detail you are providing. It helps me determine how much more review I need to do. (In most cases, very little, as your assessments are usually spot-on.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI (Draft:Digital Fabulists )

The author is requesting the page back at WP:REFUND if you're interested in providing feedback. Hasteur (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Thanks for the heads up - handled.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Could you help me? I want to know how you make userboxes. I saw you had some on your page, so I thought you would know how to make them. Please and Thank you! Ilovebeaniebabies8804! (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ilovebeaniebabies8804!: Every user box I have, I copied from someone else. I do not know how to create them. I think I could figure it out but I have never found the need. See Wikipedia:Userboxes for guidance on how to create them, as well as list of existing ones you can copy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyways! Ilovebeaniebabies8804! (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand the "thanks, anyway" Did that link not answer your question?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Request edits

could you please undelete "Narratability" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deniskrasnov (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Was wondering if I could ask you to review a few if you have time.[1][2][3][4]. Some of these are 1-2 months old and/or are relatively simple. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 02:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting timing. Just yesterday, I looked at the backlog and felt guilty for not having contributed in some time. I'll see if I can do some.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! If you won't have time, just lemme know and I'll keep scrounging for someone. It looks like the Request Edit queue is more than six months backlogged. Hopefully one of these days we'll be able to opt into pending changes for this instead - would be easier for everyone. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 00:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked at one, and it was decidedly non-trivial. I probably should try some of the others. Maybe tomorrow.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, how time flies. I'm leaving town for a couple days and have to concentrate on getting ready for the trip so it doesn't happen right away.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Yah, you must have looked at that politician's article first. Have fun on your trip. Those Request Edits have been waiting for months. Another few days certainly won't hurt them. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This would be a very small and simple one if you have a minute to take a look. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 16:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Restoration request

could you please undelete "Narratability" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deniskrasnov (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 03:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
• #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
• New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

reviewing eyes
... you were recipient no. 33 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks. I can't believe it has been four years.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the CSDs

Thanks for deleting the "United Colors of Neelix" (or "Greenisholives" as another editor calls them) that I've been putting up via CSD. Must be a chore. I've put many more at RfD, even though they will probably end up being deleted; I think we have clear consensus on the fused adjectives, though. Si Trew (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: The whole Neelix thing really burns me. Happy to clean them out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The colour ones are a pain because often there are good alternative targets that they "block". Si Trew (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You can retarget them without any bureaucracy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Sorry. The 'thanks anyways' meant thanks for your help. I don't know why i said 'anyways' and 'well'. :/ I was trying to get stuff done and well....... you know. Busy busy busy. Well, thanks for your help! It means a lot to me that people care :) From, Ilovebeaniebabies8804! (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Tvstarlondon/Mark Boardman

Hello. I noticed you deleted that page, so I thought I'd tell you there's one more, and similar, abandoned draft at User:Tvstarlondon/Mark Boardman 2. Thomas.W ^talk 21:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I almost never nominate for deletion, I concentrate on reviewing nominations by others.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Since it's obviously connected to the other page you deleted I thought you might delete it without a nomination. Thomas.W ^talk 08:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Your rationale is sound, but I see a talk page stalker got to it and removed it before I could.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Not a tps, I nominated it for CSD-G13 right after writing the comment above. I could have put a template on it right away, instead of posting here, but thought I'd contact you since you deleted the other one. Thomas.W ^talk 15:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Block request

Please block user:98.183.200.178 for 1 month. 2602:306:3357:BA0:D535:E2BB:57E4:837D (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a heavy user of the bockblock tool, but certainly will not without a reason. This is not a request for a reason. Either explain why I am uniquely qualified to make the call, or use a more appropriate forum.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

He is making unconstructive edits. You are an administrator, and that is why I ask you to do it. 2602:306:3357:BA0:D535:E2BB:57E4:837D (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

So bring it up at the right forum, I'm not the right person to address this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Not inactive

Minor point, resolved, closed so that those interested in recent deletions can see the relevant discussion without distraction

Didn't mind your deletion of 'User:AnonNep/draft BurialHill'. As you said in the edit summary, it was 'only Article Wizard text' and, as such, was an uncontroversial delete. However, just to note that the additional edit summary of 'inactive user' is incorrect. I may be doing very occasional gnoming at present but I'm not inactive. AnonNep (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC) @SwisterTwister: @AnonNep: The edit summary is actually written by the nominator, whom I've pinged, and carries over to the deletion. My deletion reason is based upon the 'only Article Wizard text' and the fact that it was quite some time since last edited (I hate it when someone nominates something for deletion minutes after the first edit.) If you simply wanted to make that clear - it is - I see you have been active. SwisterTwister has been doing an enormous amount of work, and may have simply missed that, but will now know to watch for that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC) All resolved then. Thanks for the prompt reply. AnonNep (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Asian Championships and other sports events that deleted by you

You just deleted many article because not adopt parsa amoli and allfutsal ip. You should not have deleted them because it was contested. Please restore the articles. A banned user might have created it, poorly, but it is a valid subject and if nothing else, their research and typing can be used if I or someone else chooses to improve upon it. the user Mohsen 1248 has a Destructive role that prevent to creat any new pages and any edit in sport events page. He with this destructive behavior caused others angry and make vandalism. He takes prevent any creation or constructive modification. he make the sports pages to his personal property. all of pages you delet have a correct and usefull content. 1996 concaf futsal many years not exist. The removal process is inconsistent with the values of Wikipedia and Of the selfishness and stubbornness. thanks a lot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mohsen1248 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngasianboys (talk • contribs) 07:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mohsen1248:Please read WP:DENY. If you think my deletion was not a valid application, please let me know. If you think it was a valid application but do not accept the application of an essay, please see my point above for options. If you think I misapplied the CSD criteria please identify the error and I will look into it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that wasn't me, but another sock account. Mohsen1248 (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. @Youngasianboys: - try again.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)