User talk:Fehufanga

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Untitled message from Neena gupta1122[change source]

hi sir can we have a quick talk are you here ? Neena gupta1122 (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neena gupta1122: Don't ask to ask. If you're asking about the QD tag, there was consensus that the subject of the article is not notable, and there are no reliable sources that cover him extensively. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 02:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled message from 178.197.197.173[change source]

Hello hope your doing well , I need you to check this article https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFEM it can be restored in this case the article was deleted with 9 ref one time and again with 24 references. I outlined that the artist name does not pop up on google evrytime due to similar companies with the same name, which is why the name does not show up when you search on google some times this is google id https://g.co/kgs/nV68eZ

I think this is the issue in this case he has notability178.197.197.173 (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the search results again, and I have tried including terms such as "artist" and "musician", etc. There are still no indications that the subject passes the general notability guidelines. If you object, please take it to WP:Deletion review, I cannot do anything here. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 00:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


They have all been verified sources, yet I disagree. I've also tagged administrators to investigate this case, because you can't just delete just like that with 24 references. I think administrators should investigate some adminis here because those who abuse thair privileges should be taken178.197.197.173 (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen pages with more references get deleted. The number of references does not always dictate whether or not an article should be kept or be deleted. I don't see any administrative abuse here. Again, I cannot help you here. I have no tools to undelete the page. I suggest that you take this to WP:Deletion review, not my talk page. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 01:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete the page178.197.197.173 (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)"[reply]

I cannot help you then. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 01:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will Rapport this user who has contributed to this page for deleting abusers should not be on Wikipedia not because they think like they are always right this is wrong that article has criteria and has to restore you are wrong is not yours Wikipedia you act like is yours your privileges can be taken premnetly I think paranoia admins has to take of privileges on the wiki you agree with me talk178.197.197.173 (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't agree. Please stop discussing about admin conduct on my talk page. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 01:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Sayyid Raphael Dakik[change source]

I honestly tell you It is not bad to prejudice to fast. But maybe you can improve the article and make it in Chinese language in order to gather more valuable encyclopedic information for people. Let us work on it together in a friendly and harmonic manner, respecting our works. I am looking forward to a fruitful cooperation.--Warburton123 (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Warburton123 I am still not convinced that the subject is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Repeatedly accusing me of having a prejudice without evidence is casting an aspersion. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 14:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But you honetsly made a disruptive change, which is vandalistic and in this manner you seemingly have a prejudice to say that the Hazrat Ishaan from a neutral perspective is not a worthy post. The prejudice is based on your lack of knowledge on this topic, which is no problem at all. It can happen as nobody is perfect. So please accept your mistake and let us work together by first removing the template that is discrediting the content of the article. So you consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Christophe,_Prince_Napol%C3%A9on more worth noting? a person who represents a dynasty that does not exist since 150 years rather than a Prince of a dynasty of the last 40 years, who simultaneosly is the current Hazrat Ishaan? The Hazrat Ishaan in Sunni Islam is similar to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aga_Khan in Shia Islam. Warburton123 (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I am not casting any aspersions, as I am only honest, You give the impression of prejudicing, so you should honestly for your own sake, work of your conduct. This is no problem at all as nobody is perfect. Warburton123 (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Warburton123 just because a page about a similar subject exists doesn't mean that the article being discussed should be kept. And no, I don't think Jean-Christopher is notable. That doesn't change my opinion on Prince Sayyid Raphael Dakik. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 14:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should stay on your principles and delete Jean-Christopher. Please go ahead. Warburton123 (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, if "Look, if we have an article on Pokémon species, we should be able to have an article on this band" is kept, than you should for sure keep Prince Sayyid Raphael Dakik as he is the current Hazrat Ishaan and not a band that calls himself after Hazrat Ishaan. Why don´t you just accept that your arguments are not strong enough. This is not a fighting plattform where anyone just promotes his own interests, based on how many badges and edits he has, but a neutral plattform. Warburton123 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Warburton123 I don't see how pokemon is even relevant here. This is off topic. I'm not replying here any further. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 15:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, it is mentioned in the link you gave me here just because a page about a similar subject exists doesn't mean that the article being discussed should be kept.. I say honestly you are a very prejudicing person, who first acts and then thinks. Sorry for being too harsh. Warburton123 (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Warburton123 Well, that link links to one of the sections in en:WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and that is one of the example that you should not argue with... Jolly1253 (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About an edit[change source]

I recently made a edit on a page about fortnite and I want to apologise for vandalising and I hope you can forgive me Averagesteak877 (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Averagesteak877 well, I hope you don't do it again. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 06:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]