User talk:Psyus

Book refs
I've reverted a few of your recent edits. Linking to shopping sites for books (Barnes and Noble) is not necessary and looks a little spammy (were those affiliate links? honest question, not accusing). And since the book came out in 2015 then I'm guessing it was not the original source for those statements. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

And the book doesn't appear to be a reliable source so please stop linking to it, it looks like promotion/spam. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gaivna


The article Gaivna has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not a notable concept, apparently only written about in a 2015 self-published book.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Gaivna for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gaivna is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gaivna until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

May 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)