User talk:Reggietini

Nomination of Sage Testini for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sage Testini 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/Sage Testini 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. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions are appreciated, but, in this recent edit to Sage Testini, you removed Articles for deletion notices from articles or removed other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. This makes it difficult to establish consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.  - down  load  22:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Regardless of your motives for creating the article, it is not yours to blank the page and the deletion discussion needs to run its course based on, at least, the content that was there was deletion was proposed. Please do not remove the content again. Nthep (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Sage Testini, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. ''Please don't add inappropriate pages to test the effectiveness of crowdsourcing. I can appreciate that your intentions were good, but it's a waste of editors' time.'' Tchaliburton (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)