User talk:Chrislk02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Chrislk02
User:Chrislk02/My DYKs
User:Chrislk02/To do
To do
  1. Jul - Oct - 2006
  2. Nov - Dec - 2006
  3. Jan - Feb - 2007
  4. Mar - Apr - 2007
  5. May - Jun - 2007
  6. Jul - Aug - 2007
  7. Sep - Dec - 2007
  8. Jan - Feb - 2008
  9. Mar - Apr - 2008
  10. May - Jun - 2008
  11. Jul - Aug - 2008
  12. Sep - Oct - 2008
  13. Nov - Dec - 2008
  14. Jan - Feb - 2009
  15. Mar - Apr - 2009
  16. May - Jun - 2009
  17. Jun - Dec - 2009
  18. Jan - Jun - 2010
  19. Jul - Dec - 2010
  20. Jan - Dec - 2011
  21. Jan - Dec - 2012
  22. Jan - Dec - 2013
  23. Jan - Dec - 2014
  24. Jan - ??? - 2015

Before you ask why I deleted an article, please see if one of the following FAQ's applies

Notice: If you are here because I speedy deleted your article, please do not email me about it unless it contains sensitive or private information that you would not like to discuss here. I WILL NOT reply to run of the mill emails answering your question, "Why did you delete my bands page, we are not signed yet but we really are notable," or other similar complaints. If you have a problem, post it here so everybody can see, and review it themselves if they so desire. If you post a complaint here please make sure you link to the article in question (even if it is a red link). I sometimes delete hundereds of articles a day and unless you tell me what you are talking about and make it easy for me to find it, it is unlikley I will address your concerns. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jewish terror in Israel[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jewish terror in Israel. 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. . Cheers.

I have replied to this DRV request at the DRV. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirects you deleted[edit]

As usual, I was just working to the CAT:CSD backlog, I did not tag them for speedy, just deleted them, and had no strong preference one way or another (other than I have NO Desire to get involved in a dispute on these matters). For the first one, I will undelete it, that is fine, if you want to RfD it, go ahead. For the "Killings" title, I am not comfortable undeleting that. As you state, the existing standard is a redirect from "persecution", and the subject section is also "persecution" in the article it is redirecting too. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that, I want nothing to do with this, all of these should go to WP:RFD or WP:DRV as they seem inciting and appear to add little value to Wikipedias search and organization structure as a whole. Both of the ones above had multiple tags, and while they may not have been vandalistic in nature (which I am going to be more careful in the future when multiple tags are on a speedy to make sure this one is used correctly), both of these seem to be deletable under WP:G10
  • For example, if the standard is "persecution" in the name of the redirects, why then is in this situation, it "killing"? This seems to be inciting, and providing little or no value other than to create a redirect that that is a more severe and refined description than the topic that is redirects to. Given that none of the other examples you listed use this language, it seems to have no reason to be used in this situation either, this one can go to WP:DRV.
  • The ISI terror activities is not as clear cut of a case, but still appear to qualify under WP:G10 but in this case, the redirect only serves to single out an organization that is a subset of the article that it redirects to, and explicitly call them terrorists as well. While this may or may not be the case, this redirect has no other conceivable purpose.
In short, I am uncomfortable undeleting these as they seem out of place on Wikipedia, and would prefer another set of eyes on them. If you would like them undeleted, you can either list them at (WP:RFD), after which I will undelete them to allow them time for discussion, find another administrator who wants to get more involved than I do, or take it to WP:DRV. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for taking care of deleting Norburn Creighton Hyatt. I hated to nominate as I personally know the guy who wrote it, but he understands. Eric Cable  |  Talk  18:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@EricCable: no problem, just working through the deletion logs for the day. Thanks for the work nominating it for WP:PROD. There are a lot of jobs that nobody really wants to do but need to get done, and that definitely is one of them. Keep up the good work! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello. It's your job not true, Please return my articles. It's User to dont with me. Jacilason (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jacilason: Your request is nearly unintelligible. I am going to look through your history to see if I can figure out what you are asking. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I am going to need you to state your request for clearly. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
What was my work bad it? Such behavior is not true, is my Articles standard, I was asked many times, but no one not listen me, Now my request is clearly of you, back my tried (articles) and Permit activity. please, Thanks. Jacilason (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Why do not you answer? I ask you Request i have, Please back my tried articles. It is not ethical behavior. Jacilason (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
First off, it appears that english is not your first language, as your requests are nearly unintelligible. Additionally, I have reviewed the deletions, and it appears that you have been accused of being a sock puppet of a disruptive editor who has been banned. This is something that you need to sort out before I can undelete the articles. Additionally, you are welcome to request a deletion review. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Quixotic plea[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 04:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Corona Network[edit]

Hello, For some reason this page has been deleted. I contested the deletion, but no reply was made. It is unacceptable! In a week someone else would come and recreate it, and be the first. I don't understand why Ethereum is allowed but not Corona. Deleting an article, stating it can be contested but ignoring it completely. If someone else opens the page I will not forgive you.... What's the point in contributing if you can't contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by June.davis84 (talkcontribs) 16:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is Corona Network, and I will review it and let you know why I deleted it. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I deleted this article for 2 reasons, only one of which was in the deletion summary. 1.) A7 criteria for speedy deletion - This article does not assert notability, why is this site important? Why is it notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia? 2.) G11 criteria for speedy deletion - In the lack of an assertion of notability, this article only serves to be a placeholder on wikipedia where the company/organizations name and a very brief description of what it does and how there are "thousands of developers" (sic, the quotes were used in the article to surround the phrase), and what it can do for them. If someone else "opens up a page" that meets Wikipedias criteria for inclusion, then you will be welcome to contribute to it in a collaborate manner. I suggest that you write the article as a draft, and provide as many references to reliable third party external sources as possible. Hope that helps! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The American Nurses Foundation Page Help[edit]

Good morning, Just wanted to see if I have formatted the American Nurses Foundation page and cited the sources properly so that I may move it from draft form to article form. thanks ANF2015 (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@ANF2015: let me look at it and I will get back to you. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@ANF2015: I reviewed the article at User:ANF2015/draft, and there is a significant problem with the only references being to your organizations website. Are there any links to external 3rd party reliable sources? In its current form, it would likely go to WP:AFD, and very likely deleted as the reliable sources criteria is very important. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Chrislk02 Thanks for the update about the references, I have added additional resources and throughout the document and think that it may be more along the lines of what you are looking for. Please let me know if this is what you were describing and if I should try to find additional resources. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANF2015 (talkcontribs) 14:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@ANF2015: I have moved the article to American Nurses Foundation, the 3rd party sources were exactly what was needed. Ideally, none of the references should be to your own site, but that is an area that can be improved upon in the mainspace. Let me know if you have any other question. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request[edit]

Is there any way to delete that unwanted nomination pge? There is a rule that If anyone is not a contributor to articles in that topic then, the user should inform prior to nomination. This was not fulfilled. Plus, he is no contributor. He did not even included other articles of her topic means there is a fault in ihis nomination. This is a premature, unwanted nomination. Please delete this. I want to take this topuc in first attempt. I did not nominated. Why should I be punished for others deed? My contribution has gone into vain. I am very sad.—Prashant 17:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Prashant!: 1.) I would leave a comment in the nomination with a note description explaining what you explained to me. 2.) I would post something at WP:ANI about this, keep it short and succinct, they may be able to help. At the end of the day, I am not familiar with the particular FA process or rules, just with the WP:CSD criteria. I would suspect that there is a way to close it but that is out of the area that I usually perform administrative tasks. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to tell you that It was an unwanted nomination. He did not even know the criteria for featured topic. Two of her articles are not even GAs. That's why I did not nominated it befor. But, that user nominated without thinking anything. Please help me as I dont want its history to get ruined again. Plus, there is a violation of law. So, you can delete it. Right?—Prashant 17:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Prashant!: First off: There is no precedent (that I am aware of) for deleting nominations like this, if anything, they are closed early with the closing administrator leaving a note why it was closed. This is why I suggest you leave a note on the nomination page. Secondly: The "history" should not be ruined from an unwanted nomination, this seems like a bit of an exaggeration. Thirdly: There is no "law" that is applicable here, what I suspect you are referring to is a guideline. I suggest that you make a request at WP:ANI where an administrator with more experience can address this. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 : @Prashant!: I was following up on this request, and on the page in question, an editor refers you to WP:OWN where it says "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone", and goes on to say "Similarly, by submitting your allow others to challenge and develop them.". I encourage you to read this as well. Additionally, if somebody nominated my article for WP:FA status, I would sincerely be flattered; who cares who nominates it? It means that somebody other than yourself thinks it is good. If it is not yet good, take the comments from the failed FA, use them to make the article better and resubmit. Your fears seem to be over exaggerated here, and you seem to be more worried about "being the one who nominated" than "being the one who wrote the content" Hope this helpsChrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


If a user wishes to remove warnings from their page or discussion unless it's related to an ongoing block they can remove at anytime and normally we won't restore it. If you check WP:BLANKING it acknowledges they read it even if they don't Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Hell in a Bucket: I understand the policy on "blanking", and there is also a time for WP:IAR. At the core of this is an obvious misunderstanding, and a frustrated editor, and several editors who want to reach out to them. Their talk page had no warnings, it was blanking actual good faith attempts to help resolve the issue out of what is presumed frustration (not an attempt to "remove warnings"), and this goal of the community is echoed by another editor posted a response immediately after I did. Additionally, the page was blanked in the middle of a comment that I was leaving that required the rest of the content to provide context. Should the editor choose to blank it after the comment that I left, I have no issue with that. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
KK good enough for me didn't know if you did it without knowing or had a reason. I hope they take the advice 8). Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hell in a Bucket:, @Prashant!:I agree, I hate to see a good editor get frustrated, I have been there before, and have been at the point where I was ready to quit so I empathize What frustrates me though is how potentially negative that attitude is to the overall project. It should be celebrated that an article or topic that you worked hard on got nominated for featured status! If it fails, it should be celebrated that you got others eyes on it in the community, and that the community provided resources (via peer review) that will enable it to be made better as a whole. It is arrogant to say "I do not want community review" because it will "ruin the article." All that does is serve to separate an editor from the community that they operate in, and not in a positive way. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Didn't realize you were admin lol. Hadn't seen your name around so I had a belly laugh about my reference to WP:BLANKING Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: Yea, I have been an admin for a "few days"*, I generally avoid doing that (reverting a blanking) , but I was in the middle of writing something and got edit conflicted with the blanking. I know that the editor was frustrated and lashing out so I finished writing was I was going to write. . (Note: * "a few" refers to 3 or more) Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Brian Lyn[edit]

Hi. Why did you delete the article Brian Lyn? He is an Olympian, all of which are notable. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Lugnuts: Let me look into it, I will get right back to you. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. WP:NOLYMPICS explains the notabilty if you're not familar with it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I mistakenly thought that they had to have medaled. I will undelete it. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lugnuts: Yes check.svg Done Sorry about that! I delete hundreds of articles, and every now and then one slips through the cracks. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem - thanks! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Yu[edit]

I wish to contest deletion of this article which I created. However, I have not been given this opportunity as it was deleted soon after any notice was given. Reportoning (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Reportoning: I will look into it and get back to you. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Reportoning: I have reviewed the deletion, and stand by the G11 criteria for speedy deletion of this article for the following reason. While the article does cite a reliable source, I searched through it for anything to support the language which in the deleted article says "He has cultivated a reputation as a feared menace to publicly listed companies with reporting irregularities" This prose is not encyclopedic in nature, it is written in a way that promotes or advertises the individual in question, and is clearly biased. You are welcome to recreate the article, but I encourage you to do so in as a draft (e.g. at User:Reportoning/draft. Once you are done, you can get me to review it, and if it passes muster, I will be glad to move it to the article space. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I came here to see whether the user had asked for this to be undeleted. Although the wording needs to be made more neutral, the article did cite two articles in reliable sources all about the subject: the Daily Telegraph one and a Financial Times one. I also found this in Bloomberg from 2014. (Also, while WP:OTHERSTUFF applies, the article on the company is much worse.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of[edit]

I would like to make a complaint on your speedy deletion of article. The author haven't been warned about the lacks of this article and had no chance to reconstruct it into a better form. I ask you to allow him to edit the article or to save the work of him in some form. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActimelPL (talkcontribs) 21:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @ActimelPL: I have reviewed the article in question, and stand by my deletion according to Wikipedias A7 criteria for speedy deletion. Wikipedia is not a place for a listing of every company that provides a service of some sort, it is meant to host encyclopedic content that meets a threshold of notability for inclusion. The article in question provides nothing of the sort, and as far as I can see, the only expansion to the article would be promotional in nature, which would possibly make it qualify for G11 criteria for speedy deletion. You are welcome to create a draft article at User:ActimelPL/draft to try and make an article that will meet the criteria laid out above, but based on what I have seen, it is unlikely that it will meet the criteria. Hope this helps. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 23:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Riad Bajić[edit]

I wish to contest deletion of this article which I created, Riad Bajić is a professionally footballer for the biggest pro football club in Bosnia-Herzegovina, FK Željezničar Sarajevo, he was also called up to the Recent call-ups but withdrew due to injury. Bosnalopta

Distributed Collaborative Organization[edit]

This term was not invented/coined/discovered by me, or by anyone I know. It is a new form of company, and while it may not be popular yet, it is growing. But more importantly, it is quite significant, because a DCO is neither a "for profit" or a "non-profit" model, but a new "bottom up" model that distributes the value of an organization among all of the people who use and contribute to the organization. It is entirely new, and only possible with recent technology developments such as the blockchain (the tech used by BitCoin). If you let the page live for a few days, I will ask those in the community to contribute a more thorough and cited entry. Then if you think it's still not worthy of an entry yet, I will understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

First off, I did not tag your article with A11 tag, that was @Ahecht:, I just performed the deletion. Secondly, in the absence of any reliable sources (which there is not a single citation in the article), statements such as "The term was coined at a legal summit ..." indicate that it was in fact recently made up. If there is a scholarly publication, a news story, or some other reliable 3rd party source that provides coverage of this, you are welcome to re-create the article using these references as the foundation. Otherwise, what you are writing about may be considered Original Research, which directly violates the wikipedia policy of No original research. Hope this helps. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 23:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Herman Laatsman[edit]

Bonjour Chris,

A. The biography of this personality was deleted from the encyclopedia on the motive: G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement. I did see the notice for speedy deletion and answered immediately on the talk page of the article to this argument and to the others that were raised. No answer were produced during the days following my answer.

1/ This publication could not infringe a copyright licence because I was the original author of the previous publication and this publication had no exclusive rights.

2/ The small part of the previous publication which had been reproduced in the deleted biography was a public explanatory memorandum issued by Harry Truman, President of the United States, explaining why he had decided to honor Herman Laatsman by giving him the Medal of Freedom Silver Palms. Such public acts usually does not bear copyrights and can be freely reproduced.

B. Other motives were wrongly used to justify a deletion:

1/ The biography did not concern a living person: Herman Laatsman died in 1976.

2/ The biography did not contain "no reference": 19 footnotes had been provided to credit the facts displayed and several links had been inserted.

Could you please reexamine the decision taken. If other difficulties are raised a posteriori I will be glad to solve those. But I would be grateful to adopt a positive attitude. This biography concerns the Commander of the French Section of Dutch Paris Escape line - which saved the lives of more than 1000 people, including more than 100 allied airmen, during WWII. Concerning those airmen, Winston Churchill once wrote: "Never was so much owed by so many to so few".

The Commander paid very heavily for his fight for freedom. He was arrested, tortured and deported to one of the worst Nazi concentration camp (Buchenwald).

Merci d'advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alain.souloumiac (talkcontribs) 02:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi Chris, you have recently deleted the Deveo page based on section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Since the source that was referred to was a wiki with a GNU GPL v2 license, I thought it was okay to copy the article facts. I have since examined the compatible license more closely and realize that it is not. As such, I would like to ask you if it would be possible to reinstate the article or return it to me as a draft so that I can address the issue? Unfortunately, I had missed the speedy deletion contention. InfoByTom (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)