User talk:Chrislk02: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Jul - Oct - 2006; Nov - Dec - 2006; Jan - Feb - 2007; Mar - Apr - 2007; May - Jun - 2007; Jul - Aug - 2007; Sep - Dec - 2007; Jan - Feb - 2008; Mar - Apr - 2008; May - Jun - 2008; Jul - Aug - 2008; Sep - Oct - 2008; Nov - Dec - 2008; Jan - Feb - 2009; Mar - Apr - 2009; May - Jun - 2009; Jun - Dec - 2009; Jan - Jun - 2010; Jul - Dec - 2010; Jan - Dec - 2011; Jan - Dec - 2012; Jan - Dec - 2013; Jan - Dec - 2014; Jan - May - 2015; Jun - Dec - 2015; Jan - ??? - 2016; ;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:34, 28 May 2015

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

Band (Band Article Deletion FAQ)

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)[reply]

Deletion review for Jewish terror in Israel

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)[reply]

Daniel Yu

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)[reply]

@Reportoning: I will look into it and get back to you. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: I suggest a re-write. The article was only a few lines long, and those lines were mostly written in extremely promotional prose. You are welcome to write the article in an appropriate tone, as I have no disagreement that this individual would most likely pass the general notability guidelines for inclusion. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Nanobit.pro

I would like to make a complaint on your speedy deletion of Nanobit.pro 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 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Riad Bajić

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

@Bosnalopta: I deleted your article because it qualified for Wikipedias G4 requirements for speedy deletion. More specifically, this article went through an articles for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riad Bajić) where there was a community consensus to delete. You are welcome to take it to WP:DRV, but unless something has significantly changed in the career of this individual since the AFD discussion cited above, it is likely to be upheld. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Collaborative Organization

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 77.249.57.190 (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deveo

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)[reply]

@InfoByTom: I am looking into this, I will get back to you shortly. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@InfoByTom: I went to review the article in question, and I stand by the deletion. I am particularly concerned about A7 criteria for speedy deletion (which was not tagged at time of deletion but still applies). In this case, the article does not assert notability? Why is this product notable? What makes it encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not designed to be a repository of software products, but a repository of encyclopedic information? In its current form, not only is there significant overlap with content that is not compatible license wise, the content itself is also not up to par with Wikipedias standards. Do you have any reliable 3rd party sources that you can use as a reference? (note, content that is user contributed, or from sites associated with this product generally do not qualify?). If so, feel free to post a few of them here, and I can help you get started re-writing the article as a draft based on these sources. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rockhouse Partners

Hello Chris,

Thanks for your attention at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The community is proud of you. However, am aware of your recent deletion of the above article per A7. The criterion does not applies to article with assertion of notability but I have no prejudice against its deletion through WP:AfD if its notability is in doubt. I think the article is likely to survive AfD anyway. I found Reuters and Billboard to mention few. Could you please restore the page? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: When I deleted it under the A7 criteria for speedy deletion, I also felt that it was possible G11 as well, although it was not tagged as such. Nowhere in the article does it say what is notable about the organization itself apart from the organizations it services, and am reluctant to infer notability based on an "impressive client list" or every contractor and small organization that, say, provides services for google or amazon, may have an "Assertion of notability". I do understand that this is a fine line, and in this case, upon further inspection of the references, only 3/4 of them or so link to the site of the organization in question, and a few of them seem to be external sources. To err on the side of caution I have un-deleted the referenced article per your concern, but do not entirely agree with you. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 23:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the page. However, am not in any way insinuating that it passes WP:GNG but my concern is on the deletion per A7. I really have no prejudice against its deletion through WP:AfD if its notability is still in doubt. I believe that subject of an article does not necessarily need to claim, for example that " this company won 5 award this year"..., the company is the leading service provider in Europe..., this company is notable because..." to assert notability. Am not trying to pick anything negative from your use of admin tool or comment, in fact you are one of the admins I so much respected and it will be very stupid of me to assumed that you are unfamiliar with the use of A7 and I understand that you delete hundreds of pages on a weekly basis. Meanwhile, out of 1000 pages deletion per week or month, we are likely to wrongly delete about 0.001% which amount to about 1 of 1000, which I will consider reasonable. Perhaps this is 1 out of 1000 even 5000 pages you had deleted this year. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: After another review, I agree it was a borderline (IMHO) A7 case (especially after I realized all the citations were not to the organizations site). I will respectfully disagree, and say that I think it is incredibly important for an article to "assert notability" as soon as possible in the introduction, (e.g. explicitly state that it is the largest provider in in a geographic area, and provide citations to support it). Once this notability has been "asserted" (explicitly expressed) the rest of the article should then expand upon that assertion, provide additional evidence, and other minor assertions of notability. Otherwise, a reader is left to "imply" notability, and they may (rightfully or wrongfully) infer notability for the fact that it is included in Wikipedia. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think care and diligent is necessary at times in dealing with pages with no obvious claim of significance. I usually try to look for sources that assert notability before considering such article for deletion. I realized that articles on notable topics with no obvious claim of significant are usually created by New editors and inappropriate nomination and deletion of such page could discourage them yet I frown at spammers on spot, they are nothing but WP:MOSQUITOES. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: I respectfully agree with everything you said above! Personally, I have been trying to find ways to make sure that I am more reliable as an administrator who performs a large number of deletions on a regular basis, and do not want to WP:BITE Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You are such an amazing administrator! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: Not sure if you are interested or not, but this ended up at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockhouse Partners. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion: List of deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter

Hello Chrislk02, I see you deleted the above article per G4, being "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s. However, I would contest that the article is actually not identical, and is improved. At the AFD of the first list, closing admin noted that other users ... have suggested that this topic be covered at Black Lives Matter, which is what was done. Furthermore, there is an additional column in the table, called Link, for the list you deleted. In this column, there are two source, one primary, one secondary, linking each death to Black Lives Matter. This is present in List of deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter and not in List of controversial killings of African Americans in the 2010s. Therefore, I request that you restore the page. Thank you. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: In the case of this deletion, I viewed the deleted content and the lists, and a huge portion was word for word from the deleted content. I am not opposed to you finding another administrator who is willing to undelete it (and you can link them to this reply in the request), it was just too much like what was deleted (entire blocks were word for word copies). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have done so. I don't object that a lot of content is exactly the same. I just don't think that's a valid reason for deletion, because the subject of the article is being framed differently. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part of what I do at CAT:CSD is try to stay separate from the topics I am deleting (to the extent that I can). I try to avoid using rationales such as "it is framed in a different light" on topics I am unfamiliar with, and instead, leave that to editors who are more familiar with the topic. In this case, the content was sufficiently identical and I am not familiar with the topic at hand. Again, feel free to find someone more familiar who is comfortable with un-deleting it, I will have no hard feelings. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dont want the deleted article to be shown in google search, Radium Exports

You have rightly deleted the article page on Radium Exports 13:30, 27 May 2015 Chrislk02 (talk | contribs) deleted page Radium Exports (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

I dont want the deleted page to be shown in the google search results of Radium Exports.

Please guide me how do i untag it

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha Shah Radium (talk • contribs) 10:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Neha Shah Radium: I am honestly unsure of how to do that, I suggest that you ask at the Village Pump (Technical), they may have some more insight into this. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Neha shah Radium: In addition to Chris's suggestion, you may contact Google here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia has no control over Google. But you probably shouldn't worry about this. It can take a day or two before a deleted article disappears from their search engines. In the meantime, if someone sees that in a Google search and clicks on it, all they get is a notice that the page has been deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bertho Driever

I will be appealing the speedy deletion of Bertho Driever and request that the page be preserved until I do so. I thought I'd submitted evidence about why this entry should be left as is, but I now understand that you are looking for something other than notability. I will research that and try to address your unstated specific concerns. Theodulf 13:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodulf (talk • contribs)

@Theodulf: I am looking in to this and will get back to you shortly. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Theodulf: I have reviewed the deleted content, and it was deleted because there was not a single reliable source provided to verify notability. Can you provide me a link to any? I will be glad to undelete it in that case. Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for Public Participation

Thanks for speedy deleting this! I had restored it per user request, intending to put it in their userspace for them to work on it. But I didn't notice that the original article was a copyvio, which meant I should not have restored it. Thanks for catching it so quickly. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: NP! I had been getting sloppy with my WP:G12 deletions (not actually looking into the copy vio report) and accidentally deleted some false positives. To help myself be more thorough, I have started trying to indicate the significance of the copy vio after inspection. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: Oh, and thanks for the positive note! I spend a lot of time at CAT:CSD, and most of my "new messages" are "how dare you delete my article about some business I started yesterday that I am the CEO, CIO, CTO and bag boy for", it is always appreciated to get a positive note! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Actually I appreciated the fact that you covered for me. I have only been an admin for a few months and I make some greenhorn mistakes. Still learning. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: I did the exact same thing (restored an article to the user space that turned out to be a 99% copy vio) User:Mthiesse/draft Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know I'm not the first. I'll probably make every mistake in the book before I'm done. --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting speedy deletion of Aquantia Corporation

It's a privately-held $160-million-funding (http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2014/03/17/semiconductor-company-aquantia-raises-16m-says-its-preparing-for-ipo/) company; fastest-growing semiconductor company in North America in 2014 (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20141113006234/en/Aquantia-Ranks-Fastest-Growing-Semiconductor-Company-North), likely to IPO soon, which manufactures fairly generally used chips. Isn't that enough for notability?

(I created the page when chasing through the ownership-web around Avago and finding that, on the PLX page, certain assets had been sold to a company without a Wikipedia page)

Fivemack (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fivemack: let me look into it and I will get back to you shortly. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fivemack: I deleted it under the WP:A7 criteria, but it also seems that WP:G11 also applies. 1.) WP:A7 The article makes no assertion of notability that is intelligible to an average reader of this project, and that is not promotional. Additionally, there are no reliable sources provided to back up any of the assertions that are made. 2.) WP:G11 (unlisted in deletion description but applicable). This article is full of technical specifics and jargon that compare it to its competitors (e.g. "allowed them to manufacture 90 nm transceivers with comparable power efficiency to the competitions' 65 nm"). You are welcome to try and write an article that will be up to par, but I encourage you to do so as a draft (say user:Fivemack/draft and start with as may reliable sources as you can find. I hope this helps. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fivemack/Aquantia_Corporation better? Fivemack (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fivemack: yes, much. I moved it into the article space. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Westmont Montessori School

I was creating an entry for The Westmont Montessori School and it was deleted. After reviewing the reason for its deletion, I completely understand what I did wrong. (This is obviously my first time trying to do this). Can I edit the page and have it relisted?

Thanks! --Mthiesse (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Melanie--Mthiesse (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mthiesse: I am going to look into this, I will likely move it to User:Mthiesse/draft so you can work on it unless I find any other problems with it that will prevent me from doing that. If you want help/a review of what you have written to determine if it is more appropriate, please feel free to let me know. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mthiesse: I have moved it to the draft link above. I offer the following suggestions if you would not like it to be deleted in the future. 1.) Find as many reliable3rd party sources (a news story, etc. NOTE, links to your organizations website is insufficient). 2.) Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement or promotion of services, even for schools. Ensure that any content that is there can be traced to a reliable source, and that the content is appropriate for an encyclopdia. I will follow up on this in a few days to a week, and if there is no significant progress, I will most likely delete it again as in its current form, it is written in a promotional manner that is not appropriate for wikipedia. Hope this helps. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mthiesse: You appear to have entirely ignored this advice. You made some edits, but didn't add any sources, and then published it again. As a result, I've put it up for speedy deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I started working on it before I read your note. I just added a source from a local paper for the school history. Does that help? Mthiesse (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to republish it, but I did not see a button to save my work only. Mthiesse (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mthiesse: The draft was at User:Mthiesse/draft, you must have intentionally moved it to The Westmont Montessori School. You should have been working on it at User:Mthiesse/draft, like was advised above. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I started trying to edit it before I saw the link above. Now it appears that the link above is not able to be edited. So should I attempt to edit on the page again to provide more citations and links? That is what the page is telling me to do. Mthiesse (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrislk02: I added more citations and links to the page. I hope this helps its entry. Again, I am sorry for my novice mistakes and I hope that the page is now acceptable. Thanks. Mthiesse (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mthiesse: At this point, it is not up to me as an articles for deletion request has been started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Westmont Montessori School. You should go there, and make your case for why this school is notable using the strongest reliable sources that you can locate. Be sure to indicate that you are the author in your note. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New version of Circle Research

andydalg Hi Chris - have edited the circle research page so hopefully meets the guidelines now. Do let me know if not and I'll have another bash. Thanks. — Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Andydalg: that looks better. (P.S. please use the wikipedia signature functionality to sign your posts!) Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris - appreciate your time Andydalg (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buffy Summers House 2.jpg

AMCsoldier Hi Chris - I've been trying to remove my picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buffy_Summers_House_2.jpg) from some time now but can't figure out how. I noticed you recently removed my "speedy deletion" formatting on the picture's page. Would you be able to assist me in using the proper formatting to produce a speedy deletion? Thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@AMCsoldier: the correct tag would be the db-g7 template for speedy deletion which you can read about at WP:G7. I will go ahead and delete this on your request after I ensure that it is appropriate to do so. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AMCsoldier: done. In the future, please login before making requests such as that, it was rejected (among other reasons) because it appeared that an unregistered user was making the request. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Deroo

Why did you delte Sam Deroo page? DariaPolonia (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DariaPolonia: let me look into it and I will get back to you shortly. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DariaPolonia: The user who create it had been suspected of using multiple accounts (e.g. sock puppetry) and was blocked earlier today. In the case of that, when no other editor has contributed to it, it can be deleted. In this case, I did not look close enough at the edit history to see that you had contributed to it, so I have undeleted it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, you have to delete all pages created by this user? Oh, it so much work. I see you had to delete a few more pages about volleyball players, so I have to recreated them. Thank you for your answer! DariaPolonia (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DariaPolonia: you are welcome to re-create them. If you see any new editors that mysteriously appear and start editing like the banned editor, give me a heads up, it is a common thing to occur after a sock puppet gets blocked. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contest Speedy Deletion of Edward James, III

I would like to make a complaint on your speedy deletion of Edward James III. The author wasn't 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. I just need time to edit the wording. Thank you in advance.

Kaydiddy35 (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 160: / Line 160: @@
 * So, you have to delete all pages created by this user?  Oh, it so much work. I see you had to delete a few more pages about volleyball players, so I have to recreated them. Thank you for your answer! [[User:DariaPolonia|DariaPolonia]] ([[User talk:DariaPolonia|talk]]) 22:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 *{{mention|DariaPolonia}} you are welcome to re-create them.  If you see any new editors that mysteriously appear and start editing like the banned editor, give me a heads up, it is a common thing to occur after a sock puppet gets blocked. [[User:Chrislk02|<font color="1E90FF">'''Chris'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Chrislk02|<font color="4169E1">'''lk02'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Chrislk02|<font color="2A52BE">Chris Kreider</font>]]</sup> 20:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
+== [[Contest Speedy Deletion of Edward James, III]] ==
+I would like to make a complaint on your speedy deletion of [[Edward James III]]. The author wasn't 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. I just need time to edit the wording. Thank you in advance.
+[[User:Kaydiddy35|Kaydiddy35]] ([[User talk:Kaydiddy35|talk]]) 20:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)