User talk:Just Chilling/Archive 9

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

AIV

Hello, just to let you know, I rolled back your mistake on AIV, as you removed two legitimate reports by accident. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I was having problems with my cache. Just Chilling (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A page where revisions cannot be viewed

I have discovered that there was some intense vandalism on the page for Antia Sarkeesian, which dates back to June of 2012. I wanted to take a view of it myself, but when I came across the date of 6 June 2012, much of it was crossed out, rendering it unable to be viewed. Is there any reason why any article would have it this way? Is removing a certain version by date a task that only admins can do? (Please respond on my talk page) Kittygirl7878 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nbenoit1960

This user has agreed to stop adding links to their own site if unblocked. OK with you if I unblock them? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's fine :-) Just Chilling (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Blood Donors of America and Blood donors of America

it is very unfortunate that a page related with 'Blood donors of America' is removed. It is a tax exempted voluntary organization which helps to save the life of the people.would you please let me know why it is deleted.This is one of the ideal example of the article to be published in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Febnin (talk • contribs) 02:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly a highly worthy organisation but to gain a page in Wikipedia the organisation must meet our notability standards. Initially see WP:ORG, WP:RS and WP:CITE. In the case of the incarnation of the page that I deleted, it had no independent sources and was promotional rather than taking a balanced view of the organisation. Just Chilling (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We have been trying for the last 5 months. we keep on uploading and you guys keep on removing. It is really unfortunate. However, we will try our best to edit as per your suggestion. I would like to do within a week. I beleive it will not be too late for review. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.69.48 (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No Ripcord

Hi Just Chilling. I saw your name appearing at what's left of No Ripcord, in relation to a page deletion you made a few dates ago. I've cobbled together some information on No Ripcord and I'd like to have a go at writing an article (aware that previous attempts have not satisfied guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia). Thing is, I can't see how to start the article – for instance, I have an account and I'm logged in, yet there seems no way to call up the usual (blank) content window and begin writing text on the subject, let alone submit it. Maybe I'm missing something here … Would you happen to know how one goes about this? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, that page had been deleted three times so it is now protected against recreation except by a Sysop. The way forward is to develop the article at User:JG66/No Ripcord and, when you consider that it meets our notability guidelines, contact me, or another Admin, and we will move it across to main space. Just Chilling (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A-ha, thanks for that. I'll get in touch as and when. It's not exactly a priority, just that their reviews are recognised by Metacritic, and I can't think of any similar music magazine or website that doesn't have a presence on Wikipedia. (Although, I concede that that in itself is not enough to merit an article!) I'll probably look for some input from editors at WP albums also. Thanks again. JG66 (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Page rename

Are you able to rename pages? If so, the page Day of the Dead (Hollywood Undead Song) should be renamed "Day of the Dead (song)", as there's no other (mildly recognized) song under that name "Day of the Dead". Please respond on my talk page. Kittygirl7878 (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A bunch of protected redirects

Hi. Several years ago, you fully protected the following redirects:

• Hwando fortress
• Hwando (fortress)
• Hwando
• Hwando Sanseong
• Hwando Seong
• Hwandoseong
• Hwandosanseong

I'd like to ask you to unprotect them or at least reduce them to semi-protection, so that editors like me and bots can do maintenance on the pages. (In particular, the listed pages are currently double redirects, and need to be fixed.) Thank you for your consideration. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Gosh!; that was over 7 years ago! All reduced to semi-protection. :-) Just Chilling (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful Loser

Hi. I could cut and paste this article, but it's a new editor who has gone through the AfC process, and I want to give him the credit for creating the article, as well as the "thrill" of getting it "accepted". Thanks for understanding. Onel5969 (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK, done. Just Chilling (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, mate! Onel5969 (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Zuchon

Hi! You declined my speedy nomination of Zuchon as G4. There's something that doesn't add up here: the page was copy-pasted (without attribution) from here, where the references have an access date of 20 or 21 October 2009 – just as they do in the current version of the article. That FullWiki page is an acknowledged Wikipedia mirror; I can't see how it could be mirroring anything other than the article that was deleted. Could I ask you to look at this again? If the article is to be kept then I believe the history of the previous version will need to be hist-merged into it, right? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Histmerged. Just Chilling (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. As I suspected, the content of the recently-created page is nearly identical to that of the version that was deleted, as this diff shows. I'm sorry, but I just can't see why you declined this as a G4 – it's an article that was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, with trivial changes. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I've found what happened, it wasn't copied from the FullWiki at all, it's been on Wikipedia the whole time: here. Note in particular they are very cute at the foot of the page. What's next? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

To pursue deletion the next step would be to take it back to WP:AFD. Just Chilling (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's an option. However, before I do that, may I ask if you are prepared to acknowledge that you made a mistake here? Because if so, would it not be more appropriate to restore the speedy tag to the page with an edit summary along the lines of "declined in error, page is eligible as nominated"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You will have noted that several editors have worked on the article since it was recreated. It is now significantly different from the deleted version, with additional sources, so whether it should have been speedy deleted is now moot. Speedy deletion is deletion without process and should only be carried out in clear-cut cases. Certainly, with the additional sources, it is not now eligible for speedy deletion. The article now must stand on its own merits and if you consider that that it is not notable then AFD is the place for this to be determined. Just Chilling (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Morkie

Hi, could you please explain the undeletion of Morkie, which had been previously deleted in connection with a deletion discussion? I don't see any discussions on undeletion, but please let me know if I'm missing something. The restored article has been nominated for speedy deletion again, so it might be good to provide an explanation on the talk page. Thanks. —Verrai 19:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This article has not been undeleted. What happened was that it was recreated as a copy'n'paste, here, so I carried out a history merge to preserve attribution as per our CC licence. Thus far it has carried a speedy tag for over 2 days and no admin had been prepared to speedy delete it. I am guessing but one reason may be the nature of the previous AFD that was a bulk nomination with a brief discussion that did not overtly discuss the merits of the sourcing of the constituent articles. Just Chilling (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Etian

It's unfortunate the page "Etian" being deleted, with note "Article is only a name explanation, without serving as a disambiguation page for notable people of the same name. Only reference is to a baidu, which is not a reliable source". I am a Professor and a Ph.D. in Language Technologies, and I created this page for well justified reason. Baidu is like Google in China and on NASDAQ(http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/bidu).　The story about Etian Sword (倚天剑）is well know among Chinese. The book "倚天屠龙记“ is an extremely popular book in China.I found your claim "Baidu" is unreliable" unacceptable. I have concerns that you may not know about China or have potential random personal bias when handing this case. Please notice that unnoticeable random bias could become systematic bias, and I hope you can understand the diversity of the world and respect other culture when serving as an administrator for wikipedia. This maybe a "spam" page for you, however, it's an important page for people whose name is "Etian" and there is a beautiful Chinese story behind it! Please restore the original page! FYI, here is the English page for the story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heaven_Sword_and_Dragon_Saber (Heaven Sword is called Etian [yi'tian'] Sword or Heaven Reliant Sword (倚天劍) in Chinese). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiz76 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 February 2015‎

The page was deleted as an expired Prod - see WP:PROD for an explanation. The comment was by the Prodding editor not by me. At your request the page has been restored. Just Chilling (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Katie Nolan

Why was this page Katie Nolan deleted? http://espn.go.com/espnw/athletes-life/blog/post/14195/standing-ovation-katie-nolan-stance-ray-rice-situation http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/katie-nolan-finally-getting-fox-sports-1-show.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmartin17 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you need to discuss this with Admin FreeRangeFrog who deleted it. Just Chilling (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Zander Mahaffey

Why was the page for Zander Mahaffey? It says it was deleted by you because "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Zander was a young transgender boy who committed suicide. You may not see it as important but to many other people it is, myself included.

A 15 year old boy committed suicide because of his abusive mother and mother's friend. He deserves to have a page in rememberance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieFe (talk • contribs) 12:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this was undoubtedly a very sad situation. However, individuals must meet our notability standards to merit an article and though this person and his tragic death was naturally very important to those who knew him the events would not justify an article here - see WP:BIO. We do not, I regret, create articles in remembrance - see WP:Memorial and WP:BLP1E. Just Chilling (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Leelah Alcorn and other trans youths who have killed themselves have pages. Why not Zander? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasa (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Every article has reasons for and against existence but we are dealing with this one on its own merits. Just Chilling (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

666bet

You contested the deletion of this page? You feel it has enough attention to be a wiki page. I agree, it certaintly wasn't written to be autobiographical. I think there are not enough pages with content around gambling companies on wiki it would be good to increase this. The other page I created Metro Play, its owned by 666bet but I guess it hasn't got as many articles.

Could you may be help me with the referencing on the 666bet page? I am stuck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lradford98 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, if you carry out a search on Google News you will find many articles on various aspects of their activities. Just Chilling (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding ILana Martin page

I recently started writing a Wikipedia article of ILana Martin. I meant to create a article under my scrapbook to work on which would have appeared nerdypunkkid/ILana Martin but forgot to put the / and ended up created a article on the main page. Thank you for catching this and correcting. Nerdypunkkid (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, do you want me to userfy the page to User:Nerdypunkkid/ILana Martin? Just Chilling (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Islam in Israel and the Palestinian territories

See Talk:Islam in Israel#Split.--Peaceworld 19:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Rochdale Super League

Hi, I am trying to set up a page for a Football League in which I follow and spectate. I don't have anything to do with the league myself, but would love the opportunity to create a page for this spectacular league. When trying to set it up, it says that it has recently been deleted and to contact yourself as you deleted it. Please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattr2015 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, a good starting point to identify whether your league meets our notability criteria is WP:NONPROFIT. Just Chilling (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

ISM 360 Is Back

They recreated it again, with the exact same edit pattern. It's already been deleted twice, and I've tagged it again. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It has been dealt with and salted by RHaworth (talk · contribs). No further action is needed. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ginnie Watson

Alas, I was addressing the issues with the Ginnie Watson page you deleted yesterday but unable to complete the action. I was writing at c.2100 [UTC +0100], when my device went flat! And so was unable to continue. I believe the article is indeed justified. Ginnie Watson is an actress and voice-over artist in the same vein as Jen Taylor , who has her own page on Wikipedia. She has a professional public footprnt across a mix of media, and as well as being the UK-English voice of Microsoft Cortana - her voice s also available to access in the US and Canada - , she has also voiced other 'online' characters. Including in the popular game Heavy Rain. References/citations are also pending and will follow re proof of the claims made in the article. Saying this, I would like to kndly request that the page be reassigned to its Wikipedia location. I note the subject matter was determined notable by other wikipedia editors. Please excuse the rushed response and keep up the good work. Best. Dbmover — Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have restored the article at User:Dbmover/Ginnie Watson to enable you to develop it. At present it does not come close to meeting our notability standards; see WP:FIRST, WP:BIO and WP:RS. The Cortana mention needs a reliable source to be included. HTH. Just Chilling (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed JC. Thanks for the feedback. Will address accordingly ASAP. MO. Dbmover (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Santosh K. Mehrotra

As you have declined speedy deletion for references have been improved, please move the article to the original salted title Santosh Mehrotra.  SAMI  ^talk 11:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. Just Chilling (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Big Smoke Burger

Hi, I am still feeling my way around what qualifies for CSD and I am looking for some feedback on this one. I'd like to understand what the indication of importance was in Big Smoke Burger that caused you to reject the proposal? I've actually eaten at one of their stores, the burgers are good but there's nothing in the four-line article that suggests importance of any kind, and I don't think it clears WP:CORPDEPTH as the two articles (from very reliable sources) do nothing but indicate a company sells food in multiple countries. I'm happy to go the AfD route but I though this was a slam-dunk for CSD. Thanks Walkabout14 (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, because speedy deletion is deletion without consensus it is reserved for the obvious cases of articles that have no business to be on WP. The bar to avoid speedy deletion, therefore, is significantly below the threshold of notability. In this case this is a chain with international reach that has substantial profiles in national press, e.g. here. A Google search should always be carried out before nomination and WP:BEFORE contains useful advice. HTH. Just Chilling (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Walkabout14 (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Civitatis International Page

Hi, thanks for accepting my suggestion to protect the page from vandalism, as you can see since my request a few hours ago there have been dozens of deletions of information and vandalism on this page by users who I suspect are sockpuppts. At the time of your protection the page had been significantly vandalized again after my request, could you please restore the page to its status at the time of request of protection?, where it looked quite good and full of useful referenced information? The organisation concerned works with Ambassadors and governments and is clearly being attacked on its wikipage, its got some pretty notable people involved too: the status of the page at the time of the request was at 00:38, 15 March 2015‎ Orbitalwatcher (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,168 bytes) (+11,458)‎ . . (Undid vandalism by known vandal user: redpenofdoom) users redpenofdoom, mcmatter, jospeh2302 I suspect these users are acting in concert to vandalise and from the history have been doing so a few months ago on the page, if not actually to be a one person sock. The vandalising users claim there are no valid sources, but they infact are seen to be deleting the sources on the page citing Government sources referencing the organisation. Given the circumstances and the sustained nature of vicious attacks on it by the same users over several months perhaps this page should be repaired and fully protected? What do you think?Orbitalwatcher 01:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, since I protected the page Admin Risker has reduced the period of protection. I regret having to pass you to someone else but I think that the last admin to address an article is best placed to take subsequent actions. The system will automatically alert Risker to this conversation. Just Chilling (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Just Chilling; I had the page open while I completed an SPI, and added the semi-protection as I was closing the case. Your semi-protection was put in place during that time, and I missed it. I have returned the duration of the semi-protection to one month. The relevant SPI is here. Risker (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah; many thanks for that link so, consequently, I will take no action on the request. Orbitalwatcher can, if they so wish, make their point on the article talk page. Just Chilling (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I dont think its up to me to edit the page as you guys are admins with authority to protect a page from vandalism, while the page is being vandalised by the users I named to you before it is pointless to add anything to the talk page, which they also delete. Would it not be a good idea to restore the original content informative content of the page, or do you think its content full of attacks as it stands now gives a complete and fair description of the organisation? thanks Orbitalwatcher (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Anne Beckwith Johnson

The majority of the article, Anne Beckwith Johnson is not cited by in-line sources. The only sourced statements were that she wrote a book (Home is Where the Bus Is), had articles published in local newspapers and national journals, and led a writing workshop. As the book was the only fact relevant to the target page, Vernon O. Johnson, that was the only content I merged [1]. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the sourcing structure of the page is poor but the desirable end product is that the merged article should give the key information about ABJ and the role that she played. Though the sources are not inline, they are in the article and there is enough there to support a proper merge. If you are not content then the way forward is put your preferred option on the talk page to canvass more views. Just Chilling (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy Gomarsall updates

Regarding your Andy Gomarsall update reversal, I refer you to his twitter entry - https://twitter.com/AndyGomarsall/status/576741340635144192 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.29.18 (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope; all that Twitter comment says is that he has played a game at the club. Crucially, it does not say that he played for Old Actonians let alone a competitive game; indeed it seems he actually played for 'ealingtfrugby VETS' (sic). Just Chilling (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out..

Hi, thanks for pointing out my mistake. I nominated tose articles because I thought they were too small and all had two external links which I thought is a way to popularize the website! Kindly point out the guideline which facilitates these kind of articles too! Once again, Thank you! --Jaaron95 01:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaaron95 (talk • contribs)

The guideline is WP:STUB. The external links are actually sources (by definition all sources are also external links). If you consider that the sources are either unreliable or are there to promote a website rather than to verify article content then by all means raise this at WikiProject Lepidoptera for views. Just Chilling (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

George Vanous

I believe this page was unfairly removed. The biggest YouTube network's founder isn't big enough to be on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxdotic (talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your article lacks the necessary independent sources to get close to meeting our notability standards. Useful guidance is contained in WP:BASIC that describes what is required For example, do you have a reliable source that states that Vanous is the founder of the biggest YouTube network? Just Chilling (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The Freedom! Wikipedia page, among numerous articles such as http://blog.hitbox.tv/hitbox-partners-with-global-video-network-leader-freedom/, https://www.freedom.tm/walkthrough/george-vanous-who-is-he, www.georgevanous.com, and many videos on the Freedom! Verified YouTube channel like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bB5bi35PXQ. Please reinstate the page. Maxdotic (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I regret that none of those constitute reliable sources within our use of that term. WP:RS contains much useful information on identifying such sources. Just Chilling (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hammet Cult deletion - next step?

You deleted the Hammet Cult as a G3 blatant hoax per its AfD and tag, as discussed here. Sorry I don't know this, but does the creator get indeffed along with that? User:Weregretnothingdoc was the creator. I came to this from the case at COIN, here, and am wondering where to take the COI issue now. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The article has been deleted and I have warned the user about creating inappropriate pages. That ends that issue unless they create inappropriate pages in the future when stronger action can be taken. The remaining matter is the username and if you wish to pursue that then WP:UAA is the place. Just Chilling (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

the warning is great, thanks. the username notice is on the talk page - that will be for an admin to tackle (which i am not). Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Amos Yee

The deletion log seems to indicate you deleted the talk page of Amos Yee, an article that is live but under debate. I assume this is a glitch? SageGreenRider (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

03:16, 30 March 2015 Just Chilling (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Amos Yee (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

• Aye, what happened? Added a link. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think I fixed it by resaving the last edit. Very strange though. Disturbance in the Force, maybe? SageGreenRider (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• No mystery; I speedy deleted the article and talk page on 30 March and they were recreated the next day. Just Chilling (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Ah okay. Thanks. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

IP addresses

Is it a good idea to leave messages on the talk pages of IP addresses? There's this IP address making unconfirmed edits on the Just Dance 2015 page, and whenever I undo their edits, they undo mine, and someone needs to prove them wrong. Kittygirl7878 (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it is quite normal to leave messages on IP talk pages. However, IP addresses can be used by multiple people so adding the template 'Template:Shared IP advice' is good practice. In this case you are having a content dispute with User:71.233.53.238 so the best way forward is to start a discussion at Talk:Just Dance 2015 to try to obtain a consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

2014-15 Widnes F.C. season

Please restore 2014–15 Widnes F.C. season to User:Dragons9cal/2014-15 Widnes F.C. season. (Dragons9cal (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)).

Hi, the first time that this page was deleted it was userfied to you but you reintroduced the article without fixing the issues that caused the article to be deleted. The consensus is that this club plays at too low a level to automatically merit a season article. Therefore you would need to meet WP:GNG by identifying substantial, reliable independent sources that deal with the season as a whole. I see no point in userfying unless you can show that you can fix the issues identified at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 Widnes F.C. season. What new sources have you found, please? Just Chilling (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have included the club page on the league website -- http://www.nwcfl.com/clubpage.php?id=747 -- this page provides all relevant statistics and fixture results that the article also includes which are both reliable and substantial. Furthermore, the club website -- www.widnesfootballclub.co.uk -- also includes information that is relevant to the article. Please restore the page. (Dragons9cal (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC))

I regret that neither source contributes to notability. Neither the club nor the league websites are independent. What you need to look for is significant textual commentary, on this club's season as a whole in, for example, a national or major regional newspaper or a respected football magazine. Please see WP:GNG and WP:RS. One source of help might be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football where the experts there might be able to help you in identifying the types of sources that may be acceptable. Just Chilling (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Firnas Airways

FYI. Alakzi (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Fancyber

Hi, you deleted Fancyber; could you also delete Draft:Fancyber, Draft talk:Fancyber (redirects), and Template:Fancyber navbox?

Also Special:Contributions/Payatas101 needs to be blocked as a promotion-only account. He doesn't listen to warnings, he has recreated the Fancyber article several times, and in the latest version of the article he deliberately added fake references that were supposed to show notability of the subject but I checked them all out and those pages didn't exist. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, those pages have now all been deleted. My opinion is that the user is not blockable at this stage but I have no objection if you wish to make a case at WP:AIV when an uninvolved admin might view matters differently. Just Chilling (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Indian Cancer Society

hi! i noticed that the page Indian Cancer Society which was just created yesterday, 20th april has been removed. i would like to bring to your notice that we have not completed editing the page and will be soon changing it to a more encyclopedia friendly format. i would request you to unblock the page as its for a good cause. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneet.k28 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the article to User:Navneet.k28/Indian Cancer Society to allow you to develop it. However, even though it is a good cause, it will not survive unless it meets WP:ORG. Much useful advice is contained at WP:FIRST. Just Chilling (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of page Bimal Patel

Hi, I see that the page I created on renowned architect Bimal Patel has been deleted. Could you please explain to me the reason for deletion? Also, I am new to writing on wikipedia, kindly guide me as to what the said article needs in order for it to be of Wikipedia standards? I would like to start afresh and recreate the same page, is that an issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParizadBaria (talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing in the article to show that he is a "renowned architect". To establish this you need to include, for example, major national or international awards, details of significant achievements etc. These need to be reliably sourced - WP:RS. You will find much useful advice at WP:FIRST and WP:BIO. Just Chilling (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the page Draft:Bimal_Patel and let me know what more is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParizadBaria (talk • contribs) 07:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the article is clearly much improved and you have dealt with the grounds for which it was speedy deleted. The page will now likely receive attention from editors with expertise in the field and no doubt comments and contributions will be forthcoming. Just Chilling (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks a lot for ur time and feedback. Much appreciated. Continue with the good guidance! ParizadBaria (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of page Amit Sarda

Hi, I created a page on the founder of a renowed company Soulflower which was founded in 2001 and deals into aroma products, since I couldn't found any information about it at one place, so I created a page for him. This company sells its products thru leading e-commerce websites like amazon, flipkart, snapdeal etc and has its presence in Shoppers Stop PAN India. This person is the core member behind all this expansion. Kindly suggest where did I go wrong ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekmaths (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 April 2015‎

Hi, the article did not credibly demonstrate this person's importance or significance. However, because notability may be possible I have moved it to User:Vivekmaths/Amit Sarda to enable you to develop it. Typically you need to show in depth coverage in reliable sources - WP:RS. You will find much useful advice at WP:FIRST and WP:BIO. Once you have improved the article if you ping me I will move it back to article space. Just Chilling (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Vivekmathsis a sock of the blocked User talk:Soulflower India. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I have deleted User:Vivekmaths/Amit Sarda. Just Chilling (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I have also blocked the user. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Jay Martin

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or

Jay Martin does not end in (disambiguation), there is no primary topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Another admin has removed your G6 as not meeting criteria In ictu oculi (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Not my G6. I simply reinstated the template that was added by another user and was incorrectly removed and I took no position on its merits. Just Chilling (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help clearing out WP:AIV. Your uniquely random block length here made me smile . Have a good day! Cheers, Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Help understanding how wikipedia works

Hey!

I was wondering if you could help me understand how Wikipedia articles work with Google? For instance, when I look up "Charles Correa" on Google, I see a box on the right side of my google search results, which shows information extracted from wikipedia. However, this doesn't happen when I search for "Bimal Patel" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimal_Patel) Infact, this wikipedia page does not even show up in the first few results unless I search "Bimal Patel Wiki/Wikipedia"

Could you please explain what the logic here is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParizadBaria (talk • contribs) 12:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this is a feature of Google not Wikipedia and, consequently, it is outside my expertise. It may, though, be worth asking at WP:PUMPTECH where much technical expertise resides. There is a significant difference between the pages in that Bimal Patel was only created last month but Charles Correa has been around for several years. Just Chilling (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Immediate Deletion of Diyar-e-Dil.

It is necessary to move the page Dayar-e-Dil (which has different spelling) to this page Diyar-e-Dil as it is the original name, hence deleting it is very important as wikipedia never moves an article to another one if it has a past editing history this is only possible if deletion is done. Kindly accept the deleting request to move that page to this one as copy pasting method is discouraged in wikipedia. Sammy.joseph (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Different sources spell this title both ways. Consequently, this is not an uncontroversial page move so you should make the request at WP:RM. Just Chilling (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Your re close of my close of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 24#Autostrada

Regardless of the fact that you are an administrator, you are an WP:INVOLVED party in that discussion, and thus, re-closing the discussion to enforce your opinion was not only improper, but totally uncalled for. You had several alternate options to reach out to me, such as discussing this on my talk page, or nominating the discussion for deletion review. But instead, you chose to abuse your administrative privileges to get an upper hand. Either way, I have re-opened and relisted this discussion, and I hope to never see this behavior happen again. Steel1943 (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I was involved in the discussion I was, of course, in error in re-closing your non-admin close and I accept that. However, you could have addressed me politely and I resent and object to your characterisation that I "chose to abuse your administrative privileges to get an upper hand". Please remember that we all make mistakes and incivility is never justified. Just Chilling (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You performed a deletion during your reclose; non-admins cannot perform those. Either way, I think the damage that both parties have done has been remedied to the best of what I think we both are capable of doing at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Just Chilling, I was looking over the discussion again. When I read the discussion initially, I interpreted the two opinions after yours to differ from yours; I thought they were saying that there was no primary topic, but it looks like that was not the case and they were actually agreeing with your opinion. For what it's worth, I apologize for my attitude here. I may not be an administrator, but as a "non-admin", whenever I feel that an administrator is abusing their privileges, I get a bit outraged, given that I've been in the middle of such a situation previously. Either way, thanks for helping out at WP:RFD; I think I'm one of the non-admin regulars, and your assistance with closing the discussions is very appreciated. (Thankfully, RFD doesn't have a backlog right now, but it has been backlogged by a month in the past.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Quill Award

Category:Quill Award, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

My mistake

I may have made a mistake. I just deleted User:Aatiktasneem under U5. I noticed afterword (I usually check, I promise.) that another editor had placed a G11 speedy template and you had removed it as "Declined speedy - not a username that promotes or implies affiliation with the thing being promoted". I normally do delete userpages that host such an unviable draft. Should I have done things differently? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for this note. I declined the speedy because it did not meet the criteria specified at Template:db-spamuser, that the nominator had used, that requires the username to be promotional for speedy deletion. Most of the text was copied from Argus (camera company) and my view was that this was most likely an editing experiment by a new user rather than deliberate use as a web host or to spam. On reflection I perhaps should have moved it to his sandbox, with a note on the talk page, which is probably the best course of action in such circumstances. I have now notified him. With regard to the deletion my view is to let sleeping dogs lie. HTH. Just Chilling (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so it is copied from Argus (camera company). Another mistake by me. :) I go through so, so many of these one-edit-to-the-userpage-about-their-company pages, I didn't read past the first bit. Yes, an experiment, surely. I feel a bit like a ninny. Really, 99.99% of the time, I get it right. Please check if you like. Had I read it through, I would have spotted the "[1]" and recognized it as article content. I would have probably left it too. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy of Makoto Osaki

The assertions in the article, that at Sega "his credits as director include Virtua Fighter Kids, Daytona USA 2, Virtua Quest, OutRun 2; Virtua Fighter 5 and the cancelled Propeller Arena."and that he "produced the arcade and 3DS versions of Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA." are very clear indications of possible significance. I am not a specialist in this area, and do not know if it would be considered to amount to actual notability, but of course the requirement for passing speedy is much less than that. The same editor put speedy tags on a whole group of Sega executives including the CEO, and including people with previous articles kept at AfD. I know I have the ability to restore the article myself, but I always like to ask first. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - article restored. Just Chilling (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

My apologies. Thanks for notifying me, I sometimes use lower-level templates accidentally. GAB (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Emojot

I notice that you had deleted the article I had created on Emojot citing lack of notability. Emojot is becoming notable as part of the RISE 2015 conference in Hong Kong [2]. Apologies for not including this in the citations/reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshm (talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is insufficient coverage in that source to credibly indicate the importance or significance of this organisation. WP:RS and WP:ORG have much useful information that may assist you. Just Chilling (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia article's

Hello Just Chilling,

I would like to report two Wikipedia articles which are not significant importance in Wikipedia.

1) Shibu G Suseelan : This article has remained in place for seven days, so the article is not removed till this time. Hope you'll complete it soon.

2) I just requested for deletion of Ajith Mathew, but i seen that you removed the tag for deletion. That article doesn't have any importance with Wikipedia rules, that's why i requested for Speedy deletion of it. The creator of that Wikipedia, already created some articles by referencing bare URLs and it all affect the trust of Wikipedia. All URLs didn't mention any clear ideas about the Article. Hope you will process the Wikipedia article and hope you will find my reportings to be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josu4u (talk • contribs) 09:50, 27 July 2015‎

Hi, Shibu G Suseelan has now been deleted as an expired Prod. You placed a Prod blp on Ajith Mathew that I removed after re-adding a reliable source that you had previously removed (sorry, but incorrectly in my view). The threshold for surviving speedy deletion is very low (see WP:A7) and specifically does not require notability or coverage in reliable sources. Because it is deletion without consensus it is aimed only at the obvious nonsenses. In my view, being the musical director of a notable music video is sufficient. The easiest way forward would be to place a standard Prod (that I would not remove) or take to AFD. Just Chilling (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Afd for Caille Bros. ?

Hi, You declined speedy for the article Caille Bros.. I feel the current article's state does show a little historical significance now but notability is still an issue (you too mentioned it in the edit summary). I have posted few links on Talk:Caille Bros.. So, should I Afd the article now or when the article has been sourced by few reliable sources either by me (since I did a little research on the topic) or the author or any other editor ? Thanks! (PS - Before this I have never taken any article to Afd, so thought of discussing first) Peppy Paneer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The research that you have carried out is good practice per WP:BEFORE, thx. The best way forward would be to add the sources that you have found to the article and if you still consider that WP:ORG is not met then take it to AFD. Just Chilling (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok..got it! Thank you Peppy Paneer (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Strakosha deletion

Hello there. I saw that you just deleted Thomas Strakosha. But there it's not any concret reason why, he debutted for Salernitana in a Coppa Italia match yesterday (see there) Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The page that I deleted had no content whatsoever. The link provided does not appear to confirm who played in that match. I suggest that you use WP:WIZARD to write the page because unless he clearly meets WP:BIO there is a high risk of the page being deleted again. Just Chilling (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok sorry I mistook the link, its this but anyway its the same and he really played in this match. It's okay to be created once again, it's regulary? Thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football whether he now meets their notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The guy has been deleted four times. Is it possible to have all four versions deleted by email? Thanks! PoshteMorriKuq (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not do Wikipedia stuff by email but I am happy to userfy the last substantive version to you. This last version contains all relevant information from the earlier versions. Shall I do that? Just Chilling (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As I told previously he debutted for Salernitana in a Coppa Italia match (see there), now should it called a notable since he debutted in professional level? Thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football whether he now meets their notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of P.Charles

Hello Mr J.Chilling (joke),

I was hoping you would help me by telling me where I could find the record of the edit summaries I made for the article >P.Charles, the deletion log or something like it. Thanks Whalestate (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have put them on your talk page. Just Chilling (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks Whalestate (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Lil Jay

Hi there Just Chilling. I'm a fairly new user in Wikipedia and I was looking for information on Chicago rappers such as Lil Jay until I saw that it has been removed by you. I mean, I don't know what else to include and I didn't make the article but I've tried before to make an article (see Speaker Knockerz) and it is hard if people keep marking it for deletion when it was just created a second ago so it would be unfair if I am the only one working on one page that meets a set of criteria but I can't implement them in time. . Can you restore the page? YemeniFriend (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The way to go is to research reliable sources - see WP:RS. The best way forward is to go to WP:WIZARD and rewrite the article there, where you will find many people who will help you. Meanwhile I have userfied the article at User:YemeniFriend/Lil Jay to enable you to develop it in your user space if you wish. Just Chilling (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you ! FemtoTaz (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Outlook Club listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Outlook Club. Since you had some involvement with the Outlook Club redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Fishkill Farms

Hi there, my class partner and I are trying to create a page for Fishkill Farms. Fishkill Farms is one of the Wiki topics that is to be assigned in the Hudson Valley Amenity Economy - ENST 291 Wiki.Edu class. Our instructors encouraged us to create stub pages as a way to begin the assignment, which is how you encountered it; they promise to assign it soon through the class dashboard very soon. As for its notability, Fishkill Farms is one of the Hudson Valley's oldest apple orchards, founded by family friends of President Roosevelt, and a popular destination for travelers from the New York City area. It is a legitimate and regionally/historically important business. We are college students trying to complete our assignment and we have nothing to do with this business. It would be great if you would not delete our page again. Thanks! Please reply on my talk page.

Alienmanhands666 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Actors0000

i am gonna recreat the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actors0000 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Boyd & Jenerette deletion

I wish you would reconsider your deletion of Boyd & Jenerette. I've been editing for years and have never had a page removed so quickly. I contested the speedy deletion with no dialog follow. there were plenty of creditable sources, and the firm is of some type of importance to the city of Jacksonville, being that it is the largest locally based firm in the city. If this age is worthy of deletion than so are a whole lot more that did not get swept up in such a stringent filter. Mathew105601 (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there has been discussion on this deletion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Boyd & Jenerette. Though this is a long-established and no doubt worthy company there is no credible indication of significance (being significant or of large-scale locally is not enough) nor not the in-depth independent coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:CORP. Much of the article was promotional of the services offered or detailed but unencyclopaedic historical milestones. I have put a copy at User:Mathew105601/Boyd & Jenerette, with the unsuitable material removed, for you to develop but it should not be reintroduced back to Main Space without the necessary improvements because it is likely to be deleted again. To avoid future accidents, it is best to create new articles in the Draft: namespace, see WP:DRAFTS, when it would be reviewed by an independent editor. Just Chilling (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least thank you for opening it back up for additional editing under my username. I don't always have a lot of time to be on. My activity on here is in fits and spurts. It may take me some time to develop it enough to meet the criteria. If it is alright with you, can I refer back to you once I have improved the page. I may have a few general questions along the way. This place has a long history of business in the area, and the Southeast in general. It also has some pretty high profile clients. With that said, a lot of the past cases are not publicly accessible digitally. JSTOR or LexisNexis may prove to be useful. I'd rather get the page rto a state where it can't be contested again.Mathew105601 (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am certainly happy to look at a future draft and let you know whether it has sufficient substance to avoid speedy deletion. In order to avoid a challenge at WP:AFD you would need to achieve a higher standard and meet WP:ORG. Typically, this is likely to need sources that show that there has been in-depth coverage of the firm in national, regional or the professional press as opposed to purely local coverage or the factual reporting such as is presently in the article. Just Chilling (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Epic Tree Care deletion

Hello, I noticed you deleted the page Epic Tree Care. But I don’t believe there is valid reason for deletion. The page is significant and of importance, especially to people in north-east Scotland and to people concerned with conservation, forestry and wildlife. For example - Epic Tree Care were awarded a 5 year contract for Craig Leek SSSI (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) to remove and control the re-growth of birch trees across the cliff on top of the mountain. The limestone cliffs are habitat for an extremely rare bryophyte, a type of small moss which is only found in one other location in the world, and it is hoped that removing the encroaching birch trees will preserve its habitat and the wide biodiversity for future generations. The contract also benefits a rare stalked puff ball only found in 7 other places in the world.

Additionally, it’s difficult to make adjustments to pages so they meet Wikipedia criteria when they are tagged and deleted so quickly. I kindly request the Epic Tree Care page is restored so the significance and importance can be highlighted. Is that possible, please? In my honest opinion, there are other Wikipedia pages that are less significant and credible than Epic Tree Care. Thanks. Isfxltd (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there has been discussion on this deletion at User talk:C.Fred#Epic Tree Care deletion. In my view there is no credible indication of significance nor not the in-depth independent coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:CORP. Much of the article was tangential to the work of the company. Admin C.Fred has most helpfully cleaned up the page though, in my view, the whole of the first paragraph under the heading 'Moss and fungus preservation work' also should be removed. Incidentally, this material might well be a useful basis for a separate article on the subject. C.Fred has put a copy at Draft:Epic Tree Care for you to develop but it should not be reintroduced back to Main Space without the necessary improvements because it is likely to be deleted again. To avoid future accidents, it is best to create new articles in the Draft: namespace, see WP:DRAFTS, when it would be reviewed by an independent editor. Just Chilling (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I've updated the article on Epic Tree Care. Following your advice, I request you have a look at it before it's moved into the main space please. Thanks. Isfxltd (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for inviting me to have another look at this page, Unfortunately, I think that it is still significantly short of meeting WP:ORG because the company appears not to have been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. What you need to do is to find reliable sources that have written directly about the company. You may, though, wish to approach Admin C.Fred for another opinion. Just Chilling (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Bungay Sixth Form

It wasn't an expired prod. It was speedied as an unambiguous promotion. But regardless of what the correct or incorrect db is, it is a recreation of a speedied article. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2015‎

I didn't say it was an expired Prod. My edit summary was "Declined speedy - G4 does not apply to articles speedy deleted or deleted as an expired Prod." WP:G4 states "... This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion ..." You have the option to retag if you consider that WP:G11 applies. Just Chilling (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Miss Romania

Nice that you converted Miss Romania to a disambiguation page. Minor detail: the template Template:Beauty contests in Europe is now pointing to this disambiguation page. Could you solve that? The Banner talk 11:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. If Miss World Romania doesn't survive AFD then the target will need to be moved. A more elegant solution may be to rewrite the template with individual links but that will have to await someone being so inclined. Just Chilling (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The Banner talk 20:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Colston Westbrook

I'm confused as to why you deleted this page. I had only just started it and had quite a bit more information to add to the page. I'm not sure if you saw my latest additions, including quoting a New York Times article of 1974. There are many other sources which can be added.

The page is of historical significance for the role Westbrook played in teaching a class at Berkeley which took radical students into the prisons at this time; the seed of the establishment of the Symbionese Liberation Army. An analysis of the SLA is not complete without also looking at the roots of the students' radicalism on campus. Issues have been raised about Westbrook's connections with the CIA and LA police departments. These were raised by a private investigator, Lake Headley in 1974 (not a crackpot blogger in their basement). Headley has been called the "best private investigator in the world" by Charles Manson's prosecutor, no less. The issues Headley raised were covered by a now-buried article in the NYT which I have referenced in the Westbrook article. This page needs to be reinstalled. A picture of this historical incident is incomplete without it.

I would also suggest that these deletions are just TOO speedy. Only set up yesterday and gone last night. I have been adding Wikipedia articles since 2005 (under another user name (email gone, passwords gone, user names forgotten)) and I've never seen a page deleted this quickly. Please give some more time to enable the community to add their knowledge.Emihemi (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Though this is a no doubt worthy individual there is no credible indication of significance nor not the in-depth independent coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:BIO. I have put a copy at User:Emihemi/Colston Westbrook for you to develop but it should not be reintroduced back to Main Space without the necessary improvements because it is likely to be deleted again. To avoid future accidents, it is best to create new articles in the Draft: namespace, see WP:DRAFTS, when it would be reviewed by an independent editor. Just Chilling (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Just Chilling. Could you kindly move this page as per your previous message. I don't think I can do it myself, apart from cut and paste. It still needs some work re citations, but I think it's a lot better than a few days ago. Thanks Emihemi (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I have already done what is necessary to fix the 'cut and paste' so you can continue editing at Colston Westbrook. My note was by the way of some guidance, primarily for future reference. Just Chilling (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Our of process recreation

Hi!

I noticed that you declined a CSD [3] with a non-policy based rationale. I am concerned that you may not be aware of the standards by which administrators are supposed to recreate deleted content. In particular, a proper WP:DRV never happened for the article in question. Now you are forcing more discussion when discussion has already occurred, and you are forcing it to occur in venues that are not well-equipped to handle this scenario because you moved out-of-process.

I recommend for the time being that you stay away from recreating deleted content in article space.

I look forward to your reply.

Thanks,

jps (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I am happy that declining the CSD was policy-compliant. I did not recreate the content. I restored some of the history for attribution reasons after another editor recreated the content. I have no intention of changing the work that I do. Just Chilling (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

By declining the speedy deletion with a rationale that fails to take into account the normal processes of Wikipedia you are either ignoring all rules or you are trying to give favor to articles that have been deleted for other reasons. Which is it? jps (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:CSD states "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." WP:G4 states "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". In my view the new version was not "substantially identical to the deleted version" consequently I am happy that I did not use a "non-policy based rationale". Just Chilling (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

How is it substantially different? jps (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Compare this with this. Just Chilling (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like all the blather on the current page is also on that page. What am I missing? jps (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking in on another matter, let me comment that it is firmly established policy that anyone (except the author of the article in question) ifs entitled to remove a speedy tag for any reason at all, good or bad; the recourse is to take the article to AfD. In the case of a G4, the decision of whether the article is sufficiently different is often a matter of judgment, and admins are expected to use their discretion. And not just admins: speedy deletion is intended to be a process for uncontroversial deletions only. If anyone acting in good faith thinks it controversial--whether or not an admin--, then it is controversial, and must go to AfD. The place to argue it is there. The only necessary role of deletion review is if a reviewing admin does delete the article, and someone wants to challenge that. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hartley Higher Educational Trust

Hi, you declined the A7 speedy on this article with the reasoning that it doesn't apply to educational institutions - however, I don't believe that a company which runs schools fits that categorization (see Types of educational institutions). I feel that if the article were about one of the three schools mentioned, it would be A7-exempt, but it is not. The same holds for WP:NSCHOOLS, which as written is even more restrictive about what it covers. ansh666 04:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK; deleted. Just Chilling (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! ansh666 20:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Paris attacks dab

Hey there. I'm approaching you because you created the dab Paris attacks. I just jumped around all of the dabs and redirects I found and I wonder, is it actually helpful to have both Paris attacks and a separate "subdab" for just the 2015 attacks at 2015 Paris attacks? I think it's rather confusing, and not necessary with such few links. Imho 2015 Paris attacks should redirect to Paris attacks. --87.79.165.166 (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Just Chilling (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed. Thanks a bunch! --89.0.243.214 (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Btw, I also redirected Paris shooting and Paris shootings to Paris attacks. --89.0.243.214 (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Born in the µSA

Hi, I want to follow your suggestion on re-opening an RFD for the various µSA redirects (including Coldwater, MI µSA), but I want to check first to see if there was a good reason it failed last time.

Unfortunately, I can't figure out where the discussion for the earlier RFD lives. Can you recommend where I should look? Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Never mind -- figured out there's a link on the talk page.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Hi, you will find the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 27#Abbeville, LA μSA. Before renominating please take a look at WP:RFD#HARMFUL. In general being implausible is not sufficient for deletion because of the risk of breaking links in external site etc. You are best advised to adduce a rationale as to why the redirect is harmful. HTH. Just Chilling (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- yes, as mentioned I did find the link, and just read through it and sure enough there's a reason the RFD failed. I'm not sure it's an awesome reason, but it's a reason. Sorry for the churn.

(I question if there would be huge numbers of incoming links in most cases of implausible redirs, but that's obv not an issue here today.)

Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Frozenman28

yo whyd you delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frozenman28 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The reasons why these pages are inappropriate are explained on your talk page. Just Chilling (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Dingowasher

@Just Chilling and Qed237: Hi. I'm reposting this which got ignored and deleted. If I may, I'd like to second the idea that Dingowasher is not a truly legitimate editor (at least WP:TEND WP:NOTHERE) but a vandal. Just look at his talk page, with countless warnings of serious serial violations along systematic patterns of slander or disparagement or other unencyclopedic content, and zero response from him. Is it not the case that this is beyond a content issue, and well into vandalism? — Smuckola(talk) 04:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The report and your comment was not ignored. They would have been seen and reviewed by many admins and were removed by Admin Materialscientist, who is very experienced at WP:AIV, as unactionable, here. The reason is that WP:AIV is for rapid action against obvious vandals, particularly those currently active, where an urgent block is necessary to protect the Project. It is not for cases such as this where a judgement has been made that edit warring has crossed the boundary into vandalism. In such cases more appropriate forums are WP:AN/I or, if the edits merit it, WP:AN/EW. Just Chilling (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk:BoukaHolding

Looks like you may need to also take away their talk page access, as this blocked user is now trying to promote the company there like so. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. Just Chilling (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

WBB Minerals

Is referenced from Sibelco and references back there.--Kopiersperre (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, more importantly having looked at the target in some depth, pretty much all the substantive content is copyvio. Just Chilling (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Is is possible that Wikipedia completely fails on company articles?--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't accept copyvio material whether or or not it comes from the company website. Further, we look for claims/information to be corroborated by third-party reliable sources. Just Chilling (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I mean something else: In chemistry, for example, article quality reaches a specific level over time. This doesn't happen with company articles, because they get faster added than improved.--Kopiersperre (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that this is something that would be best raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies where you can start a discussion amongst experienced editors in the field. Just Chilling (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This project is basically dead. Most of the question asked there will never be answered.--Kopiersperre (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Datuk Tun Hussien Onn listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Datuk Tun Hussien Onn. Since you had some involvement with the Datuk Tun Hussien Onn redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Construction History Society for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Construction History Society 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construction History Society 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. Iamozy (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping speedy deletion of Julia Friedman

Thank you for stopping speedy deletion of Julia Friedman. In fact, I believe these editors actions were unhelpful, inappropriate, if not just plain uncivil. May I point out that User talk:reddogsix used just six words to attempt to speedy delete my extensive article that I spent hours working on. Now, after you stopped this action, and this editor has made such a mistake -- we all make mistakes -- my new page has this terrible banner on it for weeks. omg

Next, please consider this action. Was this editor's actions really a good-faith edit? I don't believe so. Why do I think this? Because he didn't read the article. How do I know this? Just one example: Because I refuse to believe that any learned person would dare call The Times Literary Supplement trivial !!!

I am referring, of course to an extensive, lengthy, heady 2500 word article published about Julia Friedman and her 2 recent books that was just published May 27. But, perhaps this editor does not have any idea what the TLS is after-all? The TLS is only the leading international weekly for literary culture in the western world. In plain terms, the TLS is the opposite of trivial. Seriously.

Next, what about giving a lecture with Dave Hickey at none-other-than the UCLA Hammer Museum? Would anyone think this is a trivial action. Most certainly not. Then what about lecturing at Stanford University? Is lecturing at Stanford University trivial, I don't think so. Is teaching at Waseda University trivial? Afterall, Waseda University is the so-called Princeton University of Japan -- where Obama is right now. Waseda is not trivial. Is publishing with Martin Kemp (art historian) about Leonardo da Vinci a trivial act? I don't think so...I could go on and on but I will not.

These important sources, institutions and publishers are likely to persuade many of the learned and responsible commentators against deletion. Thank you again for your service to the wiki community. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

u a fagoot

HighBeam Check In

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

86.58.36.235 is vandalizing.

Block user:86.58.36.235 for vandalism. 2602:306:3357:BA0:8DB8:C6E6:5396:67C7 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Lets get to work please, and make the block. 2602:306:3357:BA0:8DB8:C6E6:5396:67C7 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism needing urgent admin attention should be reported at WP:AIV. Just Chilling (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I already reported it to you, so block him. 2602:306:3357:BA0:8DB8:C6E6:5396:67C7 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The position is explained at User talk:2602:306:3357:BA0:8DB8:C6E6:5396:67C7#Request. Making the same request to many admins will not help you. Possible ways forward are described at WP:Dispute resolution. Just Chilling (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Aferg30

Requesting access to properly create a page for Chandler - Suppliers to Business & Industry User:ChandlerSJ. Will follow specific guidelines. Aferg30 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The correct procedure is to meet the requirements posted on User talk:ChandlerSJ and then apply to be unblocked rather than creating this new account. The problem with writing the page is that you have a conflict of interest as is demonstrated by the highly promotional nature of the previous version; better to await an uninvolved editor to write the article. However, if you are unblocked, the best way to write articles is using the procedure at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Useful reading is WP:FIRST, WP:ORG, WP:RS and WP:CITE. Just Chilling (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for Removing tags

Hi dear admin. Kindly visit the page Electronics and semiconductor manufacturing industry in India and take a judicious call whether now is the time to remove all the tags like stub,no lead,essay etc because I have diligently worked and have literally burned the midnight oil to add a lead section, and also have provided host of information vouched with credible citations to elaborate the article. Thank You. Rheadiya talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced the tags with a new tag that is more appropriate, and unstubbed the page. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia and I acknowledge the work that you have put into this page. However, though the article contains a great deal of informative material, I find that that the page is wordy and unclear, with unnecessary jargon (to take but one example of many what does "As of 2016, local manufacturing of electronics has struck a chord of positive trend" mean?). Also, there are numerous punctuation and grammatical errors that need fixing e.g. 'Indian' not 'indian', inconsistent spacing etc. Please do not be discouraged but for the article to be accessible and informative it needs careful proof-reading and significant rewriting to be clearer and more understandable to the reader. Just Chilling (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I must concede that all the extraneous jargons, clumsy words, phrases along with grammatical/punctuation errors must be fixed/corrected/sickled off by all means to make any article here more easy-to-comprehend,succinct and encyclopedic. I must also appreciate the intention behind one such extensive proof-reading effort that has already fixed grammatical/punctuation errors to some extent. However, I would like to draw your attention to a problem which a tag like copyedit brings with it. I feel that any extensive rewriting of such an article must be carried out by somebody who has knowledge about the relevant industry and one who is acquainted with ground realities and the state of affairs in a developing country like India. Otherwise, the tag will attract any random user/editor and the end result will look like a moth-eaten piece of paper and lose its relevance. For example, the lead section which is supposed to cover the essence of the entire content in a nutshell, must be rewritten by somebody who has the patience to read the entire article. I find that in the rewriting process, some important words like "ecosystem", "IT-ITeS", "OA", "handheld devives like mobiles, laptops, tablets" were deleted from the lead section itself while some words which carried less weight but could be deleted for the same reason, have been still kept. If you let me explain, building an end-to-end manufacturing ecosystem in which one component supports the growth of another is the current government initiatives are centered around. Similarly, IT (Information Technology) and IT enabled Services are sunrise sectors in India, accounting for a third of India's exports in terms of forex value. Handheld devices account for the largest component of domestic consumers electronics consumption; they are the 2nd largest contributors to India's imports and trade deficit. Now, if you have a closer look at the body, as part of proof-reading, one part reads like " India Brand Equity Foundation predicts that..." while the thing is that IBEF can not predict on its own- it is merely a semigovernmental autonomous organisation which carries presentations which are essentially assortment of information/data/statistics collected from various credible government/semigovt/autonomous sources, like DIPP or DeitY or IESA for this particular topic. I also found that without caring to dig into the cited PDF link, "citation needed" tag has been added at least on one occasion. You will find it in statistics and trends subsection in the electronics section where citation 2 was added. What will inevitably follow is some random user/editor will unknowingly delete the information contained there,going overboard in his/her zeal to delete any uncited material. In addition to what I have already mentioned here, I can still find some grammatical errors and syntax errors present in the parts which have been rewritten. I also want to allude to a particular point where I am surprised having noticed that "bring about a conducive environment" has been replaced with "foster a conducive environment"-I was compelled to wonder, notwithstanding the numerous basic errors of all sorts committed by me in haste, if it was the hetero- normative westphalian approach to how the english language should be spoken, written and communicated in. Perhaps I am stretching it a little too much. I would like to end by thanking you for saving the page from speedy deletion. Rheadiya (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

As you acknowledge, the copyedit tag has already attracted a constructive contributor and it needs to remain for the time being. Though I understand your concerns, we have many skilled copyeditors who, I am confident, will do a good job. It is important to note that there is no point in having a detailed, technically correct article if it is not intelligible to the general user because no-one will read it. If technical mistakes are made then I am sure that you will correct them but if significant excisions are made that you disagree with then you should take the issue to Talk:Electronics and semiconductor manufacturing industry in India rather than reinstating them. Finally, it is important to understand that though you created the page, the content now belongs to the Community as a whole. Thank you for the constructive attitude that you have displayed throughout. Just Chilling (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Gajol H.N.M. High School

Hi there. I see that you speedy deleted Gajol H.N.M. High School and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gajol H.N.M. High School. However, the article has been recreated. I'm not sure what should happen now. Should the AfD be reopened? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I came here for the same thing. Since the discussion ran for a few hours short of a week and addressed the subject on the merits, i.e., not just the current state of the article, my sense is that a non-speedy close would be appropriate. Rebbing 01:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Just Chilling, I have come here for the same issue, the page was recreated by a sockpuppet of the original creator of the page that was deleted by you. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the AfD needs to be reopened. While I'm not sure I agree that even the previous article should really have been speedily deleted as excessively promotional (since this is the tone taken by many articles on Indian subjects and it would have been more productive just to do a bit of copyediting), the current stub certainly isn't. And AfDs are about notability of subject, not quality of writing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

AFD reopened. Just Chilling (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Infonautics

Sorry but what part of this do you see as not being promotional? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Being promotional alone is not sufficient; see WP:G11. In my view the page could have been fixed by editing. Just Chilling (talk)

I restarted Infonautics as a stub. I never saw the previous version, so I dunno if this is the same company. But either way, I think the refs on the new stub show the topic passes GNG. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Just Chilling. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Ed Rush

Hello, I'd like to request that the article Ed Rush which was deleted on 21st August is unblocked so it can be recreated. I've created a new article in my sandbox which I believe asserts the notability of the artist. Thanks, yorkshiresky (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have reduced the protection level that will allow you to recreate the page. Just Chilling (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

2017–18 FC Barcelona season

Declined speedy (O.K.) and blocked page curation (not O.K.).Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has been blocked. The page was boldly redirected by User:Soccer-holic and remains fully open to editing. Just Chilling (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Pine Bay Library

Hi there my friend, I recently realised that you deleted an article by the name of Pine Bay Library created by Sergio. I'm afraid that your reason seems incredibly invalid... Pine Bay Library is a fake orginisation used by Microsoft in example training documents. Unless you're insinuating that Sergio founded Microsoft or is acting as an employee for said corporation, you're mistaken. It also appears that you definitely didn't assume good faith in this case, and that would mean that you aren't really fulfilling your job as an admin now are you? Will2022 (talk 12:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no connection between this entity and Microsoft. The article stated "Pine Bay Library and its website are used in documentation and help files for many PowerSerg Data System products and programs." The article was created by User:Sergiozygmunt who gives https://sz.powerserglabs.com/ as his website on his user page. Further http://pinebaylibrary.org/ has the footnote "c 2016 PowerSerg Data Systems". Finally, FWIW, the page was also eligible for WP:A7 deletion. My deletion was correct. Just Chilling (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, I still think that you didn't assume good faith seeing as this is somewhat notable...

Will2022 (talk 14:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)