User talk:Just Chilling/Archive 9

I have serious concerns for "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".

Baidu is like Google in China and on NASDAQ(http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/bidu).　 The story about Etian Sward (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, either because of your lack of knowledge of Chines culture or personal bias. 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"! Please restore the original page!

--- Yi (Professor and Ph.D. in Language Technologies).

Archives

Talk archives

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:

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)