User talk:Chillllls

Breast cancer classification
Thank you for the notification on my user page. I will work through the anonymously contributed material step by step. I would have contacted the contributor, but it was an anon user, and in my experience that's a waste of time. Some of the edits are actually thematically very reasonable. As you imply, although this is obviously good faith material, there are issues with poor grammar / spelling, with undue tilt toward the (very good) commercial products of one of several vendors in this "medical marketplace," and most especially the edits are thrown into the article without regard to (or integration with) similar content already therein. I think the best approach will be to go thru each of the "subedits" and see what needs to be done. I'll do this as I have time. Courteous regards,FeatherPluma (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Edits completed. Thanks for heads up.FeatherPluma (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Reichman
Hi Chillllls ,

In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman: I have re-written the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman citing references from Wall Street Journal, News Limited (News.com.au, a subsidiary of News Limited)Womens Mafia and fashion-maga-zine.

I am doing this because the article as it previously stood when you commented on it was 4 lines without notable sources as references and you said "Delete per same rationale as Kudpung", but the other editor before Kudpung removed the notable reference and put the article into 4 lines. Will you please look at the article now please?

Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
 * My deletion rationale still stands. I still believe that this article fails notability under WP:BIO. Understand that AfD discussions are not a vote, so the closing administrator will weigh the deletion rationales against the keep rationales. Please be careful on the article, as you and another editor are venturing into edit warring territory. Chillllls (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. What can I do about an edit warring territory please? I've put the "hold" template there. hopfully that contains. I have to go to work now. Domenico.y (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y


 * Re edit war comment: there's WP:3RRNO that specifically exempts the kind of edits I've made regarding this WP:BLP. Despite clear explanations, Dom has repeatedly restored content with very problematic cites. I understand the edit war comment, but I think because it's a BLP, and because I've meticulously explained why certain cites are inappropriate, I'm in the clear. JFHJr (㊟) 21:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:3RRNO, you'll see that it offers exemption for contentious poorly-sourced information on a WP:BLP. The information that Domenico.y is adding may be poorly-sourced but I don't believe that there is consensus among the community to use BLP as a shield to remove non-contentious information in this way. Chillllls (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I completely agree with your assessment that the "influenced two major fashion designers" is 100% OR. Chillllls (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thoughtful advice. I appreciate it. JFHJr (㊟) 01:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ...I think many if not most claims supporting basic notability are in fact contentious. Whether positive or negative, assertions of notability are generally questionable and ought to be supported by decent sources, especially in BLP. That's just my reasoning, though. I do understand your point. JFHJr (㊟) 01:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, JFHJr, I understand where you are coming from. When anyone talks about influence in fashion, it must be images to compare what the article of clothing is and its similarities. That is why I was so passionate, because I couldn't understand why you couldn't see - in hindsight I think that to the untrained fashion eye, it is not obvious. Please see my comment on.

Ok, Chillllls - have you seen my post about citing a "textileglobal" site. Do you think that is all the authentication to put back the references that were removed ? How must I proceed? Should I ask you to put back the referencing or should I ask JFHJr because he removed it? I think I can't because people will just think that I'm putting in unreferenced things and I prefer you or JFHJr to insert it.

Domenico.y (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
 * Domenicy.y, I don't think that you understand our policies about orginial research and synthesis. Please read those two hyperlinks that I just included. To put this in the simplest fashion: you can't use images as evidence that Reichman has influenced two fashion designers. The only way to make that claim in an article is to have a reliable source explicitly say, in text, "Reichman influenced [designer] and [designer]." While it may be clear to you while comparing images of designs that Reichman influenced other people, that is a determination that you are making (which is considered identical to inserting your own personal opinion into an article). The textileglobal source that you are trying to include does not use the word "influence;" rather, it uses the word words, "created and facilitated the...collaboration..." which does not mean the same thing. In context, it seems to mean that she personally helped them work together which is very different from her influencing them. Also, that article seems very likely to be a press release about an event which may mean that it is not a reliable source. Chillllls (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks - I have read the pages you cited before, but will read them again and any new ones for further clarification. You are right about me being confused, as learning all the policies on wikipedia is difficult and English is not my first language. So, is it ok if you say "created and facilitated the...collaboration..." and the reference on Reichman's wikipedia page then? I am not sure how to proceed? Thanks. Domenico.y (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
 * Hey, no problem, there's no way that I could converse at this kind of level in a language other than English. What I'm saying though is your claim that Reichman influnced these designers would be evidence that Reichman is notable. So far, we don't have any reliable sources saying such a thing. You could make a claim that she helped the collaboration between Michael Lo Sordo and Chris Horder sourced to the textileglobal article, but I see two problems with that: 1. neither of those designers are notable on their own, so this fact is not notable to be included in the Reichman article, and 2. the textileglobal article is almost definitely a press release. According to this, textileglobal allows pretty much anyone to upload a press release, meaning that Davina Reichman or someone working for her could've written that article and submitted it to textileglobal. This would make the textileglobar article not a reliable source. Information for the Davina Reichman article needs to come from third-party sources, meaning someone who has no personal connection to Davina Reichman. Chillllls (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dom, might I suggest having the Davina conversation in one place? In the AfD, you said you'd move this topic to the talk page. Another option might be your own talk page. It will probably be easier for you to read and respond if everything is in one logical place. And we make less clutter on others' talk pages this way. It looks like you're asking in lots of places and getting similar answers each time. Also, people you're talking to also have an easier time watching what's going on. How about it? JFHJr (㊟) 20:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi Chillllls. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing!  F ASTILY  (TALK) 06:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Vandalism by User:174.6.114.132 on the St. John's IceCaps article (again)
I suggest you block this member permanently... They haven't heeded your warning.

Thanks,

Russ Jericho (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Chillllls,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Visual Reading article
Hi Chillllls,

Thank you for you reference to Notability Guidelines on my article. I wrote a response for you at the discussion board. Just in case, I am re-posting it here.

Thank you for your comment. I would like to point out that Notability Guidelines which you referred me to clearly state the following:

'For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort''. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[6] for advice on where to look for sources. Place a notability tag on the article to alert other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the expert-subject tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.'''

Neither of the editors have approached me regarding this issue before placing "deletion" tag on the article. I can provide more evidence to support the notability criteria for Shin's method, including publications in other media sources. The deletion tag was placed on the article not for notability criteria... I believe the person who placed the tag thinks that Shin's method is pseudoscience garbage, and that is clearly an insult. What else can you call it? Constructive criticism?

That is an insult. The article was not given any considerable examination by the use (JoelWhy) who put deletion tag on it, nor constructive criticism that should have helped me to improve it. You can see it in the comments placed on the article by that user. I believe that the whole reason for Wikipedia existence is obliterated if anyone can write whatever he wants about other people's work without even bothering to spend time on trying to understand it.

Anyway, thank you for referring me to notability guidelines. I will do my best to bring the article up to date to meet the guidelines.

Kind regards, Azbukva (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U notice
As you have worked with User:Agent00f, I wanted to make you aware of Requests for comment/Agent00f. I know it's moving backwards, but I'd like to have all previous attempts at least tried before going for the final solution. Hasteur (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Dude, if I could high five you I would.Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2012 (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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)