User talk:Deryck Chan/Archive 11

Protection for Manila hostage crisis
Perhaps it's a good idea to protect it for 2 weeks, or about 10 more days. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 08:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Pre-emptive protection of the article about something subject to media attention isn't officially encouraged, and is (according to policy) supposed to be contested by lifting the protection and seeing what happens. However, I've decided to go for the safe side as the only sysops who seem to be very concerned about this event are myself in Hong Kong and User:Sky Harbor (a Manila sysop whom I know personally), and neither of us is majority contributor to this article, which means thing could go very wrong if the "experiment of unprotection" goes wrong as there's no sysop left in charge. The protection should be allowed to expire once the subject goes off media attention, which I've interpreted as "until all Hong Kong newspapers take this off their front cover". You've raised a very good point that it mightn't happen that soon - each of my protection expiry time is a guess as to when this'll stop being page 1 news, and I've been wrong twice. I'll raise this on the article talk page and see how everyone else thinks. --Deryck C. 10:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

PC: Backlog?
I'm a little confused by your comment on vote #106. Pending Changes has no backlog of pages that have not been reviewed; the longest time I've seen a page sitting is 7 hours (I might have seen a 10 hour wait once). NewPages patrol, meanwhile, has pages as old as August 24 still on there at the time of my typing this; I just confirmed Prince Poppycock when I saw with shock that it was still not marked patrolled. CycloneGU (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

About the vandalism from IP users
The vandals have been stopped. E2 03:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asamae2 (talk • contribs)

Latest news: Those 2 ranges of IP users (125.37.0.0 and 117.11.0.0) did the vandalism edits again (Adding worng information). Iran Air, Air France, Biman Bangledesh Airlines, Qantas, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Air Jamaica, Syrian Air. Please block them again and block them for a longer time, thanks! E2 E2 11:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Samoan language
Hello Deryck, I saw your entry on Editor assistance and I see you are interested in linguistics and modern languages. I wondered if you might be able to offer some independent advice on Talk:Samoan language to a request for clean-up ideas? Kahuroa (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied at User talk:Kahuroa. --Deryck C. 15:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandals appear again
The 1-month block has been expired on IP range 117.11.0.0/16 and 125.37.0.0/16 on few days ago, and that 2 ranges of IP did the vandalism again since the expire of block . I think that the 2 range of IP users are the same person because the method of vandalism are the same (providing incorrect capacity, add another class and type the wrong aircraft model no. (e.g.: the correct model no. should be Boeing 787-8/787-9, not Boeing 787-800) in the paragraph of "fleet"). Now have enough evidence to prove that that 2 ranges of IPs are long-term vandals users, so would you please block that 2 ranges of IP again for at least 3 months. E2 07:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asamae2 (talk • contribs)


 * Replied at User talk:Asamae2. --Deryck C. 15:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rubidiumcompounds
Template:Rubidiumcompounds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 13:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CSCOTW current
Template:CSCOTW current has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WOSlinker (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments at Dundas Street, Hong Kong AfD
Hello. You made a comment at an AfD for Dundas Street, Hong Kong. I responded and was hoping you'd be able to clarify your somewhat vague reason for keeping the article (being aware that articles for deletion is not a vote). Cheers,  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainian Premier League
I agree that historical mentioning is very important, however, that information has nothing to do with the Premier League. Most of 20th century the football championships in Ukraine took place structurally withing other countries. Such as the Soviet, Polish, Romanian, Hungarian, and other. Ukraine, however, did not really have its own represented league, therefore that list is somewhat dubious in relationship to the modern Premier League.

There were some Soviet champion (see Ukrainian Soviet competitions), however the championship took place in the third division of the Soviet competition (predominantly Russian), while beside that there were numerous other Ukrainian clubs in the second and the top division as well. That is another reason why the information you're referring is not related to the Premier League. Ukrainian clubs have history of competing in the European competition, but that fact might be confusing considering the Soviet republican champions who never saw the Europe until after 1990s. Quite few teams competed in the Polish Extraklasa (see Polish Football League 1927-1939) and the regional competitions also the Slovak/Hungarian leagues (Rus Uzgorod/Ungvar).

If you would glance at the Premier League article you will notice that no one lists all the champions there of previous years, while that information is available in further reading and references along the length of the article. Also note that the Russian Premier League dos not lists its champions as well which does not really mean that the football there did not take place throughout the 20th century. You see, a consistent league of its own Ukraine did not obtain until 1963, so from 1936 through 1963 there were numerous clubs from Ukraine competing in mixed leagues of the Soviet football pyramid. Also if you notice I edited the historical overview of the Ukrainian Cup competition which took place independently to the Soviet Cup competition. A lot of information is still needs to be edited. However the winners of that cup competition also are not to be claimed as really related to the modern cup competition in Ukraine.

You say: "I think the history section should mention the league of the soviet times a bit". But if you would follow the article it does mention about the league a great deal, the Soviet Top League. Or do you perceive that league exclusively as the Russian? In Ukraine there were republican champions competing in the lower Soviet non-amateur divisions (note non-amateur), while there were other non-amateur Ukrainian teams without being recognized as champions competing at upper Soviet football league structure. Another question, how is that possible that Dynamo Kyiv that all that time was the best team was not recognized as the champion from 1950s through 1990s? Does that make any sense? Well, at least not to me. Do you see how those champions are not really related to the League? Beside that information is indeed available if you look for it. The article is very big without that additional information, plus there is much more that could be edited as well, beside those historical overviews.

There is also an article called Football in Ukraine which is needed to be expanded where one can explain the whole history and development of the sport in the region (Soviet Ukraine, Polish Ukraine, Hungarian Ukraine, others). I think that article would be great to consider for expanding and include all competitions that took place on the territory of today's Ukraine. Ukrainian football is not only historically connected with the Soviet Union. If you would follow the history of football in Halych or Zakarpattia regions you would notice that there were quite few footballers from Poland and Hungary that later joined the Soviet competition, while during the World War II they returned back home, for example.

I hope that my explanation clarified and made sense to you. Of course, that could be discussed further to improve the interpretation of the whole information related to the sport in Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading it and getting back at me :) Primarily the modern football in Ukraine today is based upon the Soviet school where were used to play many notorious Hungarians and Polish footballers who considered Ukraine their home. FC Karpaty Lviv was established by the former members of the Polish championship and today that club carries a certain nationalistic meaning. In 1990 Dynamo Kyiv donned a yellow-blue uniforms, while competing in the Soviet Top League, particularly that year they thrashed the "railroad-workers" (Lokomotiv Moscow) in the Soviet Cup final 6:0. In Ukraine the Soviet Top League was considered as much Ukrainian as Russian or any other nationality. Note, maybe that is not the best example, by no one today really keeps track of the eastern German football as something of autonomous. Structurally and in a reality the Soviet Union was a single state, although officially it tried to portray itself differently, for political purposes. I noticed that some other articles on that subject do keep such a list, but I think it is fine due to their poor representation in the official Soviet competitions. However, championships of Ukraine, Caucasus countries, and Kazakhstan for quite sometime used to be structurally part of the whole Soviet championship and had several of their clubs in the upper echelons of the league structure. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

About the original research it is a good point, but the only original research in the article is its statistical part, the rest information was taken out of the articles and sources provided in references and external links section. But I do not claim them as very solid though, therefore the article and the related to it could use some attention for improvement. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor assistance list
A problem has been identified at Editor assistance/list. You may like to read Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Boy Scouts
There's nothing really wrong with sending a link to a redirect, especially when the target is a solid article that probably isn't going anywhere. In fact, the disam page itself actually has the same redirect on it. But its been at this spot for several years now, so I think its OK. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 00:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Having said that, this was an exception for me. I usually don't link to redirects. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 05:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Well as I said, I agree with you most of the time on that one. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 00:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach

 * See also: User talk:Jonathangluck, User talk:The Interior, User talk:Spaghettiear, Editor assistance/Requests, Talk:Shmuley Boteach

Shmuley Boteach - There's been repeated vandalisms through the years by 1 user accounts - and I'd like to ensure consensus remains there. Can a lock be placed on page so edits have to be made by consensus rather than someone simply editing @nite from whereever they are and it slipping through ? Jonathangluck (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look @ said patterns in the Boteach article, it has happened multiple times by various users - all single user accounts - which noone watches ? and now I will be 3RR if said user violated again no ? Jonathangluck (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it has been done multiple times by various users, however the gap between the different disrupting users are large enough so that protection is unnecessary. Reverting obvious vandalism is generally exempt from the 3RR, and with a rollbacker, an admin and you all watching the page, and given the current intensity of disruptive edits, the chances of you crossing 3RR is minimal. --Deryck C. 23:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

ok can you warn that user and if it continues we can put a lock ? Possible to do ? Jonathangluck (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Jonathangluck (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The warning is for blocking that user, not for page protection. There's no point warning any particular person if what we want to do is to protect a page. --Deryck C. 00:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again the same thing is happening, and its from a previous user who has done so before... and is people connected. Can you implement a lock on the page or @least ban that user and IP ? Jonathangluck (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a rather annoying situation: the user who made the whitewashing edits today actually has an account that was created rather long ago, and is therefore not affected by semi-protection. The only thing that can stop them from editing is a full-protection, which will lock out everyone except administrators. This is only used sparingly on articles with a rapid ongoing edit war, which is certainly not the case for this article, which has only about 3 disruptive edits a day, all reverted in about half an hour. --Deryck C. 22:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Deryck C. 20:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Marius Bewley
Deryck,

In an effort to clarify the information found on Richard Poirier's Wikipedia page in the most accurate way possible, I have discussed the issue of Poirier's use of Marius Bewley's name and title. First, Richard and Marius were both professors at Rutgers and close, good friends. Second, when Marius died Richard, after he became chair of the department, took the title Marius Bewley Professor of English to honor his friend. Third, the title, "Marius Bewley Professor of English", is the more accurate title, as it did not contain the words "American and English Literature emeritus" Furthermore, the use of this title was discontinued after the death of Richard Poirier and is not currently in use. I was also informed by a representative at Rutgers, who took the time to research this issue, that they had used the verb "held" in reference to Richard Poirier's use of the title. Finally, how can the inaccuracies currently found on Wikipedia concerning Richard Poirier be corrected?

Bruce Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.159.201 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Marius Bewley
Deryck, In an effort to clarify the information found on Richard Poirier's Wikipedia page in the most accurate way possible, I have discussed the issue of Poirier's use of Marius Bewley's name and title. First, Richard and Marius were both professors at Rutgers and close, good friends. Second, when Marius died Richard, after he became chair of the department, took the title Marius Bewley Professor of English to honor his friend. Third, the title, "Marius Bewley Professor of English", is the more accurate title, as it did not contain the words "American and English Literature emeritus" Furthermore, the use of this title was discontinued after the death of Richard Poirier and is not currently in use. I was also informed by a representative at Rutgers, who took the time to research this issue, that they had used the verb "held" in reference to Richard Poirier's use of the title. Finally, how can the inaccuracies currently found on Wikipedia concerning Richard Poirier be corrected? Bruce JohnsonBjd2U (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest User:Charles Matthews as a better person to talk to, since this is now purely a content dispute, and Charles was the person who wrote the original text which you disagree with. --Deryck C. 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Religious Toleration merge
I am ready for the merge we discussed at WP:EAR, Religious Toleration into Toleration. Please be aware one user opposes it on the former article's talk page, but I don't think he fully understood what was proposed. Thank you so much for your offer of help, and please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. --Deryck C. 20:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Between you and me

 * Hi~! Did it really look like I was bullying that Chris guy? I mean, like he could have take the easier approach by talking to me nicely but instead he let his emotion get the better of him, and me in the latter part of our discussion, so who is at fault? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think all 3 of you have lost your temper. My use of the word "bully" referred mainly to the fact that you invoked WP:3RR in a 2 against 1 content dispute, rather than the general tone of the discussion. Also, it's unconventional and perhaps rude to remove others' messages on your talk pages without archiving them properly. --Deryck C. 17:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree with you on the first part but I have my own policy of removing needless comment when there is already a discussion going on elsewhere, no offense and its nothing personal. Unlike someone who still feels sore and goes on quipping others' edit as nonsense. How is that being civil? Anyway, I don't give a rat's arse now since he has lost the respect of others. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that his use of "nonsense" in the edit summary was rather uncivil. Now stop talking about each other, get back to the article discussion and discuss the content dispute properly. --Deryck C. 21:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * His holier thatn thou attitude leaves a bad after taste in the aforementioned article page. Also, I've stated it clearly that I'm done talking to him. Read WP:DGAF. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(Am bringing the discussion here as it doesn't relate to the article) Deryck, you see the kind of uncalled for attitude Chris kept on spewing?
 * My answer is, I don't care. However, it is unhelpful of you two to keep on attacking each other like this, and any administrator has the right to block both of you for personal attacks. --Deryck C. 23:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * May I remind you that I've ceased talking to him until just now, so where is my attack on him? Nothing. AFAIK, I'm not the scorned one here. Wait, I take that back, what if he is not a he but a she? If that's the case, I'll take a break (not as if I haven't been taking any lately), there's nothing more ashamed than for long time editors to be engaged in an edit war (per WP:Lamest edit wars). Granted, I'll admit that I'm guilty of it but what about him? He's no less guilty, if not guiltier, given that he's been editing here way earlier than me. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that to your judgement. As for the WP:Lamest edit wars, I'm proud to tell you that I once talked to a newspaper about them. --Deryck C. 00:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And my judgement dictates that he (or she) is not be trifled with, as his (or her) disrespect for others is surpassed by his (or her) own misguided sense to start another round Lamest edit war (per WP:LAME) even after I've taken the initiative to first discuss things with him (or her), you could check both our edit history to verify this fact. Anyway, I can't be bothered by his (or her) small-mindedness anymore, I'm moving on. Toodles~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bye. --Deryck C. 07:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Manila hostage crisis full-prot
As a neutral observer who's got the page watchlisted and with no interest whatsoever in the ongoing conflict, can I just note that your own content additions to the article while it is full-protected are out of place? Protection policy states clearly "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus." Editing through the lock when others can't is not kosher, and I would suggest not adding further content until the page is unprotected. StrPby (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Promoted!
Thankyou sir. I was thinking of also nominating Lake Burton, Antarctica. Needs a bit of copy editing I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

We were very lucky to be able to get a free image of Untersee. The amount of people down there taking photographs are second to none... The vast majority of photos would have to be specially requested if they exist or hope that NASA or somebody has taken a satellite of the lake. Given that we have a lack of map making facilities, a quality map in a different projection is unlikely...♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I'd forgotten about that! Mmm actually I think a pin locator map would be better, I'll ask Plastikfork to add one to infobox lake..♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Jinke Road
At your review, I'd need a little clarification for further improvement of the article. Could you tell be what a service pattern is? I'm not quite familiar with rail terms. &mdash;  P C  B  22:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied at Talk:Jinke Road (Shanghai Metro)/GA1. --Deryck C. 22:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ickenham
Thank you very much for your review. I have made the changes you have suggested - how does it look? Harrison49 (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied at Talk:Ickenham/GA1 and User talk:Harrison49. --Deryck C. 00:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's great to see it promoted, thanks again. Harrison49 (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviewing Dream Chronicles: The Book of Air!
It was such a bless for my main contributing article like Dream Chronicles: The Book of Air to be reviewed by you and other friends!

I was not sad because it failed to reach GA, I actually felt happy as it moved up to the B-Class article. Thank you guys again!!! I love it!!!

I will keep cleaning the articles and hope that we'd "collaborate" more in the future! :D HAVE A GREAT DAY!!!

†hinhin_of_you / buzzworthy / βoy Ünder Ғlowers 03:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Tesco bomb campaign
Just wanted to say thanks for all your help. Cheers, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your close of Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_who_have_been_pied_(4th_nomination)
I'm about ready to take this to DRV. Your close was inappropriate. Please take a moment to reconsider this closure, or just revert it outright and let someone else do it. Your close lets your own opinions into the argument instead of actually considering the given arguments and weighing them against policy. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 00:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to do so. I believe my closing decision was an accurate summary of the sentiments expressed in the debate, and did not let my personal opinion bias the result, but you are free to beg to differ and challenge it with any appropriate process. --Deryck C. 00:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have opened the discussion here. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 00:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do notify me when the DRV results are out. --Deryck C. 00:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject East Anglia
Would you be interested in WikiProject East Anglia?

If yes, please support us here at WikiProject Council/Proposals/East Anglia. Wilbysuffolk  talk  13:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Dobsons on DYK
Hello, I've attended to your query and am drawing your attention to this in case you would like to proceed with your review.  Schwede 66  08:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK: Amina Bokhary controversy
Question for an article you nommed at DYK, Amina Bokhary controversy, waiting for you there. Cheers Khazar (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go, cheers. Khazar (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for submitting. I never thought it was eligible for DYK!
 * I wasn't entirely sure that it's eligible either, but having been moved from a user-page incubator to article space should fit with DYK's definition of "article created", so I submitted it anyway and see what'd happen to it. --Deryck C. 10:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, I had to propose a change in the hook when I realised it didn't make logical sense. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly an IP editor out of almost nowhere came to challenge the validity of the nomination. I wonder which way the DYK admins will decide on the matter. --Deryck C. 21:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up
Hi Deryck, FYI, the Santorum article we discussed at the meet-up is currently a topic of discussion on wikien-l, if you're interested. and following. Cheers, -- JN 466  15:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks for telling me! --Deryck C. 15:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Rescue of Mikhail Katz
You closed the Mikhail Katz deletion debate with the verdict "no consensus for deletion, default to keep". I have two follow-up questions (Please reply on this page).
 * Is here any reason it can't be nominated again in the future? What rules govern such a re-nomination?
 * I agree there was no consensus of those posting in the debate, but a deletion debate is not a vote: the decision is supposed to be based on the arguments presented. The "keep" arguments all looked spurious (not based on WP policy, or applying criteria that would make half the math professors in the world "notable"). My question is: what more could those in favor of deletion have said that would have convinced you to delete the article? Perchloric (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking.
 * There is no rule against re-nominating an article for AfD, except that if it's less than a month from the last AfD close you should probably take it to WP:DRV instead. That said, the general practice seems to be that for a "no consensus" close, you'll be frowned upon if you re-nominate it less than half a year after the last close, unless you can come up with a genuinely new argument that wasn't used in the last AfD. (For a "keep" close, it'll be at least a year.)
 * A major reason which led me to a "no consensus" close was that, in contrast to what you saw, several editors expressed the sentiment that it was not clear-cut whether the subject fails the notability guidelines, which to me was a valid concern. I think there needs to be a rough consensus that the subject clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:PROF to convince me to delete the article. In this case, it probably includes sorting out the guideline itself among editors who do comment on deletion debates about academics. Deryck C. 09:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Slammiversary IX
I'm not convinced your closure of that is appropriate; the 'keep' arguments had no policy-based rationale.

Please see also Articles for deletion/Best in the World - which was redirected.

"re-nominate" later defeats the whole point here - that Wikipedia is 'promoting' a future event which is not, currently, notable.

See also Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive697.

Cheers,  Chzz  ► 20:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Per your reply on User talk:Chzz - I decided to list it on DRV.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Slammiversary IX. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
 * Deletion review for Slammiversary IX


 * Cheers,  Chzz  ► 21:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 Chzz  ► 21:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

+1 more reply, as above  Chzz  ► 21:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)