User talk:NenChemist

Ancora Education
I would like to retrieve the information for Ancora Education which was deleted. You were listed as the administrator. Thank you in advance for your assistance. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that article was moved to draft space by on June 26. Acacacacczc subsequently nominated it for G11 speedy deletion and  was the deleting administrator today. –  void  xor  15:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I apologize for the misunderstanding. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank You :) User:NenChemist (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Michael G Weist III
I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Michael G Weist III. It does not qualify as recreation of a page previously deleted as the result of a deletion discussion, because the current version is significantly different from the one that was discussed. You also gave vandalism as a reason for deletion. It is not immediately obvious that it's vandalism, but if you can explain why you think it is I will consider whether it should be speedily deleted after all. On the whole however, speedy deletion is applicable only in cases where the reason for deletion is immediately obvious, so if you still think it should be deleted you should almost certainly take it to another deletion discussion at WP:AfD. JBW (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Artyom Gabrelyanov
Since when the article with many secondary sources (through in Russian only) is to be speedy deleted? And I did not finish it yet, there are points of criticism of this person. UPD: I added some. --Betakiller (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Inspur Server Series
Hi, I believe speedy deleting of the Inspur Server Serious was wrong because I haven't found any blatant advertising and the subject is really notable. There are other pages of the server manufacturers and mine was well sourced and supported by facts and in-depth publications. I believe it deserved regular deletion procedure for at least or some improvements. The topic might be very useful for Wikipedia readers. I submitted the draft to get second opinion from reviewers. Draft:Inspur Server Series

However, if you want to contribute and share more details which parts of the article triggered your concerns, I'd much appreciate it. --Habibiroyal (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Draftify
Please do not move any more articles to draftspace until you have familiarised yourself with the guidelines at WP:DRAFTIFY. I have had to revert all but one of your recent draftifications because either I cannot see why you think they meet the criteria or they have already been objected to. You are telling new editors that articles with as many as 28 citations and no unreferenced passages that they need "more citations" to remain published, which is nonsensical. If you have some other objection to these pages remaining in mainspace (e.g. notability or reliability of sources), the MoveToDraft script gives you the option of customising the message. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for your input. But I don't think articles like Frying Jelly and Egli Haxhiraj are notable at all. Other articles have promo issues and some of them are missing independent refs. For Jerald Walker I suspect UPE. Please check creator's talk page history. This article was already rejected by an AFC reviewer. Still the creator published it directly and gamed the system. NenChemist (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All valid concerns, but they are not the ones you said in either your edit summary or your messages to the creators. If you don't think subject is notable, you should tag it with a template like Notable or nominate it for deletion; we don't want drafts on non-notable topics either. And if you move something to draft to enforce WP:PAY, you need to note that for other editors and follow up on it with the creator. Although in this case, I really don't see any evidence of UPE... –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok Noted. NenChemist (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)