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)[reply]

@CollegeMeltdown: No, that article was moved to draft space by GermanKity on June 26. Acacacacczc subsequently nominated it for G11 speedy deletion and Materialscientist was the deleting administrator today. – voidxor 15:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I apologize for the misunderstanding. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Great work.Thanks for your help Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You :) User:NenChemist (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joe Roe:, 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)[reply]

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... – Joe (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Noted. NenChemist (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment on the talk page of @Joe Roe about some of your recent draftifications. I noticed here that he had made some comments about your draftifications a couple of years ago. For certain some (perhaps many) clearly pass WP:NPROF. The criteria for academics are quite different, can I please ask you to look at WP:NPROF carefully before doing any more draftifications of academics. I think many or most should be moved back to main, or if you feel strongly you can take them to AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ldm1954! I understand WP:NPROF very well, but moving articles to draft is also due to other reasons, such as COI and undisclosed paid editing concerns. I hope you understand now. NenChemist (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ali Niknam 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/Ali Niknam until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Fram (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to second this warning by Fram, commenting that I think they have been gentle. A few days ago I made a request that you refrain from mass draftifications, which I also pinged Joe Roe about and discussed with Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. You were also warned about this type of behavior in 2022. I see that you decided to go on another mass draftifications earlier today, and Fram has already reverted all (or almost all) of them. My opinion is that three warnings is enough, and any further mass draftifications without justification should lead to a loss of editing privileges. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this conversation that NenChemist redraftified MEPCO (company) at 1:58 UTC on 28 February. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NenChemist at this stage I'd say if you have extant concerns: AfD is the next step since two experienced editors in @Fram and @Significa liberdade disagree. Star Mississippi 03:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Significa liberdade and @Star, Please check User:Penupugh. I requested draftification because the MEPCO article was previously created by a blocked sockpuppet user and had previously been deleted by User:Spicy. See the deletion log here: link.NenChemist (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NenChemist if you want me to delete the original comment with your IP visible, let me know. Star Mississippi 03:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi yes if possible. NenChemist (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

I don't have time tonight to explore, I'd just say it's time for a discussion vs. continued moving. Star Mississippi 03:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and great help! NenChemist (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NenChemist -- I understand your concern regarding sockpuppetry in a previously deleted article. However, draftifying the article is not the appropriate next step per WP:DRAFTREASON. If you are concerned about COI, you may draftify the article once for COI concerns. However, once the draftification has been contested, you should not move the article back to draftspace unless that is the designated outcome of an AfD discussion. You can also tag the article for COI, contact the editor, and/or report (see here for information on reporting. If you're concerned about undisclosed paid editing, see WP:REPORTPAID. Regardless, it's not a good look for you to promise to be better about draftification, then immediately return to draftifying articles. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade, I understand your point. I will let @Fram decide what he wants to do in this case. Also, the MEPCO article was recreated in a way that overwrote its past history, including sockpuppet issues.NenChemist (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. In the case of the MEPCO article, the best course of action for you would be to file a sockpuppetry investigation (SPI). However, because the article and issue was brought to administrators' attention, the article creator has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. In the future, though, if you have a similar concern, you should file an SPI. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, understood. I will definitely file an SPI first and will request admin assistance if necessary in special cases. NenChemist (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fram, @Ldm1954, and @Star,

I understand your concerns, and I’ve already explained that I moved the page to draft due to COI and UPE issues. Based on recent draftifications, I can provide upe and coi issues articles below.

• The MEPCO (company) page was previously deleted under the name MEPCO by @Spicy.
• The My Green Doctor article was created by Donkeycandance, who failed to disclose paid editing despite being asked to do so by @Jay8g.
• The Wheere article was created by the company's founder, Jean-PierreCL.
• An AfD discussion was speedily closed as "Keep" by a UPE sock farm, despite having three delete votes.

I fully support the Wikimedia Foundation’s initiative to combat undisclosed paid editing, which is why I am simply trying to make improvements. NenChemist (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]