User talk:JohnCD/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

February 2009

Editing Pictures

How exactly do you edit a picture? --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have much experience with images on Wikipedia, but WP:IMAGE looks as if it has information and useful links. If you mean tweaking the actual image, like cropping and adjusting contrast and brightness and colour balance, you have to do that off-line on your computer. Photoshop is the big expensive package the professionals use, but there are lots of cheaper ones; I use an old one called Picture Publisher that I got off a magazine cover CD years ago. This link describes several free ones. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Stillborn (band)

I noticed that you removed the db-band tag and added references, but they're all a bit self-referential, (band's official website, Myspace and Youtube presence) Can you take a look at it again, I'm still not convinced about notability (searching for +stillborn +"esta rebellion es eterna", the latest album, gets precisely one hit, for instance) and would welcome your input. pablo_hablo. 22:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• It was my own db tag I removed, so it's not as if the speedy had been declined by an admin. What happened was, I had tagged a stream of no-hope just-formed-last-month-and-still-looking-for-a-drummer garage bands, and then after putting db-band on this had second thoughts and actually found there were some references. But I agree with you they are pretty thin (particularly as the last.fm one is mostly about a Swedish band of the same name), and I certainly wouldn't argue that they meet WP:BAND. I would not be at all offended if you chose to PROD or AfD it - or even db it again, I don't think there's any rule against that if it meets the CSD criteria. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Super fantastiche comment

Really? Wow what can I say? You must be the smartest person I know. I think you have the most fulfilling life of anybody in this planet, it is thanks to people like you our world is such a wonderful place. Keep it up you are doing a great job. Finally, that is how words and phrases come into circulation, they are "made up one day." Hugs and kisses my learned friend and intellectual superior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacorr (talk • contribs) 20:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and does not like articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

the main reason for wikipedia's existance is to provide a database for people to dip into and learn new things, answer questions etc. Articles like these do not take up much room and give people a light hearted insight to a different lifestyle, socio-economic culture etc. It's a popular phrase throughout the area and I was hoping it would bring some exposure to an area of the world that only seems to get a bad press. Also new words do not become exposed to a world wide audience overnight, they take time to be incorporated into society. Your feedback shall be most appreciated and I look fowrard too receiving it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacorr (talk • contribs) 21:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, the main reason for Wikipedia's existence is to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It is only useful as an encyclopedia because it has strict standards for what it admits. There are plenty of sites that let people post anything they like, but WP is more useful than those because it is not one of them - see the long list of things that Wikipedia is not, including Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the one I keep quoting at you, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Most importantly, everything must be verifiable from independent, reliable sources, and must be of enough general interest for an encyclopedia article: the term for that is notability and the usual test is independent sources - if something is notable other people will have written about it. The other two key content policies are No Original Research - this is not a place for first publication of something new - and Neutral Point of View. I'm sorry to answer you mainly in terms of links, but we have to explain all this quite often, and it saves writing it all out each time. Two more links to help you start contributing: the guide to writing Your First Article and the list of Bad Article Ideas. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If wikipedia is so factual and has strict rules as you suggest then why is it not viewed as a reliable source for use in university coursework. I get the feeling that you are trying to give wikipedia a higher stance in society than what it has. Everyone knows that a lot of the info on wiki is highly suspect, so please do no try and gve the impression that it is a reliable source. If people wanted reliable information they would look up the encyclopedia britannica, which is accepted by uni's. If my entry gets deleted, its no problem I have the ability to retype it although I believe the only reason it will get deleted is so that you can show yourself as being all high and mighty and that the majority of the situations on this page are a result of an enlarged ego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dacorr (talk • contribs) 22:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody pretends Wikipedia is a reliable source, because anybody can edit it: the article you look at may have been vandalised just before. However, a good article will cite sources that you can use to check on the information. Given that "anyone can edit" you might well suppose that it would be over-run by vandals, advertisers, self-advertisers, people with an axe to grind, people who have just invented a hilarious new drinking game, silly schoolboys replacing articles with "poop", and so on. What is surprising is that, as it has actually turned out, the number of people willing to contribute knowledge and expertise, to watchlist articles, and to do new page patrol (checking incoming articles) and anti-vandal work, is just about enough to keep things generally straight. In practice, "anyone can edit it" is a strength as well as a weakness. The only real test is, do people find the result useful? and there is no doubt they do. I have both Encarta and Encyclopedia Britannica on CD-ROM, but in two years I haven't bothered to mount them on my present computer, because I find WP quite adequate for looking things up. But it only stays that way by having standards. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Disamguation page for Cooper Middle School

I'm going to create Cooper Middle School, but it redirects to a school in Fairfax county, but mine is a different school, so I'll have to create a disambiguation page, but I need help from you before I do it, please. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• First, you need to move the old article "Whatever school" to its new title "Whatever school (Blankville)" - click the "Move" tab at the top of the page. You have to move it, not cut and paste, to preserve the edit history. Before you do that, click on "What links here" and make a note of all the pages that link to it; after the move, you need to amend those links so that they point to the new title.

Then make your new article "Whatever school (Othertown)".

The old page, title "Whatever school" will now be a redirect pointing to "Whatever school (Blankville)". Replace that redirect with:

Whatever school may refer to:

• Whatever school (Blankville)
• Whatever school (Othertown)

Of course, both the entries should be blue-links. More details at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Complete! See it now: Cooper Middle School. :) --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Macacalbius

I saw the PROD removal earlier today, but had to run out for a few hours. When I returned, a pleasant surprise was waiting. Thank you thank you thank you for going through the annoying AFD process. If I can ever lend a hand, feel free to ask me. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Good, I was afraid you might think I had shot your fox. Once I got used to AfD nomination, I find I get the satisfaction one gets from making some slightly refractory piece of machinery do what one wants. What I am proud of, and pleased to have someone to boast to about, is having listed a Spanish AfD for their version of the article. I have done a Spanish PROD before, but this is a first. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's gone! Someone did the Spanish equivalent of {{db-g3}} and evidently on :es in that case they delete the AfD as well as the article. This is all that remains. JohnCD (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New user welcoming.

Please stop directing new users towards uncyclopedia, we want them to to edit here, not go elsewhere.--Otterathome (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• We want users who will write and edit seriously. That message was directed to people who put in "joke" articles, and was intended to say: if that's the sort of thing you want to write, there is a place for it, but that place is not Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

New users do that to experiment, you are just making potential contributors go elsewhere.--Otterathome (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Amelia "Poppaea" Berry

You recently accused me of a personal attack against one Amelia Berry. I would have you know, this couldn't be further from the truth. I wrote the article because she is truly an outstanding person, and actually famous in my community. You may not believe this, but how could I expect someone so impersonal as to use a form message to possibly understand. She IS the current president of the National Honor Society for Charles Henderson High School in Troy, AL 36081. If you insist, I'll be glad to give you telephone numbers and addresses for contacting the school. Absolutely nothing I wrote in my article was false, nor was it even exaggerated. She presided over the article's creation and submission. Any possibly slanderous or attacking statements against anyone were removed from the final draft, other than one, which was quickly removed after I realized it remained. While Amelia may not have quite international repute, she is a cornerstone of our community, and I would appreciate a more personal message the next time I am to be "reprimanded" as it were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danteofavalon (talk • contribs) 15:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article has gone now so I can't check, but as far as I remember the attack was not on Ms Berry but on a teacher at her school. That is equally unacceptable, even if you removed it later, because the whole history of an article, including all previous versions, is preserved until it is deleted. Everything you say about Ms Berry may be true, but it doesn't follow that an article about her is suitable for an encyclopedia - have a look at the links in the Welcome paragraph on your user page, particularly Notability (people). If she is a friend of yours and "presided over the article's creation", you and she should also read the guidelines on Autobiography and Conflict of Interest. I'm sorry if a reply mainly in terms of links seems impersonal, but it saves writing out again at length all the standard advice which applies to your article. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivaeo

John - I am the words creator and this is a valid approach which the author of the artice has used. I have notified the author to remove any reference to Trivaeo Limited and myself. I am stil a bit at odds with overall wikipedia though given the total advertising to things like ZOHO, Oracle, Microsoft and BEA. I guess wikipedians are happy to slag a valid approach but lack the same vigor and dedication to the rules when it is something like Trivaeo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pograham (talk • contribs) 10:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• The removal of your name and the link to your company makes the article a less blatant advertisement, though a look at Google suggests that the word is only used by and in connection with the Trivaeo company. But in any case, it fails the test of notability - can it be verified by reliable sources which are independent of the subject? None of the references in the article mentions the word. I assure you we do not lack vigor and dedication to the rules - for relevant ones, see WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms, particularly "Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term," and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. The last is mainly written for people who have made up a new drinking game or a spoof religion, but its advice applies just as well to someone like you who has made up a new, serious word and is anxious to publicise it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Broken Radio

THanks for adding the AfD template. I am new to the whole AfD thing (second AfD ever) so I knew I was bound to goof something up :) Thanks again...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 14, 2009 @ 21:42

Thanks for the tips :) I will keep those in mind for the next time I have to do an AfD. Again, Thanks :) Take Care and Have a Great Sunday...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 15, 2009 @ 13:41

Big Cats in Britain

Hi John; I'm really surprised that you think BCIB aren't notable enough to warrant a page on here. They are currently the largest group in the UK researching sightings and their members are regular contributors to local and national media including the BBC.

Originally I wanted to add a link for BCIB to a Big Cats article because the article mentions BCIB publications and members but the page kept removing the link due to a dispute that I have responded to on the talk page.

To be perfectly honest Wikipedia is full of far less worthy articles and the editorial selection process baffles me; it appears that because you are not fully aware of BCIB you don't believe they are worth an article but how will people become more aware of the group if Wikipedia refuse to acknowledge them?

My article was intended to be an objective explanation of how the group works. I realise that I should have saved it to my user page and submitted a completed article but I wonder if it's worth me finishing the article when you appear so quick to dismiss it?

Regards Darren —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigCatsInBritain (talk • contribs) 22:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's not a case of what I think. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a notice-board, and it has well-established guidelines on what is or is not notable enough for inclusion, which are explained in detail in the links I left on your talk page, particularly WP:ORG and WP:BFAQ; please study them, WP:BFAQ in particular is the best advice I can offer you. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Patrick J.Donnelly

Hi norton3600,irish wikipedian here,

I'm the editor of the patrick j donnelly submission. It's easy to check the facts--as you to your credit have tried to do--ring Irish Actors Equity,Siptu,liberty hall:01-8586403 or Spotlight.co.uk:004402074377631,page2116. If you have seen the opera 'Tosca'there is a scene where a Firing Squad comes on stage and shots the lover--check the script of 'Tosca the Opera'online. When patrick j was a young man he served his country,if he was british his military record would not be questioned--maybe there lays the problem?once again check the Irish army HQ. I would ask you not to delete this article as it's still underconstruction--and to be truthful,this is my first article and i admit to making many mistakes so far,(three weeks a member)'So please don't bite a new comer'--it is about a real person,living in Dublin right know and plying his trade as an actor and he's of Irish/French and American ancestry You can find me under irish wikipedians,

Many thanks: norton3600 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norton3600 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Although the user who first nominated the article for deletion thought that it was a hoax, because of difficulty finding confirmation, I think it's now accepted that Mr Donnelly exists: the question now is, is he notable enough, i.e. of enough general interest, to have an article about him in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's requirements to establish notability are explained in Notability and Notability (people), and for actors in particular in the section WP:CREATIVE. I have to say that in my opinion, on the basis of the information in the article, he doesn't meet that standard, and it looks as though the result of the deletion debate will be to delete.

In the deletion debate another user, MichaelQSchmidt, has made a useful suggestion: if you would like more time, the article can be "userfied", that is to say, moved into a page in your "user space" where you could work on it until it was ready to be re-introduced as an article. I am sure Michael, who is good at rescuing articles, would be happy to help you. If we did that, the present deletion debate would come to an end, and you would have time to find further references to establish notability. If you would like to do that, let me know and I will organise it - you could do it yourself, but it may be simpler for me to do it than to explain to you how to. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Pre-emptive Michael here... I copied it to his sandbox at User:Norton3600/sandbox/Patrick J. Donnelly and gave it some needed tweaks per BLP mos... and informed our friend Norton of this on his talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

patrick donnelly actor deletion

Hello JohnCD,

I shall delete the (patrick j donnelly,actor) article myself over the next couple of days,my only request would to be allowed time to finish my work.

Thank you

Slan

norton3600Norton3600 (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Now that you put in the main pages, you'll find it being resored if you try to delete it yourself. Strange, huh? Let's put our heads together and work on the one safely tucked into your user workspace. There it is safe and can be worked on at leisure. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

2sms - speedy deletion

John,

Apologies, I am a newbie. I am trying to figure out how to explain who 2sms is, and what it has contributed to text messaging, without blatantly promoting the organisation. Will read the 'for companies' rules.

Tim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim2sms (talk • contribs) 11:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• No apology needed. There is so much advice and guidance around, it can be hard to find ones way. I appreciate your article was not intended to be promotional, but there is still the question of whether the company is notable enough for an entry in an encyclopedia. The best advice for you is in the FAQ/Organization, in particular the sections headed:

• Why doesn't Wikipedia have an article on my organization?
• I think my organization deserves an article on Wikipedia but none exists. What can I do?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OCS

I was editing the Oklahoma Christian School page with our headmasters's consent. A much more simple explanation of OCS would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrost24 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The first thing to realise is that you, or the school, do not own the article and cannot determine what is in it; the next is that, as you are associated with the school, you have from Wikipedia's point of view a conflict of interest in editing its article. A useful, if rather long, guideline, for you to read is the FAQ/Organizations. If you just make large deletions with no edit summary, as you were doing earlier, you will be treated as a vandal and they will be automatically reverted. If you want changes to the article, the best thing to do is to make a proposal on the article's talk page, making clear that you are associated with the school, and saying what changes you would like - e.g. sections to omit, anything extra to be added, other changes - and see if you can reach consensus with other editors who are interested. I will probably not be one of them, because I know nothing about the school: I am only involved because the large deletions you were making this morning looked to me like vandalism. If you can reach agreement, fine, go ahead and make the agreed changes. If you can't, look at Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution process. But don't just go on making changes unilaterally, or you may get blocked from editing, as you nearly were today. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

hi

Hi, I am new to wiki. forgive the pun but are you a real person?? or am i sending a message to a computer only —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getoffmytractor (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a real person. There are automatic systems, or "bots," about, which might send you messages, but their usernames generally end in "bot." If you want to learn more about contributing, look at the links in the Welcome paragraph on your user page. The guide to writing Your First Article is useful, and so is the list of Bad Article Ideas. If you look at your message to me just above, you'll see that one of the bots, "Sinebot," has been at work adding a signature so that I can tell who the message is from. The way for you to sign is to end your messages on talk pages with four "tilde" characters ~~~~, which the system automatically turns into a "signature" with your username and the time and date - like this: JohnCD (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Planet eclipse geo

It's a copy-viol too..... Just tagged it. Peridon (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

English 102 crime

I am trying to resist asking the author if they got a good mark for their essay? ;) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Better not - a bit bitey. What I'm wondering is whether we're going to get essays from the whole English 102 class - that sort of thing has happened... Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually I have run across a few articles, particularly on towns, that I have a strong feeling started out as school essays; they are not necessarily a bad thing. (Just thinking, I'm sure I did at least one Modest Proposal inspired school essay way back in the day :)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, you noticed. I wondered if you had read to the end. One problem is that for student essays Original Research and Synthesis are often the name of the game, but for a WP article they are forbidden. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Adrian Volts

Yes, I absolutely agree the AfD should happen. Because it was early in the morning in Portugal when he was asking for time on Talk, I wanted to give him a few hours to... I don't know, point out some glaring typo in the author's/title's name? Anyway, the chance of this being notable seems to be about nil and I've searched for this in every way possible. I'll go ahead and AfD. FlyingToaster 17:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Followup: AfD here if you'd like to weigh in.

deletion patrick j donnelly

Hello again JohnCD,

The deed is done!

Many thanks for your info--hard to fathon at times,contact with michaelQS very nice guy.

norton3600Norton3600 (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, I found that link to vandalism noticeboard at Wikipedia:Vandalism also, both users are blocked now. Do you know where I can request undeletion of a Talk page Talk:Feather Linux?Magic.Wiki (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Normally, the thing to do is ask the admin who deleted it - click on the red-link to it in your message to me just above and you will see who that was. Explain that the page it belongs to was undeleted after a DRV. Or, on second thoughts, you could ask Stifle (talk · contribs) who undeleted the article. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Teodorovich

Sorry, perhaps my summary of reasons was a little unclear so I have attempted to explain a little more. Cheers. --Carbon Rodney 13:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• There's no harm having a "stub" article if there is some reasonable hope of its being expanded one day. I am fortunate enough to have access to a University library nearby which contains the first two books on the reference list, so I may be able to help. JohnCD (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

HELP!

Please help! There is a problem with the MAD Kids and I'm not sure what to do! --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have done two things to the article: taken out your "articleissues" tag, which had no parameters - it needs parameters to say what issues, but your ambox already does that; and taken out "<!--{{Cleanup-rewrite}} begin--><noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>" - I'm not sure what that was meant to do, but it was producing that weird green header line.

If you meant, what to do about errors in the article? either rewrite it yourself, if you know what the correct facts are and can cite a source, or post on the the talk page to say what your doubts are and see if someone who knows can help. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was nervous.

• Do you know how to get rid of the clock right next to "log out"? Because mine hasn't gone away and I have no prefernce for the clock under my preferences. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Uncheck the second item in the list "User interface gadgets" under My preferences/Gadgets. JohnCD (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Will this effect my time stamp for my signatures? --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, I don't think so, the clock is only something displayed on your screen. JohnCD (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Mate del sol

Hi John your a little fast off the mark. i was in the process of building the page up, as you may notice i was doing some editing.

in terms of it being blatant advertising, i was hoping to add a section about the introduction of south american beverages into the south african market, including, but not limited to - coca tea, black forest tea, and gi lean

please refer to a search for the term "coca cola" and explain to me why a company profile may not be added thank you

• At the moment, the article has a promotional tone and the only reference is the company's web-site. That looks like an advertisement. As you plan to develop it to something more, I have removed the db-spam tag and substituted "maintenance templates" (which can be removed when the concerns they indicate are fixed) to indicate that (a) the article's promotional tone is inconsistent with Wikipedia's requirement for a neutral point of view and (b) it needs references from independent sources. There is no reason why a company profile may not be included provided the company is sufficiently notable as explained in Notability (organizations and companies); also, if you are connected with the company, you should read carefully the FAQ/Organizations and the guideline on Conflict of Interest. I'm not sure what your reference to Coca-Cola means: if it is "They have an article, why shouldn't we?", then please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and consider that Coca-Cola are undoubtedly notable. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Success Therapy

Hi John,

I just posted Success Therapy and had it deleted before I could even finish writing my comment about why I thought it wasn't spam and asking for help on how to improve it. I admit that I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't want to do anything that is contrary to this fantastic resource and its community. I've read the various articles on posting about companies and notability, but the article in question is about Success Therapy, the methodology for helping people improve, not about the company named after it. Any recommendations on how I can fix this?

Thanks! Webamorphosis (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Before I tagged your article, I did a Google search which suggested that the term "Success Therapy" is only used by and in connection with the Calgary Hypnotherapy Clinic, www.successtherapy.ca, which was linked to from the article. I concluded that, though the article was not written in an overtly promotional way, its intention was to promote this clinic. The reviewing admin evidently agreed.

Assuming that you are connected with the clinic, the best advice I can give you is to read carefully the guideline on conflict of interest and the FAQ/Organization, in particular the sections headed:

• Why doesn't Wikipedia have an article on my organization?
• I think my organization deserves an article on Wikipedia but none exists. What can I do?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, John, I've read those guidelines and I'll work on meeting them for next time round. Webamorphosis (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with my page?

Dear JohnCD, i would like to know what was wrong with my kurt cobain page it was a class project and has been deleted twice please respond as soon as possible so i may edit and recreate the page thank you Jrod716 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrod716 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• (answered on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Chris guillou

A tag has been placed on Chris guillou requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Nx ^talk 19:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ali Alauoubiy

I wonder why do you keep requesting deletion of my profile, I am just about to enrich it with further references to my academic work!

• I marked your article for deletion because, as I explained on your talk page, autobiography is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, and the article did not present the references from independent reliable sources which would be required to establish notability. If you disagree with deletion, place a {{hangon}} template on the article, just below the db tag, and explain your reasons on the article talk page: an administrator will consider them before he decides. Do not continue to remove the db tag. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

fix the article

I understand the reasoning for the delete now i would like fix the page and give reasonings for my actions. As for the POV the school assignment was persuasive so i had to take a side. The source of most of my info was from his biography i am reading and also countless case files and his suicide note. I would appreciate if you could send me the article so i can change it so it does not offend. The article most not in fact copied it was cut and pasted from a word document i created. I assure you the page is all written by me in my words and no one elses. Exceptions being quotes. Please respond soon Jrod716 (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have asked the admin who actually deleted your article to "userfy" it, i.e. to restore it into a sub-page in your user space so that you can work on it. But I must warn you that just because your class project requires you to take a persuasive "POV" (point of view), that doesn't alter Wikipedia's requirement for a Neutral Point of View in its articles, and I think it it very unlikely that your article could be acceptable in anything like its present form. It's a subject on which you can write a good, polemical essay, but unfortunately that won't make an encyclopedia article.

Also, there is already a long article Death of Kurt Cobain which goes into all this quite fully: that shows you how a difficult subject like this can be handled neutrally, but also means that your article, even if "neutralised", would probably not be acceptable because it duplicates material we already have. Still, if the admin agrees to userfy, you can work on it in your user space, and I will do what I can to advise. We might end up with something to add to the existing article. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have declined to userfy this. As an accusation of murder it violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy, as well as verifiability, not to mention it represents a content fork. BLP violations are not acceptable in any part of Wikipedia, including userspace. Wikipedia is not a suitable place to present class projects. I encourage you to contribute in other areas, but please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia that must insist on verifiable fact over theory. Since you appear to have the material saved locally, I would suggest that you develop it in your userspace (sans policy violations) and see if there's something suitable for inclusion in the parent article. Acroterion _(talk) 13:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, Jrod716, but there it is. You have learned something from your class project: that although anyone can edit Wikipedia, it only maintains itself as a useful encyclopedia by having strict standards about what it allows to stay in. Also, the article Death of Kurt Cobain may give you some useful material. Have a look at the links from the Welcome paragraph I put on your talk page (you can find them in the history) to learn more about contributing. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Eastchase

Ugh, don't all the mall articles suck (except the three that are GA)? Seriously, though, I found a fair whack of sources here. You can also ask User:Eastmain, who is excellent at cleaning up mall articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's kind of tricky since we don't have a specific notability criterion for shopping malls. Like I said, Eastmain is really good at fixing up mall articles, so you might want to ask them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Article?

So is there any way i could get the article sent to me in email or non wikipedia site because yes i do have some of it saved but i was so sure it would not be deleted so fast that i did not save my outro/conclusion so i would appreciate if it was sent to me in any way possible and i have no more intentions of posting that article in any edited form. The article Death of Kurt Cobain is very similar to mine. So please if you could respond with a solution to my problem thank you Jrod716 (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• If it is to be sent you by email, you will have to enable email: at the top of the screen click "my preferences", then on the "User profile" tab fill in your e-mail address where it says "E-mail (optional)" and, at the bottom under "Email", check the box marked "Enable e-mail from other users". Then I think the system will send you an email which you will have to reply to in order to confirm. Once I see that you have email enabled (a link "Email this user" will appear under "toolbox" at the bottom left of your talk page) I will ask Acroterion to email you a copy of your article. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm willing to email this to Jrod716 based on his assurances above. Acroterion _(talk) 12:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll ping you when I see his email enabled. JohnCD (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Automatic patrolling of tagged pages at New Page patrol

Hi there. There is a suggestion to get a bot to patrol any New Page that an editor has tagged for CSD, AfD, etc. As someone who patrols a lot, your opinion is particularly welcomed. --GedUK  10:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks - I've commented. JohnCD (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Gloe lake

Thanks for checking it out. My searches came up empty. I gues that's why people like Google, I think my browser's default search is MSN or Yahoo. Anyway, glad it was confirmed. It seemed real, but I couldn't figure out why it wouldn't be mentioned places. I thought maybe it was just a word in an other language or something. Anyway, I wanted someone else to have a look adn I appreciate your taking the time to do so. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

deletion of Artemas Martin

Thank you for deleting my article on Artemas Martin. If you read the entire article you will note that at the end I added the reference Material by Benjamin Franklin Finkel 1888 revised through the 4th edition in 1902 of which I own the copy. I am unfamiliar with the "copyrighted web page" which you quote in you remarks but this page is obviously copied directly from Finkel's book and is public domain material. The death date I obtained from Science Magazine 1918 as noted also now in the public domain.

If you have any suggestions as to how I can relist this article and avoid your imediated deletion again I would appreciate hearing from you. I spend much time working on public domain articles for Wikipedia and I am not very pleased at your accusation of plagiarism. As I noted this is sa work in progress and obviously will need some patching in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnesavant (talk • contribs) 23:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, we have a lot of trouble with people copying from other web-sites and there are both human and automatic systems watching for it. I went to take the tag off, but it was deleted at the same moment. However, all is not lost, I have asked the admin who deleted it to undelete it, and will tomorrow advise about how to make the copyright situation clear. JohnCD (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Restored. Needs to be rewritten so it's not just a copy from the original, though, far as I'm concerned. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Psychotropic Analgesic Nitrous Oxide

Hi John

This is my not for profit orginisation's material. I am a the CEO of SABRI and give permission for this material to be here.

Please let me know why you think this is promotional? Mark A Gillman (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi John

I have included a conflict of interest statement. Please let me know if this sufficient Mark A Gillman (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Purposed Deletion of Fu Heng Estate

Under List of public housing estates in Hong Kong, there are some 20 articles about Hong Kong housing estates. I disagree with the deletion of Fu Heng Estate. CHENG.Michael (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please read Notability and Wikipedia is not a directory. On the page you cite, I count over 200 Hong Kong housing estates, of which maybe 10 have articles. I do not think that Wikipedia needs an article on each of these 200 estates, unless there is something about a particular one that makes it notable. You will see from the PROD template that you are entitled to remove it if you disagree with deletion: I would then consider whether to take the article to Articles for Deletion. The result of previous deletion debates of this type is summarised at WP:OUTCOMES#Places. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Alev lenz

I found Alev lenz as well and it seemed like it could be tagged for speedy as per "promotional"? I posted it on AFD, but I suppose it still could be considered for speedy. I'm still trying to find some WP:RS for the content, but the whole thing seems spammy. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

email

im pretty sure my email is all valid and stuff it would very much appreciated if it was sent asap thanks Jrod716 (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, your email is enabled, and I have asked Acroterion to send you the article. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

BLF article

I understand that an article I submitted regarding a political action group in Burnham on Crouch (which is also mentioned in the Burnham on Crouch wiki article) has been noted as a possible hoax article. I have tried to cite it acuratly. Is there any advice you can give me so as I can submit the BLF page properly?

Thanks

ARU33

(Aru33 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

# BLF 2

The stunt reffered to in the media is the theft of a banner that apparently the BLF used to find a platform. The BLF them selves are no stunt. They have spoken at local parish council meetings. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aru33 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• The question is whether they are notable enough to have an article. Not every person or group is. The criteria are explained in Notability and Notability (organizations and companies). The test is, has there been significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In this case, all that a search turns up (see the article talk page) is a single press report about the "stunt", and a few other entries which are "mirrors" (copies) of the Wikipedia article. That's not enough. Can you cite any other references to show that people independent of them have thought them interesting and important enough to write about? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

BLF

Thanks for your reply, I will try to find more sources, the problem I have is that although the BLF appear to be of some importance, as they where discussed by both anti fascist action and the bnp, some of their statments are now extinct online, and the other sources are not available online as they are physical speeches in local councils accross East Anglia or notes in poltical publications. I would say the blf are far more notable than say the DDT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death,_Dungeons_and_Taxes_Party but i understand it isnt about what i feel. Im also not too sure if i am ment to keep leaving messages here, hope it is ok. thanks for your help!

ARU33

(Aru33 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

• The article has gone, but there is nothing to stop you creating it again if you can find "substantial coverage in independent reliable sources'" to demonstrate notability. You point to the DDT article: I would say myself that their notability is marginal, but they did field candidates in a general election, and their article does cite several different sources. In any case we have a policy WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which says roughly that you can't use one dodgy article as an excuse for another. No problem posting messages asking for help: have a look, too, at the links from the Welcome paragraph on your user page; the Five Pillars and the guide to writing Your First Article are useful. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Dave

D'oh! Not sure how I missed that; maybe because I've been spending too much time with prod and speedy deletion pages the last few days and not much with AfD. Maybe because prod and AfD tags are the same color and speedy tags are a different color. But that's a separate issue... Anyways, good catch, and thanks! KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:La Tumbona House

Hi, Would you be the right person to answer the question above? Power.corrupts (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, I am not an expert on copyright. The article as it stands now looks to me OK. Do you mean that you want to add "architectural sketches and layout plans" to it? Somebody would surely have copyright on them, presumably the architect who drew them. You could try asking for advice on the talk page of WikiProject Architecture. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • thanks for your prompt reply Power.corrupts (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Joe Banner

Good lord. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• It's a tag-team. I'm starting with uw-v3 for any new ones - let's get them blocked. JohnCD (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Protected. Pity, in a way; I'd like to have got more of them blocked, only one actually was. JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Debobroto chakraborty

I can't say what happened there, the whole program crashed as soon as I asked it to tag the page, but it's all working at the mo.... My guess is that we tagged at near enough the same time and NPW had an edit conflict with you while warning the user, and maybe it over-rides your edit. Unless this is a common problem it's probably not worth reporting - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

FD Framework - Referance

Hi John, I was reviewing what i had originally written and realized that the External link i had provided was incorrect, which was why you were not able to access the referance. So I have updated the article with the correct external link. Eventhough the FD framework is my own work (conflicting wiki regulations as per your note), its widely used as a standard process in 'SCL Technology Solutions', as well as in many companies around North America.

Please review the external link for referance and remove the delete flag on this article, so that the user community can benefit by these guidelines.

Best Regards SD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikkanthqa (talk • contribs) 13:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(answered on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

James Mure-Campbell, 5th Earl of Loudoun et al.

Thank you. I had to pop out for a few hours, with the horrible thought that I might have to do a rather horribly complicated AFD, or an equally horrible article rescue session. I came across the editor while checking the now-deleted Henry Mowat article, which on first glance looked like an article that just needed sources and a bit of judicious editing; it was only when I started checking the sources used in other articles that a little bit of doubt crept in. One of these things that I dread coming across at New Pages when I am about to do other things that need doing. Cheers. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• I wrote the author a message to explain about accuracy and sourcing, but it edit-conflicted with an indef-block; I still posted it, on the unlikely chance that he might understand what he was doing wrong and make a convincing case for an unblock. I don't know where he got that wild farrago of inaccuracies. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Fraid I am going to be cynical here and suggest that it wasn't an innocent mistake. I caught one of the messages he left on a talk page of an article he created just before it was speedied and - choosing my words carefully :) - it didn't seem that he was entirely unaware of the problematic nature of his actions. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah well, perhaps he has a career in fiction ahead of him, somewhere else... JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Is it my imagination or is there a trend towards faction in hoax articles? I seem to be coming across more articles recently that are partially based in fact. The Henry Mowat article he created was partially accurate as there was a Henry Mowat, RN who led raids on coastal towns during the American War of Independence and he was redlinked from the Burning of Falmouth. (Actually I got the name of battle wrong in my message querying his sources wrong with a silly copy/paste error, but anyhoo...) Really, if he had left it at that, I might have just marked it as unreferenced (or found a source or two, to be getting on with) and let someone with more expertise in the subject get on with fleshing it out. It was only because he asserted that was later an Admiral and was mortally wounded at the Battle of Flamborough Head, which I had heard of, and knew that it was more of a naval skirmish and knew would be reasonably well sourced, that I got suspicious. And I have seen a couple of other articles in the last few weeks that are less obvious hoaxes than I remember from the good ol' days of 2007 and 2008, back when they were complete fabrications which could be twigged with a quick Google search. Chart-topping bands, Oscar-winning actors etc: 30 seconds to make sure so you could say that you went through the motions and that was it. Seems to be more subtle nowadays. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I haven't particularly noticed that. What amazes me is the trouble people go to to make fake websites. Check out the University of Antarctica - I was enjoying writing up an AfD for their article when a passing admin zapped it. Then there was Stefan Roberts, a serial hoaxer who made himself a viscount, complete with fake London Gazette page to announce that his father had been created an earl, and later had an elaborate web-site for his father's non-existent investment bank, complete with day-in-the-life-of a typical employee (who got to go home at 5:15, which suggested the writer didn't know much about the real world of finance); those have gone, unfortunately, but the Roberts family wine estate is still there. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hong's paradox

Absolutely not - the same outcome, either way, and you probably put it a bit nicer than I would have anyway. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help...

on my social work entry re relationship education. You beat me to that correction. Thanks for your help and your close reading HomebuildingHomebuilding (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• No problem. It's an undemanding spare-time occupation for a pedant (actually I prefer to think of myself as a precisian) - pick a mis-spelling, use "search" to find instances, eg compatable, and go round correcting them. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for linking up that page, I still havent got the hang of it all :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.227.234 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Pleased to be of assistance - which page? WP:CHEAT and WP:EDIT are good places to help you get the hang of things. JohnCD (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User Delibrately Creating false pages thread on ANI

Hi John, don't know if you are online at the moment, but take a look at the Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#User_Delibrately_Creating_false_pages thread at ANI and see if it rings the same bells as it rang for me. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Definitely looks like Adelhoch back again. Bedtime here, but I'll help clear up in the morning, if there's any left. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits that i supposedly made

I made no edits....i am sorry if it was due to a computer error...BTW how can i make edits without a username or opassword —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.239.190 (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia. Depending on the method of connection you are using, an IP address may be allocated afresh each time you log on. That means you may get messages intended for someone else - in this case somebody, who had been allocated the IP address 204.14.239.190 earlier, made entries which were reverted as vandalism, and error messages were sent to that address. If it wasn't you, don't worry about it. You can edit Wikipedia without having an account, though (a) you can't start a new article, (b) some articles which are heavily vandalised may be "semi-protected" so that only registered users can edit them, and (c) it is possible, if somebody has been using an IP address for persistent vandalism, that it may be temporarily blocked from editing. But registering an account is easy and free and avoids these disadvantages - see Why create an account? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosocratic

Wikipedia is the ultimate homococratic exercise. It is even homosocratic that we a homosocratizing it now. If scholars know what it means without my needing to explain it, it is an understood word. They are using it now and that is all that matters. Wikipedia by the way, is not a word either. Am I the only one who gets the irony here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottprovost (talk • contribs) 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that it is not a place for first publication of anything - it publishes no original research, and what it publishes must be verifiable by reference to independent, reliable sources. We don't decide whether a theory is true or interesting - that decision is outsourced, e.g. to editors of peer-reviewed journals. The deletion debate for your word is not deciding whether it is good or useful or whether people will understand it without having it explained or whether its use ought to be promoted; the decision is whether there is verifiable evidence from independent sources that it is widely used. See the clear guideline Articles on neologisms, which includes "Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term". Another guideline which explains things very clearly is Wikipedia is not for things made up one day - it is written mainly for people who have made up "joke" words, games, religions etc, but what it says applies just as much to seriously-intended but newly-invented words or things. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I think Wikipedia should just put a tag on the entry indicating it is a suspected protologism and leave it. It is not like their is a shortage of bytes in the world and Wikipedia will run out of room. But that's just my POV. Thanks for the homosocratic interaction. Scottprovost (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nipz

oh man i wasnt makin an attack with the nips entry its me and my friends group that we put on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fagaba (talk • contribs) 00:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

James Scott Hilk

How dare you question the fact that my great-great-great Grandfather was what he was. James Scott Hilk was a great man. who the hell are you to question whether he was or wasn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimhilk (talk • contribs) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• He may have been a great man, but if he's going to have an article in Wikipedia, what it says must be verifiable from reliable sources. Your article did not give any sources, so people looked for them. There are plenty of records from that period: it is well known what divisions were at Waterloo, what generals commanded them, and who was elected to parliament. Nobody can find anything to confirm what your article said. If you have any explanation, you can give it at the AfD debate, but abusing other editors won't get you anywhere. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Amusing fact

The day after we had proposed homosocratic for deletion, Scott Provost registered homosocratic.org and created a website. 91.104.65.125 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• At least he accepted defeat politely (see three threads above), unlike some... JohnCD (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

if you're checking for academics

in fields where people write books, it's useful to check WorldCat early on, because it gives both the books and the book reviews. Every bit as easy as GScholar, and easier to find the names. 15:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• (delayed reply as I've been busy IRL) Thanks, that's a useful tip. The problem in this case, even on WorldCat, is all the other Brian Kellys; I must have spent two hours chasing him round the Net. Every academic should be assigned a serial number, or an arbitrary middle initial, so they could be told apart. Even with his book, I'm not convinced he's really within the spirit of WP:PROF, which I re-read before nominating and which I think is looking for significantly more than "senior lecturer with an award-winning book"; I don't feel inclined to change my !vote, but I won't argue further in the AfD and we'll see how the closing admin decides. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

as for identification, several groups are working on exactly this. The national libraries in terms of books, the indexing services in terms of journal articles. DGG (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Shops at the Mart

I found some references for Shops at the Mart using Google News, and so I added the references to the article and removed the prod. I also found some references to The Shoppes at Eastview at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=ca&hl=en&q=%22The+Shoppes+At+Eastchase%22&cf=all -- Eastmain (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD on Sheree Silver

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination). Please be informed. – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• (Sigh!) I'll have a look presently. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Thanks for the comments on my page

Thanks for lettin me know about the sockpuppet, because I think a delay in my computer connection caused me to create that. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Andrea Concepcion

This is my face; let me show you the egg on it. :) You're right. I moved the page to the "fixed" title without checking the history of that page, and the software let me make the move without so much as a warning. I endorse the speedy delete, and had it been brought to my attention, I would have deleted the page G4 myself. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheree Silver

Hi there. Just read your comment in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination).

Now, please don't misunderstand me here; I'm not remotely interested in the subject - but that does give me a bit of an advantage. I see some WP:GAMING going on here; looking at 'the big picture'; people seem to be swayed in their voting by contributions, contributors, and personal views. In other words, arguing about people, rather than the subject and policy. I see lots of rhetoric, but little in the way of clear, policy-led, logical arguments. I applaud you for giving clear reasons; I'm not accusing you of those things, just saying this;

• If you ignore the present article, and all discussions, does the subject meet notability requirements?

• If so, we shouldn't vote delete.

Your arguments criticised aspects of the article - that's fine, but not a reason to delete; that's a reason to edit the article and fix it. Delete huge swathes of it; tag it; knock it down to a stub - that's fine, if reasoned edit summaries are provided. But the place for complaints of this nature is the talk page of the article, not AFD.

All IMHO, and if I'm 'doing it wrong' I am always grateful for elucidation. Best regards,  Chzz  ►  08:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Where did I "criticise aspects of the article"? Apart from paying a compliment to the defender for his hard work and for staying civil, I only addressed the question of notability, which is the only point actually at issue. As regards all the discussions, when so much effort is going into pushing an article that one gets the impression of a campaign, it shouldn't, and doesn't, make one vote "Delete, I don't like all this pressure" or "Delete, I don't like the subject", but it does make one look that much harder at the evidence for notability. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't; sincere apologies. I misread your comment, which was, indeed, addressing the point of notability. I should have read it more thoroughly. Once again, sorry.  Chzz  ►  09:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended you in any way with the observations I made, I was just double-checking to make sure the consensus was read correctly. Cheers, Spring12 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday - thanks for letting me know. Spring12 - no offence taken, I admire your pertinacity and the way you have stayed civil under pressure, but I really see no point in prolonging the discussion. As Black Kite said, if you want to take it further the only way is another DRV, but I would add my advice to others', that before doing that you should seriously consider whether it would not be better to accept that you have now had a fairly clear message from the community and that further argument is not likely to change it, and may indeed strengthen the resistance - see Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Imperial Dub Sound System.

Look I was just trying to learn how to make pages here for my company. I attempted to start out by making a page about my band. I see that isn't possible unless I am a hippster or hang out at the right PJs. So that is all cool. I am going to make a page for our client Standard coffee in my user profile and then try to move it out.

As far as you not hearing of my band before I will try to rectify that shortly. We have been playing mainly on the Gulf Coast because we like to get paid so we don't go much in to the Frenchmen St. scene too much.

I have to do this for work so I don't have a choice but I am beginning to think this is a total pain in the ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinrwatkins (talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Aaaargh! Replied on his talk page pointing him to WP:COI and WP:BFAQ. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Eternal Abyss

Hello,

I made the Eternal Abyss article and you are syying someting that i dont understand 100% you say it is about a real person, company band etc. and stuff like that but if it's a game the wouldn't the ther games do exactly the same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokepal2007 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• (answered on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Samantha Esposito

Samantha Esposito is actually a real person who i know personally. she is relativley close with said Zac Efron and this is not a scheme to ruin anybody's reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HSMsuperfan (talk • contribs) 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• You may know her, but this is an encyclopedia and an article about her will only stay in if it shows that she is notable and if it cites reliable sources to verify what it says - that is particularly important for biographies of living persons. JohnCD (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: University class project article on Simple

Actually, it should be fine here if it's re-created in the userspace (a sub-page of a userpage; in your case, it would be User:JohnCD/page title). If you would prefer this, I'd be happy to restore the content for you. Hope this helps. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Valona Flamuri

how is my page innapropriate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valonaboner (talk • contribs) 10:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bouncy Kick

My article. What is wrong with it - it true its played in Scotland. I read about it in a old book in a Dundee libary and wanted to make an article about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregzbest (talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I got the site off, I think the article should just be removed. Some idiots are editing it and taking it too far - you can just remove the article. Its not worth the trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregzbest (talk • contribs) 12:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Page blanked by author

Yeah, I guess I was a bit too fast with Huggle. I was going to revert my edit but then another user reverted the author again. Cheers, TheLeftorium 21:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bouncy Kick, again

Someone has re added the "Bouncy Kick" article. Someone called The Deeman, who is he. I thought it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregzbest (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• It was removed. Accounts are anonymous, so I don't know who The deeman is - probably your brother? In any case, an admin has blocked the account because he thinks it is you with a second account - that's called "sockpuppetry" and is not allowed. He has also proposed the article for deletion so, unless someone objects, it will be gone in five days. I'll keep an eye on it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not me or anyone I know for a fact. Plus I only have one account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregzbest (talk • contribs) 11:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the article will be deleted anyway, unless a reliable source is supplied for what it says. JohnCD (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Dano (tv channel)

The prod you left on this article has been disputed so I have sent it to AFD using the reasoning you left on the talk page - the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dano (tv channel) if you wanted to pitch in further. Nancy ^talk 16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks - I've !voted (and reverted another TV hoax edit by the IP that de-prodded). JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

David Galivan

Hey, sorry for wasting your time, you can delete the David Galivan page. I can't find anything worth mentioning. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caliginous69 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• No problem - it's gone. JohnCD (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Peruvians in the United Kingdom

Hi, I noticed your comments on the talk page for Peruvians in the United Kingdom which I have since attempted to expand. I would appreciate further comments of these changes. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've had another look and commented on the AfD page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Radakis

Album coming soon, I (as well as others) will update the refs etc too. Can you give me some indication of what is needed for it to not be deleted? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonamiguy (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Heheh

Under surfing indeed - thanks for the afd - i couldtn believe it had been sitting untouched for so long - SatuSuro 12:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well tagged - how did you come across it? Checking it led me to look at its author's other contributions and find he had another hoax at World Tag Fighting Society. It worries me that a hoax which gets past NPP often lurks for months if not years - and well-meaning editors tidy them up and correct the spelling and tag them "unreferenced", but don't actually read them and think, hey, this sounds unlikely. I have just made a suggestion here about a possible way to look for them, but I don't know if it will be feasible. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I found it as I was very concerned that water sports as a project tag is ambiguous (see the article page for the see also) and was trying to sludge (sic) through surfing categories and articles to get a 'feel' for whether surfing deserves a task force (which it does) to try to improve the categories and articles) - cheers SatuSuro 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DJ United Page

Hi there,

You left a message on my article saying to delete it ASAP. The purpose of this article is to describe (using an article) the life of a new DJ Synthesizer. He made great songs and is looking to be "reknown". If this illegal due to advertising use, please reply ASAP to this message.

Thank you for your time!

• Sorry, but the point is that Wikipedia isn't here to help people become well-known. It is an encyclopedia and only has articles about people who are notable - basically, already famous. There is an agreed standard for what is needed for a musician to have an article - see WP:BAND - and it requires much more than "has released one song on Youtube and had a few positive comments." Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

DJ United

Thank you very much for helping me figure out what was wrong. You may delete my article and i will find forums to get "reknown", and from there i will most probably be notable to have my own article.

Thanks for your time, it's very appreciated!

Danigunz99 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• No problem. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bank of Sudan

Thanks for your note, Bank of Sudan is the original article; someone made a copy and put it at National Bank of Sudan. Bank itself is indeed called "Bank of Sudan". Original article was actually started by me some years ago; I just didn't notice that the new article wasn't the original article when I saw it at WP:DELT, I thought of course that the original had actually been put up for deletion. It's a top-importance AfricaProject Sudan article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure

Try Wikipedia:Articles written by a single editor. Ironholds (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You might also like to check out Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability; hoaxers can't normally reference their articles too well. Ironholds (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent info - thanks for the discussion about it SatuSuro 11:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic Charter

Hi,

I deleted the following from the Atlantic Charter article a little while ago, and you restored it:

There has never been a signed copy of the Atlantic Charter. That name was applied to the contents of the press release by a Socialist London newspaper about August 19, 1941. The statement was drafted while the British were fighting in World War II against Nazi Germany. At the time of the Atlantic Conference, in August of 1941, the United States was technically and legally a neutral country, and not yet a combatant in World War II. The United States did not enter the War until after the Attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The true purpose of the Atlantic Conference (apart from giving Churchill and Roosevelt a chance to get acquainted) was to allow the top generals and admirals from the United States and Britain to meet in secrecy and plan what military actions the United States could and would take once it was "drawn into" the War. As a neutral country, the United States was not supposed to be holding strategic war conferences with any of the combatants. The press release (which became known as the "Atlantic Charter") was a plausible explanation to the public for the secret, high-level meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill. Churchill had been pressing Roosevelt to declare war on Germany, but America's isolationist sentiments were still running strong with about 75% of the American adults polled that summer being against the U.S. getting involved in another "European war". Roosevelt was facing an up-coming national election and couldn't risk taking actions that ran against strong public sentiment. The press release issued subsequent to the Atlantic Conference was a ruse. It was never a legal and binding document. The images of it on the Web that are called "Official Document" are actually images of a propaganda war poster done up by the Office of War Information. That particular poster is OWI Poster No. 50. There were some 240,000 of that poster printed in 1943 and distributed to the American public. At a news conference in December of 1944, when pressed on the point, Roosevelt finally admitted, "No one ever signed the Atlantic Charter" though Roosevelt himself was the one who used the word "signed" in the radio-telegram that he sent to his press secretary, Stephen Early, with explicit wording and instructions on when and where to give out the press release. When asked, after the War, about the so-called Atlantic Charter, Churchill said that it, "took on a life of its own".

This doesn't belong in any Encyclopedia, does it? On any number of grounds (original research, NPOV .. ).

thanks

Graham —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gks000b (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• You have a point, but you took out too much. I have looked back through the history, and that was added on 4 April by User:Aklogos. Rather than remove the whole second paragraph, I have restored it to the version before his addition. I will start a discussion on the talk page about his addition, and invite him to join. He may have a point - I have just looked in Churchill's History of the War; I haven't yet looked up the Atlantic Conference, but the first index entry I found took me to Yalta, where Churchill says Roosevelt said that an unwritten Constitution "was better than a written one. It was like the Atlantic Charter - the document did not exist, yet all the world knew about it. Among his papers he had found one copy signed by himself and me, but strange to say both signatures were in his own handwriting." So it may well be that Aklogos's assertions can be sourced; but they belong in a para at the end of the article, not taking over the intro. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In view of that, I have changed "This document was drafted and signed" to "...drafted and agreed" in the second para. JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypersonic Cruiser

Thanks for your input to this article PROD! I agree with your assessment, the article should be deleted tormorrow. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic Charter

• Message moved to article talk page and replied to there. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Zdenko Loncar (footballer)

Fair enough removing the proposed deletion if he is a notable footballer, but please correct the article, rather than leaving that rubbish on the site. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found the last half-decent version. He isn't notable - moved to afd. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure, I'm just looking back through the history to find the last good version. Actually, I'm beginning to think that even the reasonable-looking ones like this are not too good - the "reference" is about somebody else. It may need to go, anyway. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, you're right. Actually, it does look like a hoax. I've !voted. JohnCD (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(Untitled)

Sorry I don't ask you questions anymore. I guess I don't need anymore help for now. BTW, you should display your work by using User:TheDJ/Qui like I do. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Don't apologise: pleased to help while you needed it, but I'm glad you've found your feet and don't need it any more. Qui looks interesting, but I think I'm too much of an exopedian to want to use it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't get that thing on my page that says "You have new messages on Blah's talk page" after this, just to let you know. --Marshall Williams2 22:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't get it because I forgot to put it there, but I'll give you one for this! JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphans

Hi John Nick Brownlee's page is described as an orphan that requires links. How do I go about rectifying this? Links from where? Regards Archie Archie Crompton (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

London Newspaper articles re: "Atlantic Charter"

According to a research librarian at the British Library in London, the first mention of the term "Atlantic Charter" appeared in the August 15th, 1941 edition of the Daily Herald in the text under the headline, "Churchill 3 Days with Roosevelt". In the text appeared the words, "announcing the Atlantic Charter".

On August 16, 1941, also on the front page was the headline, "The Atlantic Charter - It Means Dark Races Too".

(I've read at least one article saying the "Dark Races Too" statement appeared on August 19th, which is obviously incorrect.)

The librarian then researched for the same terms in The Times from August 12th onward. The well-read Times did not use the term "Atlantic Charter" until August 26, 1941. I'm presuming that was in reponse to the public broadcast of Churchill's report to Parliament on August 24th, but I haven't read the article. It would cost a minimum of about 15 pounds per article copy, not counting postage.

The Daily Herald headline was correct. Churchill and Roosevelt only met on 9, 10, and 11 August. They did not meet on August 12th, though other conferences involving aides and military staff from both countries were being conducted on that day.

I agree that the intro deserves a complete re-write. I hadn't read the Atlantic Charter article in about 4 years. It has been fairly well butchered. The American People's Encyclopedia, 1950 edition begins fairly neutral, but then shifts part way through.

I found Churchill's "The Second World War" set at a used book store. It was the English edition with the colored maps. I should have bought it.

At some point the Atlantic Charter and the Atlantic Conference need to have their own separate entries. The joint statement was only one of the results of the Atlantic Conference.

There is a line in the Wikipedia AC article saying that Roosevelt received approval from Washington for the wording of the joint statement. I don't believe there is a reliable source for that statement. Roosevelt didn't need approval for an executive agreement, which is how the State Department at the time classified the joint statement. I've read pretty much every declassified telegram to and from Roosevelt concerning that conference, and I don't recall his either seeking or receiving approval from "Washington" for the wording of their joint statement.

Aklogos (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Aklogos

• Churchill and Roosevelt did meet on the 12th: "On August 12, about noon, I went to see the President to agree with him the final form of the Declaration." (Churchill, The Grand Alliance, p.352 in my edition). About Roosevelt receiving "approval from Washington", that could mean less than formal permission - even if he had full power he might well want to let people there see drafts, in case there were comments or points he hadn't thought of, in just the same way that Churchill bounced drafts off the War Cabinet. For that matter, I don't know that Churchill needed formal approval, though he was always punctilious about not seeming to act like a dictator. After "the Declaration was in its final shape" he had a telegram "making clear the reasons for the misgivings which the Cabinet felt" about point 4, but "I felt that the final text... sufficiently safeguarded our position." Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

World School Council

Kudos on your comments on User talk:Wattie92, you described the situation very directly yet very politely. These 2 editors really dont get what Wikipedia is for and your note pointing them in the right direction. Time will tell if they choose to follow that direction or not.--RadioFan (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• It seems not - see just below. I really think we ought to have a summary of "What Wikipedia is not" which new editors are made to read before embarking on their first article - it would save a lot of wasted effort and disappointment. Are you familiar with the Uncle G passage I cited? I think it is a brilliant piece of advice to give to contributors with a COI. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Congrats, your note was much more polite than the one left on my talk page. I am familiar with that but personally I don't care for it. If it started with anything but "You can write about subjects that are close to you" it would be a far more useful. I've cited it before to editors who had trouble grasping COI and they've cited this first sentence back everytime. See, it says I can write about this, bugger off. I've been meaning to propose some new language there. --RadioFan (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

World School Council (2)

Good Evening,
I would like to give you some more information about the the WSC before you condemn it.
The World School Council have several project running us we speak: Adopt a Child's Schooling (Columbia), A formal peace treaty with Argentina over the Falklands Islands for future conflicts, A full World School Council Meeting, the twining of countries, and the working closely with leading UK and foreign politicians.
If you look through the United Nations you will find that we recognized by them as a Peacemaker and Peacekeeper organization.

Feel free to contact me personally or my head teacher if you have you any further questions on the mater.

Head teacher
Builth Wells High School
Builth Wells
Powys
LD2 3BW

Thank you for your interest,

Tom Turner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.7.255.174 (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is condemning your new Council, but it does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for an article. It is quite apparent that it is brand new: yesterday the website was effectively empty, today it is starting to look better, but the council only seems to have three members and not yet to have held a meeting, the "complete list of all the politicians we have worked with so far" is empty, the UN page claims you are "in contact with" them, but there is no actual evidence that this Council is anything but the three of you with some impressive ideas.

You say above "If you look through the United Nations you will find that we recognized by them", but when I search the UN website I don't find you. On a general Google search I don't find you. As I explained on your talk page, for an organisation to have a Wikipedia article, it needs to have been "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." For more details see WP:ORG.

Best of luck with your council meeting tomorrow, but if one of the agenda items is "Wikipedia page" you will have to explain that that comes much later. First you have to get the council under way, and its projects running and achieving something, so that other people write about them and there are independent sources as a basis for an article. Good luck with it. JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I join JohnCD in wishing your organization the best. Really, no one wishes you any ill will here. Wikipedia has guidelines and everyone is subject to them. New editors are subject to the same guidelines and those who have been editing for years. The importance of an article is judged by the attention it receives from 3rd parties, not those closest to it. I've edited over 20k articles and probably created a couple thousand in there. If JohnCD came along as saw a page I created and it didn't meet inclusion standards, he'd follow the same procedures to raise concerns, start a discussion and ultimately delete the page if it didn't meet notability guidelines. Dont take this personally and take some time to learn more about the guidelines. --RadioFan (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

vandalism note

Umm, btw you sent the vandalism note to the wrong person. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assault&action=history

The vandal is 94.192.226.247, I'm 204.14.239.190 who reverted his change... Anyway, that's all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.239.190 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry, I was too lazy to login... the above is me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrill (talk • contribs) 01:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that 204.14.239.190 is not a fixed IP address, and the warnings are for other people. If you look at the talk page and contribution history you'll see that the only vandalism warning I gave was back in January:

• On 15 January I reverted this edit to David Vitter (which I hope was not yours) and sent a vandalism warning.
• On 10 March somebody tried to post a link to Youtube, and got reverted by XLinkBot.
• On 16 March that IP (but evidently a different person) sent me this question, to which I sent the reply headed "Why did you get these messages?"
• Nobody has objected to your vandalism correction on Assault, but another user has sent you (as that IP) a "Welcome" message.

So: well done, keep going with the vandalism corrections, but it's worth logging in to save this sort of confusion.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

JohnCD return the Tommi Auvinen document you just have deleted!

Some of the exchange students of our university have tried to find information about university's staff from wikipedia. Hence we decided to write something about some researchers. I am now trying to study using wikipedia with my personal information so please do not make this even more complicated for me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topeauvi (talk • contribs) 09:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Surely your university has a web-site of its own where the exchange students can look up the staff? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a university staff directory. An article about a person is only accepted if the person is notable enough - see Notability (academics) and more generally Notability (people) for the criteria. Also, writing about oneself is strongly discouraged. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh but that what it would be indeed!

Sorry to say but surely you seem to be a bit too eager young man.

This is exactly what this was going to lead: Universities, even ours, is full of notable professors, who have no homepage etc. Wikipedia would be exactly the way for students to learn more about these notable researchers who have not their own homepage etc. Or atleast this was my conception before your actions.

In the future please just give 10 minutes for a new user... And also please do not make people have to repeat themselves: my personal information is used in purpose to learn how to use wikipedia; it will be deleted by author anyway...

Well anyway now I managed to practice with a colleague's information, and seems to be ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topeauvi (talk • contribs) 10:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

But well JohnCD it is ok now, I understand your actions. Please just remain patient sometimes with brand new users, who suffer bad ICT-skills :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topeauvi (talk • contribs) 10:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if you thought I was impatient, but I did not delete your article about yourself: I moved it to your user page, and explained on your talk page why I had done that. There is a sandbox where you can experiment without making an article. But it's still true that Wikipedia is not a web-space provider for people who don't have a home-page elsewhere, and articles about academics who do not meet the requirements of WP:PROF are likely to be deleted; if your university has a problem with students finding out about staff, you would do better to improve its website, rather than trying to put all the staff on Wikipedia. One last point: when you post to a talk page like this, it is useful to end your post with four "tilde" characters ~~~~, which the system will convert to a "signature" with your username and the time and date, like this: JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about signature, this a good example of the piece of informatio what any new user needs. But still you missed the point about academics' homepages and I have no idea where you came up with the idea "if your university has a problem with students finding out about staff, you would do better to improve its website"?! For sure the intention has never been to use Wikipedia as a subtitute for homepages for university workers in general. Neither is my problem to care about university's homepages at all. However there is an obvious need for many important researchers from my university or network who should be here but they do not yet (e.g. prof. Slawomir Magala, prof. Iiris Aaltio...). (fulfils more than one of academic requirements...WP:PROF

But funny enough, I have now learned about using wikipedia merely with chatting with you instead of reading information or your hints ;) Actually sandbox was all I needed in the first phase when I logged in very first time (and actually wikipedia informed me about it soon after I tried to create that first training page you tranferred...)

All the best! Topeauvi (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)t Topeauvi

Deleted page

Hello John, I am trying to create a page explaining a very new community service for scientists called Sci-Mate, but you have taken it down. I have read your guidelines on this sort of thing, and yes I am a leading member of this community, but I do not stand to benefit personally from any extra traffic resulting from Wikipedia exposure. We run this site as a free community service to those who qualify for membership, and are not commercially orientated, like eBay and Microsoft who have big promotions on your site. The site is also of general interest, particularly to the R&D community. I hope you might reconsider your decision to remove us from Wikipedia- after all we have many links to information here. Regards, Christopher Dyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XofD (talk • contribs) 13:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete your page; all I did was give you a Welcome message with links to useful guidelines. I did have some doubts whether your web-site was notable enough for an article, but decided to wait until I had time to check further: evidently another editor decided that it did not meet our requirements - Wikipedia has no central authority for this kind of thing. The deletion log shows who actually deleted it and why. You could apply to him, but I must explain that it is specifically not Wikipedia's remit to help in promoting something "very new": we are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and any article subject has to be already notable enough, as evidenced by references to reliable sources which are independent of it. If your site is new, you may not be able to provide those, which is the same as saying that it is not yet ready for an article. Yes, Ebay and Microsoft have articles (but not "promotions" - see here and here), but nobody can doubt that they are notable.

As far as your conflict of interest goes, that is not an absolute bar, but you would need to heed the advice at WP:Amnesia test and User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you , the core of which is:

When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write.

For more advice, read the FAQ/Organization, in particular the sections headed:

• Why doesn't Wikipedia have an article on my organization?
• I think my organization deserves an article on Wikipedia but none exists. What can I do?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks John for your patience in the face of my frustration. We've got some independent media coverage, so I'll write to the appropriately named SoWhy user who removed the page and hope that he thinks we are sufficiently notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XofD (talk • contribs) 17:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Blanking attacks

Please don't blank attack pages when adding the Speedy Deletion tag as you did at Andrew_Pezzelli. It will allow the admins to see what the problem is. I have reverted your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3chl0v3r (talk • contribs) 21:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• On the contrary, blanking an attack is exactly the right and necessary thing to do - see WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It prevents defamatory material being on view for longer than necessary, and it deprives the attacker of the chance to giggle over it with his friends before it is deleted. An admin can easily check in the history that it is an attack; I have never had an admin object to the blanking of an attack, or hesitate to delete it. JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There's actually a template {{courtesy}} for blanking attacks, its particularly useful when only one section contains the attack, or at times when there's no admin at CSD as otherwise attack pages can sit around for a while. ϢereSpielChequers 13:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Quinn Culkin

Hi John, hope you don't mind but I've declined the speedy on Quinn Culkin as she's an actress. Its always worth checking what links here when tagging at CSD. ϢereSpielChequers 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• No problem, I should have read more carefully - it seemed to be just another of those family-tree type nn biographies. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, most of the article you saw has now gone, and the latest stub is very different. ϢereSpielChequers 13:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Samuel Blagg. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you. Guy0307 (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you are an experienced user, however you should know that generally we don't put {{comment}} in articles. Thanks! Guy0307 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have found {{comment}} just under a db tag a useful way to pass a little extra information to the reviewing admin, and placed there it is clearly part of the tags and maintenance templates, not part of the article. It's not intended to be permanent - if the speedy is declined, obviously the comment would be removed. I think the {{talkinarticle}} template is intended for people who add chat or commentary within the article itself. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. I just think it's not good to make these comments in the mainspace - I usually keep them to the talk page. Guy0307 (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

71.16.194.243

Causing Vandlism on Terral Owens Time Is 20:08:50 date Is April 30 ANOMALY-117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

• OK, thanks, I've given him a final warning, any more and I will report him to WP:AIV. I'll give you a note on your talk page soon with advice on how to handle vandals. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

May2009

Re: Office for Entrepreneurs' Relief

I gave it a thought, but he isn't trying to make any money that I can see. BERR were pretty useless, they don't seem to have appreciated that they are the victims if anyone, and said to go to the local council trading standards. However, even if we did that, they wouldn't care because no money is even being asked for, let alone taken. Anyway, BERR know it exists, they are the people being wronged, so if they want to do anything they can. ninety:one 15:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Euro bank note (Helpdesk)

I don't think your answer is entirely true. I don't have any on me now, but you can tell where it was printed by a printer's mark, and the paper may vary in composition slightly. I believe many are printed by De La Rue.

I didn't want to put this as a response in the Helpdesk answer, since it is basically concise and correct for the intent and purpose of the questioner.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• You're right - even as you wrote, I was adding a correction: "the design is the same, but you can work out from the serial number where the note was issued. See Euro banknotes#Serial number." Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and of course its issue is not the same as its country of issue, and it was that kind of thing that I didn't want to confuddle the Helpdesk answer with.

I think, also, Euro coins are mostly minted by the Royal Mint, well they do about 1/3 of the world's coinage and certainly had the die-stamps in place to do it before it was introduced (I'd have a hard time I guess tracking that citation down), and since you only need a different die-stamp for one side, makes sense to make them all in one place.

One thing I'm interested in, as a minor hobby, is the butterfly effect on Euros (not sure if that is quite the right phrase). My guess is that small coin tends to stay fairly local whereas larger coins, and notes, circulate more widely. See my PhD grant "Effects of Euro standardised coinage on the Butterfly Effect". Did I say "see"? I meant "fund". SimonTrew (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Portuguese 1¢ coin apparently is very tricky to get hold of, they didn't bother to mint many for general circulation. It's always been beyond my fathom if you are inventing a new currency why make 1 of it so small. Should have been at least twice the value. I guess it was to make it similar in nominal value to the US dollar. SimonTrew (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability Tag

JohnCD,

Just recently my article has been tagged as not being notable enough for wikipedia. I was wondering if you could offer me some additional suggestions for my article, as I believe it outlines an academic view of photoanalysis and should be kept. I have already checked out the notable article page and believe that my article offers an academic point of view on the topic of photoanalysis (as stated earlier). If you could help out, I will try to change the article so that it complies to the wikipedia guidelines.

Thank you for your time,

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipware (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Quick answer: that tag is only by way of a comment, it is not an immediate threat, and it may encourage others to come and help. Places to look for advice: WP:N, WP:YFA, WP:BETTER, WP:RS, WP:CITE. I'll try to reply further on your talk page tomorrow or the next day. Regards, 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning message

As I understand you sent me a message "refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Victoria Silvstedt".

Well, I must tell that I opened the page about Victoria Silvstedt only today, after I got your message. Please, first define whom you should warn. 93.184.225.177 (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Delphinus1997

• IP addresses are often re-allocated - I get a different one each time I connect to the internet. Somebody from the internet address 93.184.225.177 made three vandal edits to that article last November; after my warning, he stopped. That wasn't you, so don't worry about it. If you want to avoid getting messages because of what other people using the same IP have done, you can register for an account, which is easy and free - see Wikipedia:Why create an account? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tenny Castle Gatehouse

Thanks for the redirect. It wouldn't have occurred to me to do a redirect for a misspelling. EraserGirl (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Chris Derrick

Was this a whoops moment for you by deleting my keep from a discussion? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Aaaaarrgh! It was indeed - profuse apologies. I rushed to put it back, in case you hadn't already. All I intended to do was move MATThematical's comment down from the top where he put it. I wouldn't, of course, do such a thing anyway, but we're on the same side - I went in as "weak keep", though the ridiculous behaviour of all the SPA supporters makes me want to find a way to vote "delete" just to show them they can't get their way by shouting. I don't know why they are so agitated - it looked to be cruising to a "keep" even before they started, and I think they probably are provoking opposition. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Tamagnone

Please see current French discussion on deletion of this article and the former Italian one. There are also similar discussions in Polish and German Wikis.

We're still not sure if it is actually a hoax or not, but there are many suspicions.

• We're observing, that the article on Tamagnone appears in may Wikis almost simultaneously: in many cases, it was a sign of a hoax.
• Tamagnone (according to the article) was born in 1937, but published professional philosophical books ony since 2000: it's quite strange.
• The article contains many detils on Tamagnone's philosophy, but almost no information on his life...
• Although, as You have said, there are some books of Tamagnone in Googlebooks, there are virtually no results in Googlescholar. A philopsoper with no citations is an unknown one. For an unknown scholar, the very content of the article is exaggerated: one could think, that the article is about a major, well-known, important philosopher - which apparently is not true.
• In Poland contemporary Italian philosophy is totally unknown (there are ony a few scholars interested in this subject): we're wondering, who could write it.
• Of course all the articles in each Wiki were written by new users. Some of them were trying to promote Tamagnone also in other articles, e.g. in English atheism and in pl:ateizm (now both editions are reverted).
• All the books written by Tamagnone was published by Clinamen, an Italian publishing house and books by his recensents were published there: I think that if even not a hoax, it's at least a kind of (aggresive) promotion.
• The books by Tamagone and his recensents seem to be linked with postmodernist philosophical tendencies: I feell that it's a kind of a postmodernist joke.

Tomorrow I'll try to get some more information and write an e-mail to Clinamen Publishing House and (if possible) one of Tamagnone's recensents. Perhaps also on the ther Wikis people will find some more inormation. Laforgue (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. It seems he exists and has published but is not (by our standards) notable - certainly fails WP:PROF. The Italians would be best placed to find out the status of this publishing house - maybe he is self-publishing? His article is the work of more than one contributor, and they are not SPAs, they are contributing to other articles on philosophy, though maybe they are just spamming in references to him - I haven't checked that. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• We have received e-mails from professor Bazzani and the Clinamen Publishing House. Now we know, that it isn't a hoax, but the article should be much shortened an cleaned up, if not deleted. Tamagnone is a minor philosopher and he isn't good known event in Italy. The articles (at least in the Italian Wiki, where it is confirmed) were written by sockpuppets, who were trying to promote Tamagnone also in other paces; probay it is the case also here. Laforgue (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

deletion of comments

Hello, I was under the impression that i was suppose to do this by the comment made by the person below my response. I always assumed deleting comments was frowned upon so i was doubtful, thats why I asked him on his talk page, and told him to revert it if i misinterpreted his comment. The person above me made a blatant lie, accusing me (the person who changed wp:athlete) as being referred by a track site, and I responded slightly embittered. As noted this is my first time on a deletion page, I usually just edit non-controversial content. I don't think im going to get involved in these things again, as it has caused me too much stress. Thanks for the speedy correction, and sorry I misinterpreted his directions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MATThematical (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• No problem - there are so many customs and rules around here that new editors can't be expected to know them all and everyone realises that one can only learn by making mistakes and being told about them - nicely, one hopes. If you read the exchange just above this you may think I am not the one to talk as last night I (accidentally) deleted someone else's comment in this same AfD. Although Wikipedia's principles include Assume Good Faith and Comment on content, not on the contributor these debates do get unduly heated at times, and the best way is not to take it personally. The job I wouldn't like to have is that of the admin who will have to read it all and try to separate the light from the heat before deciding how to close the debate. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Quadminton

Apologies for deleting the 'article delete' box! :S I thought that that was the way to make my democratic feelings known - but obviously not! Thanks for the helpful tone of your message - I'll try not to screw up next time!

RM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumbo mumbo (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• No problem, and no harm done. It takes time to learn all the rules and customs! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

I'm a bit confused about your edit summary here [1] - what copyvio? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• New user Trương Hoàng Phong (talk · contribs) made a new article Voyages of Zheng He which was a straight copyvio, and made a link to it from the "Voyages" section of the "Zheng He" article. Rather than leave his new article to be deleted, I made it into a redirect back to "Zheng He#Voyages", and explained to him on his talk page that he could set it back the other way if he wrote a fuller "Voyages" article, but it mustn't be copied. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see, thanks. If he does, I hope he cites it! Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Micronational flags

You have deleted the flag of Flandrensis but I see you also delete the flag of another micronation, I think it is Forvik so this is a mistake, could you please put the flag of the other back?. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Quite right, that was a mistake - thank you for pointing it out. I have replaced Forvik. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oksana Grishuk

Dear John thank you very much for your help and your respond. Were you able to see the correct info about me? if not PLEASE read this and PLEASE help me to add this to my info on Wikipedia. I am not so great with computers and it is hard for me to figure out how to add myself. I am please asking for your help which will be very much appreciated from my heart. Here is the true facts about me.

Oksana (Pasha) Grishuk (born March 17, 1972 in Odessa, USSR) is a Russian figure skater. She began training in skating at the age of four. Grishuk moved to Moscow in 1980, and studied at the Sport University of Moscow from 1988 to 1992. She won two Olympic Gold medals, four World Championships and three European championships in ice dancing with Evgeny Platov. The pair won 22 consecutive competitions during this time. Oksana Grishuk with her partner was entered in Guiness book of record in 1998 for becoming the only team in the history of ice dancing to win Olympic Gold twice. Oksana also won Junior World championship with Alexander Chichkov in 1988. Oksana and Evgeny combined speed and difficult elements, and displayed their mastery of numerous styles of dance. Their magical skating technic was incredible and unbeatable for years. In 1997 Oksana Grishuk was approached by a famous Hollywood film director John Frankenheimer who offered her a role in his movie with Robert De Niro. Due to her amazing dedication to figure skating Oksana had to turn that offer down because it was a conflict with her 1998 Olympic schedule. In 1994 Boris Yelchin Former Russian President awarded Oksana with a government medal of Friendship for highest achievement in sport. In 1998 Boris Yelchin awarded Oksana with a government medal of Labor also for highest achievement in sport. In 2000 and 2001 Oksana was in a very close relationship with prince of Monaco Albert Grimaldi. Oksana Grishuk give birth to a baby girl. Skyler Grace Grishuk was born on august 19th 2002 in Los Angeles California. In 2006 Oksana Grishuk Won a very popular reality skating show in Russia Moscow Dance on Ice and Oksana was featured on many popular russian magazines covers herself and with her daughter Skyler Grace. In 2007 she won third place of Dance on Ice show in Russia Moscow. Also in 2006 Oksana and her Olympic skating partner Evgeny got reunited and start skating together again doing pro shows.

thank you again million times in advance and if there anything I can do to help you in return please let me know.

sincerely,

Oksana Grishuk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oksanagrishuk (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• (answered on her talk page). JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Spamming

Please stop. If you continue spamming Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:CmPumk, you will be blocked from editing. I already told you not to do this in February.--Otterathome (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, I will not be blocked, because I was not "spamming Wikipedia" but directing a newbie to where his preferred type of contribution might be more appreciated. This is not against any Wikipedia policy, in fact see WP:Alternative outlets, where Uncyclopedia is listed with other sites under the advice "Please consider directing people to these sites... rather than simply telling them that their contributions are WP:NOT wanted." Please do not issue official-looking threats just because you don't like what someone does. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So you think it would be acceptable to go around placing Uncyclopedia, BJAODN, Illogicopedia, h2g2, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wackypedia on vandals talk pages? That page is a simple guideline and does not permit you to go around sending new users to other websites. I suggest you read WP:SPAM carefully.--Otterathome (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That guideline not only permits me to do it, it advises me to; and WP:SPAM is about "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product", which I was not doing. JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Alternative outlets suggests users who keep adding fancruft and trivial information be sent elsewhere instead. For example a starwars fan adding lots of off-topic/trivia information maybe directed to Wookieepedia, the page should not be treated as backdoor to bypass WP:SPAM. I will make WP:RFC request if you spam the link again. Or feel free to make one yourself.--Otterathome (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, someone who wants to write Starwars cruft can be pointed to Wookiepedia, and in exactly the same way someone who wants to write "joke" articles can be directed to Uncyclopedia. Neither of those actions has anything to do with spamming, which is inserting links for the purpose of promoting a website or a product. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree about this: if I come across another editor whose work I think would be more appreciated at Uncyclopedia, I shall direct him there; and if that happens and you don't like it you are welcome to raise an RFC. JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not really the same way, as adding fancruft isn't vandalism. But anyone can use your reason to spam their nonsense-wiki to vandals. We want vandals to edit properly, not go elsewhere. See my essay on the matter.--Otterathome (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

LOTRrules - I have removed your comments per WP:NPA. I shall not copy and paste your paragraph as you suggest, because I think these feuds and stalking and drama are a silly and unproductive waste of time. I suggest you just drop it and walk away. JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Otterathome and LOTRrules - please take your feud elsewhere; I suggest you both drop it, stop stalking each other, and do something useful instead, but in any case please stop edit-warring on my talk page. JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Otterathome - please stop refactoring my talk page. WP:Talk page guidelines: "Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." You may add your own comments, but do not remove mine or other people's; this is my talk page, and I will decide myself what to keep or remove. This correspondence is now closed. JohnCD (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The joe mangle angle

• Thanks for your note and thanks for starting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The joe mangle angle. I know that one is not supposed to reinstate PRODs but I was perhaps being overkind in trying to give the author a chance to give reasons for the removal and indeed for the creation of the article in the first place.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Angeorgle

Hi, i'm the creator of the page Angeorgle, i am really sorry, for what i said, and that i did not listen, however i just didn't understand, i was just hoping if you could keep my Angeorgle page as it provides just basic information that people might want to know, and once again sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by George85291 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• No need to apologise, but Wikipedia only remains useful as a serious encyclopedia by having strict standards about what we have articles on, and it doesn't seem to me that your website is notable enough for an article (see Notability (web)). That isn't my decision alone: another editor started a deletion debate where I commented, and any editor can give their view; after seven days an administrator will decide. Have a look at the links from the Welcome message on your user page, especially the guide to writing Your First Article. Two more bits of advice: please don't keep removing the AfD template - the box at the top of the article - that won't stop the debate happening; and sign your messages on talk pages by ending them with four "tilde" characters ~~~~ which the system will turn into a signature of your user-name and the time and date, like this: JohnCD (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank You for leaving that guy a message for vandalism on Lysergic acid diethylamide. I reverted another edit he did other than the on you did and left a warning on the talkpage. Is that okay? Thanks:)SchnitzelMannGreek. 13:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

a quick question about signing comments

On occasion i look back at a talk page and see something like this "MATThematical (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)" So clearly I signed the comment, but for some reason it wasn't dated. Do you have any possible knowledge as to what may have occurred here? Is it that I am signing the comment incorrectly. About 1/3 of the time this happens, the other 2 thirds everything is fine. Thanks -- MATThematical (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think you must sometimes be missing one "tilde" - four tildes gives username plus time and date, if you put only put three tildes it just gives your username (and a helpful bot comes round and adds the comment you saw). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

the jinx band page

Hi sorry I should of researched more about how to do this. I'll read through guidelines. Again apologies!Trashcanfinger (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• (replied - no need to apologise - on his talk page). JohnCD (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Tadtstrology

Your comments on Tadtstrology have been removed, these are more appropriate for the talk page. Please note that as the creator of the article, it is your responsibility to properly reference it. If it's been in use for 8 years as you claim then you should have no problems referencing it so that it may meet WP:N. It's well on it's way to being deleted based on this discussion, so if you can substantiate the notability of this term, you need to do it quickly.--RadioFan (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't create the article, or comment on it, that was Bjdmjd (talk · contribs); what I did was nominate it for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, clicked on the wrong link in the article's history.--RadioFan (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Satu

Hello JohnCD, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Satu) under a different criteria, because the one you provided was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any queries, please let me know. Thanks again! SoWhy 13:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• No problem - if I remember it right there was about one line of text on the lines of "our new fashion line is now out" plus a link to the company web-site, and I thought that made it promotional enough for G11; but I did hesitate between that and A7. I'm happy to be corrected and will be more choosy about G11. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ian White article

what was the personal attack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yti boi94 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

i am ian white, its a bio aon myself with things i often say, such as pie-sexual and being the son of Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yti boi94 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Verification

Hi, as you have helped me and became somewhat of a mentor I wish to ask your opinion. Could you read both Marketing_Science and its talk page to see if I'm right. DotComCairney (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you like, you can get a formal "mentor" - you can apply at WP:Adopt-a-User. I don't want to do anything so formal, but I'm happy to answer the occasional question. As far as what you have done at that article goes, this sort of thing is a matter of opinion and you would probably get a differecbt answer from somebody else, but on a quick look (1) I'm personally a bit sceptical about whether tags like "expand" do much good, except perhaps on a new article where the original author may see it and take the hint; I suspect in a year's time you'll find the tag is still there. Better, if you can see a way, to be WP:BOLD and improve the article yourself, though that would be difficult here. (2) I don't myself think this is in great need of expansion - it tells us what the magazine is and gives a link where someone who wants to find out more can go. So: no harm done, but I'm not sure much good either. But don't be put off - carry on doing what seems useful. One warning - Wikipedia can become seriously addictive, keep track of how much time you spend on it and ration yourself sternly if you find it keeps growing. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you

Hi John,

I understand your hesitancy to consider my article on "Biomass Hydro Dynamics" and it's relationship to new ideas?.... actually, it's not an idea, but rather a definition of a real technology that we've had running for over 5 years now.

As far as I know (and I would truly love to be wrong), we are the only solution to this date, that can make a solid claim to be able to totally replace the world's fossil fuel needs, and clean up the environment at the same time.

I happen to also have insider news that the world is going to find themselves in unseen shortages in the very near future, with most politicians hiding it all, for now, "for the public good".

World-wide, as Verde Reformation's director of strategic planning, I have slightly different models, that allow each country to source most of the systems local to their geography.

If you would wish, I would be very happy to help your country (provided I do not get too much flak from the Government here) become 'Energy Independent' - please read my white paper.

One last thing... allow me to personally apologize for offending your sensibilities regarding 'content classification'...and yet, somewhere inside of me at least, I think channels like Wiki, do have a place for 'firsts' - new things.... if they are bound to become something famous in the future and also, at least I think that social collaboration places like Wiki, do carry some measure of social responsiblity to the greater masses vs. than just their audience (so should we not try to save people from a burning building if they won't listen?)

... or should I give up and sell it all to the oil companies?

.... in any case, thanks for being interactive...

173.50.143.19 (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No apology needed, but Wikipedia only maintains itself as a useful encyclopedia by keeping firmly to its core principles, two of which are :

• Verifiability from reliable sources that are independent of the subject - that means we aren't deciding whether a subject is interesting, true, important, useful etc, we only ask "have other people independent of it found it interesting and important enough to write about?"
• No Original Research - we are not for first publication of anything new

Also, as director of the company, you should read our guidelines on Conflict of Interest and, more generally, the FAQ/Organizations. Sorry to give you with so many links to policies and guidelines, but it saves writing it all out at length. You are welcome to comment at the deletion debate. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)