User talk:JohnCD/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

epistemocracy

I don't know if you are still watching this page. I assume you were about to execute the prod when you did a web search first. Although your search establishes that the word exists, it also completely contradicts the article. Perhaps therefore you would consider restoring the prod. This would give someone another week to come up with an explanation before the article is nuked. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was indeed about to delete but checked first. However, once a PROD has been removed, for any reason or none, it may not be replaced (see WP:PROD), the theory being that PROD is for uncontroversial deletions only. The next step here would be AfD, but I am not inclined to nominate it, even if the article is a self-contradictory mess at the moment, because I think there is a possible article in there. Maybe it will end up saying "this term has been used in this sense by X and Y, but is now increasingly used, e.g. by W and Z, to mean that". It's possible that an AfD would draw more people in and get the article sorted out, but that's not really what AfD is for. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there are more than just two independent uses of the word. Is it really our place to try to do the kind of research necessary to say how the term is being used? That's not really what an encyclopedia does. Now of course we can cite someone else's research on the word's use. But I don't believe there is any. And anyway, even if I'm wrong, I point to the talk page section above: there may be an article to be written about epistemocracy, but this isn't it. A blank slate is better than what's there, so I say nuke it, unless and until someone actually writes something that's better than blank.

As it happens, I think PROD is one of the best processes on Wikipedia. In the spirit that it embodies, I'll point out that so far the deletion is only advocated by me, and only contested by you! Shouldn't I just talk to you directly, if I think I have a reasonable chance of getting your agreement? If I do get you to agree then wouldn't that therefore make it an uncontroversial deletion? I'm sure the policy page is really saying someone can't just re-tag the article over your objection. Surely it doesn't mean to say a PROD can't be replaced by, or with the consent of, the person who contested it in the first place. (In this case, restarting the clock, to be fair I suppose, since many days have passed. But for example, someone could remove a PROD and then quickly self-revert, couldn't they?) If I had instead gone to AfD, then I'd still have had to go through the same arguments, plus all the other stuff. I'd rather try this way first. Either way, thanks for your time, --99.245.206.188 (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In the "there may be an article but this isn't it" case above, the article was nonsense about a living person and we were definitely better off zapping it - "let's leave it and see if someone improves it" was not applicable there, but I think it is here. "The kind of research necessary to say how the term is being used" is the sort of way articles get developed here. If you look at the history of many of our better articles, you often find they started off as pretty unsatisfactory short scraps, but grew over time as many people chipped in.

The only exceptions in the policy to the "Don't replace a PROD" rule are "removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism." I suppose one could add "replacement by a de-PRODDer who changes his mind", but (a) that must be a relatively rare case and (b) that suggests some element of doubt. In any case, the policy doesn't say that, and it would be WP:Wikilawyering to insist on it. Besides, I haven't changed my mind; to cite policy again, WP:DEL: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." I'm not convinced this is a hopeless case. If you want to nominate it for AfD, you may - as an IP editor, you will not be able to complete the process, because it involves creating a page for the deletion discussion, but I will do that for you if you like. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's not a problem that much work is required. But it is that the type of work required is the kind of research that an encyclopedia doesn't really do. You suggest we might say "the word used to be used this way and this way, but now it is used that way and that way", but are any of these uses by themselves notable, and how would we back up such usage claims anyway?

For example, you cited WP:NEO before. I quote: "Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term ... without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable ... then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia ... To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use."

I believe this is a very sensible recommendation, and I also do not believe any suitable source exists. Do you still think the page be improved? If so, how?

As to PROD I think your accusation of Wikilawyering is backwards. I am appealing to the spirit of the rule, which is to allow simple deletion where nobody disagrees. This is also very much in the general spirit of Wikipedia. You are appealing to the letter of the rule, which doesn't make a specific allowance. Now, of course I understand that as of this moment you still disagree, but I still think I have a better chance here. The issue is not so much that I have not logged in, but more that I'm an irregular contributor. I still think I'm better off trying to convince you, in a two-way dialogue at my own pace, rather than at AfD in a multi-lateral conversation which has to reach consensus in five days. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was reasonable to try to convince me, but you have not succeeded. AfD is the only way to go now, if you want it deleted. You are fully entitled to do that as an IP editor; there is only the mechanical problem that one step of the AfD nomination process requires creating a page, which only a logged-in editor can do. But if you write your deletion nomination on the article talk page, I will do the rest. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Very well. At some point I will go for AfD. Thanks for your time. Thanks also for your offer to help with the tehcnicality, but I will try to reactivate my old registration or if not I can just re-register. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thx. That helps a lot.

I'm going to have someone else write and submit and have them quote from the magazine articles and other sources that exist out there. how long will the page for THE KIKI TWINS be protected? Forever or temporarily?

thx again, casnnyc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casnnyc (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am checking with the admin who protected it, and if he has no objection I will unsalt it. JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsalted. JohnCD (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

John Arrington Page Deletion

Just wondering why you had deleted the page for John Arrington? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljarratt (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

New Raven Clan Copy

Ogan 234 Ok we will do it this way thank you. just restore it and i will copy and past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogan 234 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Done - see your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page

whyd you have to delete the page i made man. this is why wikipedia is going downhill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassmancrenshaw (talk • contribs) 00:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand. But the photographer needs a page for himself. What if I make the page and include his own websites as references but not AFG Management? So I would include all his personal info and links to his website except a link for AFG Management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afgintern (talk • contribs) 15:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Lady Bjork

Maybe I didn't write a good article, I was scared to be too much long, but a character able to aggregate thousands of people like Lady Bjork, I think deserves attention; Write Lady Bjork on Google. Anyway my article was not vandalism as I saw on my page! On Italian Wikipedia I wrote, with another account, several pages about the origins of Etruscan Language, but maybe mine was not a right subject for Wikipedia. Have a nice night —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donlivix (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Kusshii

Although there was certainly no consensus for deletion of Kusshi, I would like you to reconsider your closing statement. There were two people supporting delete, and three supporting keep. Given that there were not overwhelmingly strong arguments on the keep side, this seems to me to be a no consensus rather than keep. As a matter of record for any future AFD's, it is important that the closing statement reflect this fact. Thanks. Locke9k (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have re-read the arguments and reconsidered, but I stand by my "keep" close; not only were there more "keeps", which is not a conclusive factor (and I paid no attention to the fact that one was marked "strong keep"), but I consider that they had the better arguments. The "delete" !votes were both based on "unsourced OR"; by the end of the debate the OR-est part of the article ("The name may also have been taken... ") had been removed, and a number of sources had been produced - not, I grant you, of the highest quality, but enough to show that this is more than just the invention of an enterprising tourist board. The article is now much better than when you nominated it - often the effect of an AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dawood Group

The IP has once again tried to remove material at Dawood Group. I don't know if you are online, so I opened an incident at AIN. See [1]. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. Semi-protected for a month. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

142.25.14.82 Vandalism

Hi JohnCD!

My report of an IP (142.25.14.82) was rejected. Can I add into the report that after sending him a warning, he vandalized my talk page as well? Not sure if this is the place to put this! Thanks! Enti342 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC).

No, I saw he'd done that, you don't need to report it separately. An admin looking at an AIV report will look at the user's contributions to see what he has been up to, as well as the talk page to see what warnings he has had. The thing about IPs is, it may not be the same person as before; there was indeed a lot of past vandalism, but none since November until the one you warned him for, and then the one on your talk page. Before blocking, we normally need to see recent warnings up to and including level 4, and then more vandalism after it. In this case, it looks as though your warnings frightened him off. I know one can feel like a hunter balked of his prey in these circumstances, but you have to remind yourself: he's stopped, that's what we wanted! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks for the clarification, Have a great day!!! Enti342 (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for anti-vandal patrolling! JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A sock issue

If you are online right now, can you help me with a sock issue. It's about a blocked user evading making edits with anonIP and now a possible new account? ww2censor (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(Sorted). JohnCD (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

An other new sock Philatthelee per this diff on Talk:Republic of Ireland postal addresses. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. I'm beginning to think this is rather a waste of time - he just sets up a new throwaway account each time he wants to post; but see also here. JohnCD (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

deleted article

you deleted a wikipedia article, Alexa Leigh Corbett is a published author, model, and actress who is only 19. first book was published at 18 years old. why did you delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.114.143.75 (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it gave no indication that she is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. That is not a matter of opinion but needs to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." More detail in WP:Notability (people) and (for authors, models, actresses) WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Pablo mora

I create this page for tribute one of hte best southwest poetry of venezuela...please check again or send me why you take the determination to take out....i believe that wikipedia is a big encyclopedia for everyone to want share knowledge but if ou take out real information of interest people...i think that i wrong idea that wikipedia is....

Luis Arturo Mora Neuville archturo@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archturo (talk • contribs) 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Véase es:Ayuda:FAQ Derechos de autor: "¿Puedo añadir algo a wikipedia que haya tomado de otro lugar? Por lo general, no. La mayoría del contenido que la gente quiere añadir está bajo copyright."

The article was deleted because the material was copied from other websites like www.poiesologia.com and www.analitica.com. Wikipedia cannot accept text copied from elsewhere unless the proper legal copyright release has been made, as explained in the notice on your talk page.

Also, your article was in Spanish, and this is the English-language Wikipedia. If you like to write an article about Pablo Mora in your own words, in English, it will be very welcome; the guide to writing Your First Article gives useful advice. Alternatively, I am sure the Spanish Wikipedia would be pleased to have an article in Spanish, but there also you must respect copyright.

JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye

As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. Good luck, my friend and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM WuhWuzDat 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve Barber models

Hello,

I am new to this site and the way it works. I hope that you can help me and guide me in what I am doing wrong. I have seen that other miniature figure sculptors such as alan and michael perry have a page that promotes them greatly you even have a page that promotes games workshop? I know steve barber personally and I feel that he should be represented as he is as famous as alan and michael perry?

If I have written the page in the wrong way I appologize for that, but I am new to what is required. I only wanted to redress the balance otherwise this great resource of a website looks awfully biased towards one group of people.

I hope you can help.

Karen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbm1uk (talk • contribs) 21:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on her talk page) JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

remove notice?

Hi, if someone puts a notice on my article and I address it, such as "need to add reference," and I do so, then can I remove the notice or is there some other procedure? Thanks, Indiekitten (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on user's talk page} JohnCD (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Online wedding Undelete

Thank you for taking the time to examine the issue. The items that you pointed out are duly noted and will be address. But I really appreciate not having to start from scratch. --ghost (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete Account?

Is there anyway for me to delete this account? I made it in school a while ago and it's linked to my e-mail account but my friends all know the password and if I change it they just find out and still log in (I didn't even know of any vandalization until I read the comment)...I have a new account and I really don't want this one anymore...is there anoyone who can get rid of it??? (XXLOTMSXx (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

No, there's no way to delete an account, but you can just abandon it. I suggest you scramble the password, i.e. set it to something really complicated, don't make a note of it, and then just forget it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of William E. Lewis, Jr. Page

I recently established a page for myself utilzing material that is copyrighted to myself. With that said, it was deleted. Please investigate this as the material in which you claim I infringed is owned by myself and should not have been deleted.

If - for some reason - the page cannot be restored, please advise what I should do. Do I submit a new page or request permanent deletion of the page previously submitted.

Upon reinstatement of the page, please correct my name as the middle and last name do not have capital letters.

Thank you.

William E. Lewis, Jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4BillLewis (talk • contribs) 11:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

deleation of peter graham moore

Why the deleation, the artical is about an upcoming artist who lives in london, this space should be for info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.moorejj (talk • contribs) 15:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pink Panther vandals

Just a heads up: The IP you blocked wasn't the only offending party. 76.230.235.49 at the very least (and sometimes a few other IP editors) have been making similarly unsourced changes across these pages; rollback won't work because it won't catch their changes (which are sometimes interspersed with the IP you blocked, and his original edits get missed). I'm going through to try and restore to good version past all the junk, any help would be appreciated (or, as an admin, you might be able help apply semi-protects to these pages, I filed a request a few minutes ago). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your post on my talk. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wellrooted creation

A global network of accredited soil testing laboratories are establishing a not for profit offering by networking together - a first - to offer past soil test analysis depicted on a Google Map format so that all growers (home, small acreage farming, etc.) can be educated on the importance of utilizing this grass roots approach to scientifically restore or prepare soil bases for plant growth. This initiative is free and simple educates without requesting funding - just contribution toward its cause.

In its creation - a term named 'wellrooted' was established to define this approach and education - it is new. Many global laboratories are using their collective expertise and education to deliver a message globally: in order to reduce plant setbacks, avoid misuse of synthetic additives such as pesticides, to become proactive in avoiding problems through understanding soil conditions, and to obtain positive environmental stewardship - each person needs to become wellrooted in their methods and beliefs.

It is a word that seems fitting and no other word defines it...

What would be the best approach to creating its definition?

WellrootedRT (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on user's talk page) JohnCD (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

why you delete my page ? your reason for deleting was wrong

hy. i created here a page about a famous personality of pakistan Adnan raza. he's model. Espacially he s very famous in a local city and more then 40,000 people want know about him. its wiki and why u deleted ? plz never do that action again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadnan (talk • contribs) 15:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tarken Destroyer of Worlds

Mr. john

Why did you delete that article? I read the article and I thought it was very entertaining. Wether he be fake, based off of real experiences, over exadurated, be from multiple past life experiences, or actually from another planet(the possibility is slim but it does exhist) you did not even let the guy finish it or hear the true meaning. I for one would think that what ever he had to say was legitiment for you to at least let him finish it. If the true meaning was poitless then you could have deleted it, but since you did not know it. You should have let him finish it. Please get back to me on this message.

Thank you for taking your time to listen to me

Ian, cheeaa(user account) or if need be thejmaster9000@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.57.162 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a serious encyclopedia, not a place for fantasy. A contributor who claims to have been "born on Neptune, before the age of man began on earth" is not going to be taken seriously, and whether his page was a piece of fiction, a game, or a joke, it certainly wasn't an encyclopedia article, so there was no point letting him spend any more time on it. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

relevance of a musician page.

My name is John Courzes and I am doing a Documentary on the musician, "Bradley Potter." I need help with setting a few things up on Wiki. Can you help me?? I am tring to capture art of a fallen touring artist and his struggle to try and make his big brake in his late 20's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reikiwhitelight (talk • contribs) 11:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• (answered on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tammy Jennings

Can I have a copy of this article in my user space please. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done - it's here. JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Rhythmology

Can I request a temporary review for the article 'rhythmology' that you deleted, or at least see the copy that was there somehow?

Mrycraft (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Article restored automatically on request as a contested PROD. Advice on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yikes

I'm sorry. I corrected a mistake with another mistake. I think I'll just go to bed now :) All edits with WikiCleaner are manual, so it wouldn't be a bug in the software. The bug is my head. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 10:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Evangelia Rigaki

Dear John CD I'm really new in wikipedia and wanted to add Evangelia Rigaki ass greek composer. Unfortunally I understood to late that there are some large rules to respect. How can I delete 100percent of what was done. Now if someone searches Evangelia Rigaki on google he comes to your srong message that she this entry is left because of deletation Could you please remove any entry or say me at least what I can do. Regards

(y_breuer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y breuer (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on user's talk page) JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Chernobyl Child Aid

Can you help me with my page "Chernobyl Child Aid" as it seems to attract Speedy Deletion each time I submit it. I cannot understand this as it is similar in content to CCPI (Chernobyl Childrens Project International)

Pinkfoot (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on user's talk page) JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fred Mackintosh

Please undelete Fred Mackintosh which you delted under WP:CSD#A7. Being a candidate for ofice is not inherently notable, but it might lead to notability depending on the amount of coverage involved. it is surely a "claim of significance" enough to avoid a speedy deletion and require a prod or AfD, particularly when the article asserts that the person has been a candidate twice. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 16:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh). Reluctantly, and doubtfully, I agree: being a candidate maybe is enough to pass A7, and I should not have deleted this. Reluctantly, because as the UK election draws near that is going to mean a lot of AfDs, unless we decide, as some people would like, to ignore WP:POLITICIAN altogether. I think that would be a pity, because to allow candidates to have articles is an open invitation to COI and promotional editing - I note, for instance, that this one was originally posted by user Fred Mackintosh (talk · contribs) and that the author of this version is posting articles about Lib Dem candidates only. Even if written in neutral terms, having an article still helps promote a candidate. Still, I have undeleted it, and will AfD it tomorrow unless someone else does first; I'm sure a PROD would be removed. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

United States Trust Territory of Marie Byrd Land and Ellsworth Land Antarctica.

The hoaxster Dizzo95 has been at it again. I do hope that warning you gave him means that he will finally be permanently blocked. That account has done nothing except re-re-re-re-recreate that hoax under different names. (A reply is not needed.) Carolina wren (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoaxer blocked. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

about Fluther

I checked the people involved in the deletion log and your name showed up, as well as User talk:Cirt, User talk:NawlinWiki, and User talk:Skier Dude.

I'm not going to argue the case specifically for Fluther, however I wonder if there should be a list of answer sites as Category:Knowledge markets likely doesn't cover all, such as Fluther, Blurtit, Dizzay, or for that matter, Wikipedia:Reference Desk.

Thanks.
Civic Cat (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You got several admins' names because this article has a complicated history: first it was about pirates, then it was about jellyfish with a link to the website, deleted as dic-def plus spam; the next version started life as a blurry screen shot but when I deleted it had been sitting for two hours with "{{NEW PAGE}}" as its only content; finally one with some substance was produced, redirected to Fluther.com, and deleted after this AfD, despite off-site canvassing. However, re-reading your note, I see that wasn't your question. With regard to creating a list article, why not? WP:Be bold and make one, and see what happens. Sites not notable enough for a stand-alone article might well be able to justify a brief description in a list. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was somewhat concerned with, if you will, "link farming".
Cheers
:-D
Civic Cat (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as the list says something briefly about each entry and isn't just a collection of lists, you should be OK, but it isn't an area I know much about: look for some other "List of... " type articles and see how they do it. JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Emily Horsnail

Don't know why you deleted the Emily Horsnail page. She was a real person who was murdered. The page was created as part of the Unsolved Murders UK page, which is what Emily Horsnail is - an unsolved murder. Get a life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angiewebber (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she's in the list of unsolved murders, but there's no indication that she is notable enough for a stand-alone article, which would need significant coverage in reliable sources. Check out WP:N and WP:YFA. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of pages

Hi John, So apparently I didnt follow certain guidelines. This is my first wikipedia page that Im creating, and I was wondering, how do I make the biographies legit so that they dont get deleted? Mjreuter (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Melody

Unless the subjects meet the notability requirement, they will be deleted. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is selective about what it allows articles on. Also, it appears you are trying to write about your own company and its people: check out WP:COI, WP:BESTCOI and the FAQ/Organizations, 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) 21:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Adam Mucci Page

I, Rip2010, had created the Adam Mucci page. You deleted it because of plagarism. I now understand why it was deleted. THANKS!

Rip2010 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Rip2010

Posted at 1:47pm EST by Rip2010

Arron spencer

I think that page actually gave me a nosebleed... HalfShadow 21:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I Don't Know Why Anyone Writes Like That. JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd wear this as a badge of honour

I reverted some vandalism written in Spanish on your user page. Thanks to babelfish, I translated it as "I am a person who does not have anything better to do than to erase the articles of others." I think that's actually pretty cool. freshacconci talktalk 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe I should have a user-page flag emblem for each language I get abused in. I thought it might be about this, but no: he probably could have written it in English if he wanted to - this and this are the edits that upset him. As it was an expired PROD, he could have the article back by asking; but it wouldn't survive AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

R. C. Laskar

Thanks. In fact I was the authror of this with a different name. Long ago, someone raised (see the history) the question of notability and I was trying to test it today. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:DoNotTellDoNotAsk

I just went to that user's page to say the same thing. They've gone a spree of tagging professor's pages. I'm in the process of declining the speedy nominations and wanted to see if I could ask for some assistance? Cheers! TNXMan 23:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I had just gone to bed. Looks like you have cleaned it up without my help. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It is good that at least you realize the importance of these articles. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Edit summary abbreviations - thanks

Hi!
Very much appreciated. Thank you indeed!
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion: "Indiana Militia Corps"

I would like an explanation of how one organization (Indiana Militia) can be deleted on the basis of "no current notability" when another org (Michigan Militia) is kept on the grounds that "notability doesn't expire". I am confused by this disparity.

Here's the comments from the Michigan Militia AfD page:

1. Keep. Once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 8:05 am, 26 January 2010, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)
2. I have no particular opinion on this article but find the statement "... no longer notable" quite odd. - Rjd0060 (talk) 8:52 am, 26 January 2010, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)
3. Keep. This group got plenty of RS coverage in the early-mid 1990s. Notability does not expire. A Google Books search shows non-trivial coverage too. • Gene93k (talk) 9:39 am, 26 January 2010, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

Thanks for your answer in advance. JP419 (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no double standard - despite considerable research by two editors, there was a clear consensus at this debate that the Indiana militia is not notable, but at that one that the Michigan militia is. It was not suggested that the Indiana militia had once been notable but is no longer: in fact your argument was "their operations are sure to increase, and consequently they WILL be in the news... ", but that is the WP:UPANDCOMING argument, which we do not accept. If you disagree with the result of the AfD, you can take it to WP:Deletion review, but read the instructions on that page: it is not intended for continuing the same discussion, but for arguing that the debate was wrongly closed. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And you deleted the article unfairly by wikilawyering the argument and moving to delete as soon as possible. Deleting the article does not improve WP and overlooks the fact that there are other articles in the category of militia groups with far less notability (by your application of standards). I'm simply pointing out that the category has high notability at this time, and additional citations are sure to follow; we cannot be sure what will be published, but in any event the singling out of one article and ignoring everything I had to say is not best practices. I am beginning to believe that the critics of WP are correct about the underlying bias here, hiding behind a guideline to justify your rigid desire to delete an article contrary to the spirit and the principles of Wikipedia. As I said before, a guideline is subordinate to the Five Pillars. And yes, I will appeal. What you did was wrong. Wikipedia is supposed to be improved, not winnowed. Deletionism in WP is contrary to the principles guiding it! JP419 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I felt I should inform you that I started a new thread at WP:ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indiana_Militia_Corps.2C_part_deux regarding the deletion of Indiana Militia Corps. Angryapathy (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I will watch it, but I don't at the moment feel any need to comment. JohnCD (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Clarince63 (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The kindest interpretation of this is that it is an April fool's joke. JohnCD (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to Say:

I posted this to the talk page of User:Bwilkins early this morning, but I don't think he saw it. The blocked IP is also a prolific vandal under another IP, at one point, he signed one vandal post as Sutter Cain, also used by the other IP. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, clearly the same vandal but an IP-hopper. 60.230.198.186 contributed only on 7, 11, 12 Jan, had a short block and hasn't edited since; then 121.221.237.10 pops up today. Not a lot we can do really; if he reappears and you report him again, you can link to this conversation, or better the one with BWilkins which has more detail. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I will. I didn't realize it was the same person until I saw the Talk:Black Dahlia postings. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Political candidates

Hi there. I noticed you participated in the Articles for Deletion discussion for Graham Jones (politician). I have started a discussion regarding a consensus position for candidates in legislative elections (by way of amending WP:POLITICIAN, in case you are interested in putting forward your views there. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent - we certainly need that. I will contribute there. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of Living persons solution?: Projectification

As someone who commented on the BLP workshop I created, please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.

Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!

Better to figure out the potential objections now. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.

Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Damon Noone

John. Would you mind taking a look at the above new article and review the notability if you have time. Cheers - Galloglass 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it John. If I have time over the weekend I'll take it to AfD. Cheers - Galloglass 23:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ladism

why did you delete it? if we believe in it your actually being racist?! we created this group on facebook and over 2000 members have joined. Just giving you a hint. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.223.65 (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• What has racism got to do with it? New religions, philosophies, etc don't get an article until they are established enough to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." For more explanation, see WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Vijai S. Shankar

In December you deleted Dr. Vijai S Shankar, please note that this has now been recreated as Dr. Vijai S. Shankar. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

article Black Goldendoodle and Black goldendoodle

These are redundant pages, please see article: Goldendoodle.

Suggest that these be redirected to Goldendoodle or deleted altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.112.16 (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please review and reinstate Mark Boardman

Hello,

As a big film fan there are many mentions on mark online, twitter and on Wikipedia.

I tried setting up a page for him though it was deleted. He is listed as a minor celebrity on twitter and is worthy of a page of his own. He is best friends with Dave Berry and Dj Talent and comperes the London film premieres and much more.

The page read:

Mark Boardman (born 1980) is a part time photographer and journalist and is most widely known for his numerous TV appearances as a chat show host on Homemade for T4 alongside his mate Dave Berry. [1] Prior to his appearance on T4 and the big interview with Steve Jones & Miquita Oliver, he has appeared on TV programmes including This Morning where he discussed ways to get A-listers on your side and the art of autograph collecting. For the BBC he filmed a documentary about London film premieres and discussed why celebs are so in demand, he then went on to meet Huge Grant and many other stars. A regular of Local radio and a celeb pundit and blogger. Since 2004 Mark has run his own celebrity / London film premiere website and has over 2500 followers on twitter including many celebs who enjoy his celebrity blogging and insights in action on the red carpet in Leicester Square. [2] Film premieres [3] are some of the most visited in the UK for the latest movie info and for chances to win free premiere tickets and back stage passes. Over 4000 autographs later (mainly A-list) his sites [4] Celebrity Quotes

Steve Jones on Mark " one of Tv's rising stars" June sarpong " Mark is gonna be a star" Dave Berry " the star of the show is Mark Boardman" [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melody1000 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page: article wasn't deleted, only moved; but it has been PRODded) JohnCD (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...For deleting that page, I think "brainfart" is the most accurate term to describe my misstep. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It happens to us all! JohnCD (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Almost two years ago, you participated in the deletion discussion of the Otis AFB F-94C Disappearance page here. I've finally gotten around to fixing it to something worth while, so I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at it here before I upload it to the main space. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That takes me back a bit! I'll look at it, but it'll be a day or two before I have time. The two hurdles it will have to pass are (a) is it different enough from last time to escape WP:CSD#G4, and (b) is it good enough to pass a new AfD. Another good person to ask to look at it would be Sandstein (talk · contribs) who closed the AfD last time. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you had time to look in the past week? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll probably move it to the article space soon after I pass it by Deletion Review, so any help will be appreciated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review. I didn't even know that that page existed. I guess I might as well start fixing it now. 23:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

The Adventures of Bob and Jim

Im jsut curious as to why my article on "The Adventures of Bob and Jim" was deleted? Were the references not good enough or is it because the band isn't popular enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Togg (talk • contribs) 00:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Question/help on vandal.

Sorry to disturb you, but remember the Indonesian movie studio/anime vandal? He's now using 118.137.75.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). That address was blocked before, but vandalism has restarted after that block expired. Same old, same old, BTW. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked again - 55 Hours this time. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:MaxWeberJr

Hi there. There's little chance of you remembering this, but you were involved in this AfD for an article called Functional Temporalism, an article whose author (User:MaxWeberJr) later admitted was a hoax (see here). I e-mailed Black Kite with some concerns about this user, but it appears Black Kite has now retired. Anyway, MaxWeberJr has appears to have attempted to create another hoax with this edit, which was promptly undone. You're an admin, so I was wondering if you felt that any action was necessary, or whether it would suffice to simply keep an eye on him. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, did Black Kite forward my e-mail to you? If not, let me know, you may find it useful. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I remember Functional Temporalism well, in fact I have been meaning to ask you how you first came across it. After it was admitted as a hoax, I rather kicked myself for wasting so much time explaining why we needed sources. Also, I remembered later that I had encountered the other defender before, when I tagged an improbable-sounding historical article of his as a hoax and he was extremely, and uncivilly, indignant before graciously accepting an apology and saying he would rewrite with sources - which of course, he never did. Reference here. I meant to ask you if thought those two were the same person. No, Black Kite did not forward your email, and I would be interested to see it. As far as the latest hoax goes, I don't think any action is necessary beyond keeping an eye: if warned that he is under surveillance he will just start a new account, and if he does nothing more serious that that we needn't worry. I have been to Oodnadatta, a one-horse town in the deep outback whose only distinction was as a station on the old narrow-gauge railway to Alice Springs; as that line has been abandoned, Oodnatta must by now be even less than one-horse. JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll forward the e-mail to you, I'm sure it'll explain a lot. How should I go about doing that? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 22:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I figured it out. It should be in your inbox. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 22:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting. Do you know anything of the other staunch defender at that AfD - in particular, do you have any reason to think he might be the same person? JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Check your inbox. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's all I needed to know. JohnCD (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Clean up of user page

Thanks for the clean up of my page :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. I was checking his contributions before blocking him. JohnCD (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Shon Brooks

Hello Mr. CD

I just made some changes to this article as you were sending me this message. Please let me know if it is okay or if I need to improve it. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habeebah (talk • contribs) 17:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on user's talk page) JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please bring this article back. It appears that some of the references may violate copyright protection. could you please bring it back so I can make the necessary changes. Thanks. {{helpme}} What references do your prefer?--Habeebah (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC) User: Habeebah

differing ideas on inclusion of "sudden" re fuel control probs of Toyo

John,

I note that NPR has dropped the "sudden" in their newscasts, and I will try to contact them regarding this decision.

Sudden acceleration will search right to suddenacceleration.com where absolute fabrications exist:

""""""What is sudden acceleration?

Sudden acceleration is one of the most deadly automotive defects in history. It occurs when a car’s electronics cause the throttle to go wide open,...."""""

I consider this to be a bogus site--a trolling troop of plaintiff attorneys

I'll get back to you as I find further information on this, but so far, I've not seen any verification of full throttle--on a personal level, I did own a high output V-8 in the late 80s with an aftermarket cruise control that did not release every time from very high power settings. It was rather scary, but turning the ignition off solved the problem--and I was able to make proper modifications, promptly. (it was a fully mechanical setup, however)

HBG Homebuilding (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this - why have you sent it to me? JohnCD (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gatineau Park Protection Committee

Check us out at http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html

Ahunt's bad faith

Ahunt is misleading all Wikipedians: in no way does http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html constitue spam. The site informs the public about confirmed problems, with accurate and verifiable sources. It does not advertise. Ahunt is showing bad faith, poor judgement, and a lack of understanding of the rules. Ahunt interprets them to suit his POV. And that must be denounced by all honest men and women.

In what way, is http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html not a reliable source? The burden of proof is on Ahunt. --Stoneacres (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I was wondering what is the reason why you had deleted my article. Thank you.--Asam494 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Alexis Samuels

• (replied on her talk page) JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello, You deleted my bio. I am "Levent Goktem". I wondered why did you delete it? Any hints? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.3.42.47 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably the article did not indicate notability, a requirement to have a Wikipedia article, which is not a matter of subjective opinion but needs to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is explained in more detail at WP:Notability (people); please also read WP:Autobiography. If those do not answer your question, let me know the exact title of the page, or the date it was deleted: we have never had a page titled "Levent Goktem". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Sanvee

Could you please reinstate this article? OTRS has received permission for it under ticket number 2010021210003139. I will add the tags as soon as I know the article is reinstated. Thank you in advance. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I was debating with myself what maintenance templates to add, but you've done a thorough job! I have lifted it out of the overcrowded "BLPunref" category by putting in the website it's copied from, and changing the tag to "primarysources". I did warn him on his talk page that the tone was unsuitable, and asked him to read WP:AUTO. Ah well... If I have time I might do a bit of cleaning up. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fragulator

Hi there, you recently deleted a page I added and I wondered whether I could ask your advice about it? It's about the 'Fragulator', which is part of an index developed by a company called Fidessa. The reason I though the entry might be ok is that the index is increasingly becoming recognised as an industry standard, and is regularly quoted in the press, particularly in the FT. It's free to use, not part of the main Fidessa corporate site (there aren't any logos on the site at all) and I tried hard to keep the Fidessa name out of the entry as I didn't want it to be advertising. If having a seperate page on it is not acceptable, would it be worth be trying to extend the section that touches on it in the main Fidessa entry, or is it likely that that would not meet the standards either?

Many thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradingcalc (talk • contribs) 11:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Jackgoldcastle is just a clever troll.

Suggesting the Flintstones is a Nelvana cartoon, or that PBS Kids Bookworm Bunch party made up of old Hanna Barbera cartoons, or even that Corduroy is the adventures of a real bear?

I tried assuming good faith at first, but this guys edits are too stupid. HalfShadow 17:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - our messages "crossed in the post". JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Seen this before?

Hi JohnCD, I recently reverted an edit to Project Natal that seemed really familiar. [2] I've seen this message inserted into Microsoft-related articles by different IPs... is this a known long-term vandal? XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen that one: WP:LTA is where known long-term vandals are documented, but on a quick search of that for keywords from his edit I don't find him there. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for looking anyway. XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the article 'Naturoid'

Dear Sir, assuming that you are the ‘Deletion Administrator’, let me do some remarks on the deletion of the article ‘Naturoid’. From the deletion discussion (the part without very trivial remarks or even insults: give a look to the style of most ‘Delete’ comments) I understand that:

1_ the position of WPRules-interpreters is that of people strictly linked to a set of rules; 2_ the rules are consistent with WP final aim, that is that of 3_ accepting articles thatdeal with all what has happened and happens in the world provided it is already known. 4_ Such policy implies that WP will report even on well known theories of any sort – pranotherapy or magic included (by the way, I would be curious to know what the evaluators would have said having to discuss articles on this matter) but 5_ imposing to the WPRules-interpreters a great caution in accepting articles on subjects that claim to be rationally established but are not yet widely taken into account, on the basis of a fuzzy threshold of notability.

Being a regular, though cautious in turn, user of WP, I had different perception of it having read, some years ago, its noble mission statements.

It should be enough to read carefully the 'Impact and applications' section of the article for understanding that the term and the ‘theory of artificial’ (now of naturoids) have been used, quoted and discussed in many occasions.

This is not to maintain that my own theory is a universally known one, but only to defend the idea that a good, general encyclopedia shouldn't neglect theories at this stage of development.

I add some quotations that testify the diffusion of the term naturoid and that of ‘theory of artificial’, which was the former name I gave to the current theory.

The only reason explaining the little usage of the term ‘naturoid’ is just the shift I decided some years ago from the two above mentioned definitions. But this shift has been clearly described in the introduction of the article. Therefore, I cannot understand why WP doesn’t accept the article.

I add also my whole list of publications in English.

Thanks for your attention, best regards,

Massimo Negrotti University of Urbino

List of publications

IN ITALIAN (one in portuguese) Ethos-Techne Seminario de Filosofía de la Tecnología, Posgrado UNAM, http://jelinares tecnociencia.blogspot.com/2009_09_13_archive.html “...además de que les puedo enviar de una vez el e-book (muy bueno, en PDF) de Naturoids de Negrotti...” G.O.Longo, ‘Homo technologicus’, Meltemi, 2001, p 79 “La nozione di artificiale (Negrotti, 2000) ha a che fare con la riproduzione verismile e accurata, a vantaggio di chi deve servirsene, di oggetti o fenomeni ‘esistenti in natura’...” then, he reports on the concepts of ‘observation levels’, and ‘essential performance’ (see the article ‘Naturoid) from the book ‘Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi’, Laterza, 2000 A. Ardigò, G. Mazzoli’Le nuove technologie per la promozione umana’, Angeli, Milnao, 1993, quotes Negrotti’s work at pages 20, 183, 234. G. Priulla, ‘Vendere onnipotenza. Metafore pubblicitarie, tecnologie, miti del XXI secolo’ (To sell omnipotence. Advertising metaphors, technologies, myths of the XXI century) quotes Negrotti’s book ‘La terza realtà. Introduzione alla teoria dell’artificiale. Dedalo, Bari, 1997 at pag. 145. T. Barni, Hematology Meeting Reports 2007; 1:(6), at pag. 31 “Massimo Negrotti nel suo libro Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi (Laterza 2000) riporta che l’aggettivo “finto” secondo il Devoto/Oli definisce un prodotto ottenuto artificialmente,per imitazione… Chi definirebbe l’intelligenza artificiale una intelligenza finta? Così anche la definizione di artificiale come qualcosa che si contrappone al naturale, esce ribaltata dalla discussione che stiamo conducendo. T. De Mauro, Univ. of Rome, http://www.nuovoeutile.it/ita_creativita_linguaggio.htm ‘teorie e pratiche della creatività’ “Massimo Negrotti, studia da molti anni ciò che, in gran parte, determina nelle nostre culture il rischio di eclissi del corpo, l'immenso sviluppo pervasivo dell'artificialità (La terza realtà. Introduzione alla teoria dell'artificiale, Dedalo, Bari 1997)”. S. Pratesi, ‘Verso una bioetica ambientale?’ (Towards an environmental bioethics?) L'artificiale svela l'ontologia del cyborg, mostrandone il carattere naturoide (3), il suo essere parte della realtà naturale ma, contemporaneamente, totalmente altro, sua immagine riprodotta ma tendenzialmente modificata, altro dall'uomo (in quanto prodotto) ma parte dell'uomo (in quanto riproduzione).” “… l'artificiale, oltre una certa soglia di complessità, tende a trasformare o arricchire l'esemplare e le sue prestazioni sia per ragioni intrinseche al suo essere comunque macchina, sia perché approfondisce le caratteristiche isolate dell'esemplare dal contesto” ( M. Negrotti ,Artificiale, cit., p. 38). (3) M. Negrotti , ult. op. cit, p. 12. Di Giuseppe Rotolo,Giuseppe Primiero ‘Dall'artificiale al vivente. Una storia naturale dei concetti’ (From the artificial to the living. A natural history of the concepts), quotations at pages 56, 64 of the book M. Negrotti (ed) Capire l’artificiale, Bollati-Boringhieri, 1990, the published by Springer-verlag, Understanding the artificial, London, 1991. R. Diodato, ‘Estetica del virtuale’, (Aesthetics of the virtual) Bruno Mondadori, 2004, quotation at pag. 63 of the section at pages 48-53 of the Italian book ‘Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi’, Laterza, 2000 M. Pugliara, ‘Il mirabile e l'artificio: creature animate e semoventi nel mito e nella tecnica degli antichi’ (The admirable and the artifice: animated creatures in the myth and the technology of antiquity) quotations at pages XXVIII, 3,if the Book ‘Artificiale. La riproduzione della natura e le sue leggi’, Laterza, 2000 V. Somenzi, Relazione per la LXIII Riunione della Società Italiana per il Progresso delle Scienze, 1995, discusses at page 2-3 Negrotti’s work as reported in the book ‘Artificialia. Clueb, Bologna, 1995. E. Tedeschi, ‘Vita da fan’, Meletmi, 2003, quotation of Negrotti’s book ‘L’osservazione musicale: l’artificiale fra soggetto e oggetto, (The musical observation. The artificial between subject and object) Franco Angeli, Milano, 1996. “...la più antica delle ambizioni umane, che si coniuga presumibilmente col desiderio di immortalità, è stata relegata in una regione culturale caratterizzata dal puro fantastico, e ciò spiega perchè progressivamente, il termine stesso di artificiale abbia assunto una connotazione così largamente negativa, tanto che ancora oggi stesso è sinonimo di ‘non vero’, ‘falso’, ‘mera imitazione’ o di ‘espediente’” from M. Negrotti, Verso una teoria dell'artificiale, Serie Prometheus, Franco Angeli, Milano, 1993.) IN ENGLISH (one in German) C. Beardon, ‘Computers, postmodernism and the culture of the artificial’ AI&Society, 8, 1994.”The phrase "the artificial" is being used increasingly to denote a new aspect or even a new form of society (e.g. Negrotti, 1991; Berleur, 1993) and warrants further examination.”. Quotation of Negrotti, M.. (1991) Understanding the artificial: on the future shape of artificial intelligence. Springer-Verlag, London. R. Harle, Leonardo, (Oct. 2003) “'Negrotti has succeeded in outlining a basic theory of artificiality which he methodically and systematically expands throughout the book' S. M. Ali, ‘The Nature of The Artificial: Augmenting Negrottian Artificiality with HeideggerianWhiteheadian Naturality’, Yearbook of the Artificial, Peter Lang, 2002. “Recently, Negrotti [1] has developed a sophisticated mimetic theory of the artificial grounded in three notions - observation, exemplar, and essential performance - that attempts to articulate the former.” “Recently, Negrotti [1] has developed a sophisticated mimetic theory of the artificial grounded in three notions - observation, exemplar, and essential performance - that attempts to articulate the former.” M. Morris, Cornell Uni (during a workshop) "Morris urged the panelists to define the Reef in a critical context beginning with definitions for a model versus a mock-up and offering the term “naturoid” as something crafted to imitate a natural object or process. Panelists discussed the project’s role as a pavilion representing a bundle of contemporary architectural interests including more traditional notions of craft." Robotic Librarian, http://mechanicrobotic.wordpress.com/2007/06/21/all-your-automata-are-belong-to-us/ “As Massimo Negrotti hypothesizes in his 2001 paper Designing the Artificial: An Interdisciplinary Study, “as a matter of fact, since the dawn of civilization, man shows a great, twofold constructive ambition: one, the Prometheus syndrome, aims at inventing objects and machines able to dominate the nature grasping its laws and adapting itself to them; the other, in turn, the Icarus syndrome, aims at reproducing natural objects or processes through alternate strategies,’ as compared to those nature follows.” Daniel Mittelholtz, Metacognitive Cybernetics: The Chess Master is No Longer Human! Univ of Saskatchewan, http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/Mittelholtz/MC.pdf “Massimo Negrotti has stated that there is an urgency in defining theories in this field. “The need for a theory comes both from scientific and from practical interests. According to the former we have to understand the artificial in order to discriminate it fromthe purely technological activity and try to understand also their different anthropological roots and intellectual motivations. According to the latter, we have to understand the different requirements needed for the use of conventional machines as compared to the 'use' of artificial devices. The intensity of today's technology, both artificial and conventional, makes such theoretical work legitimate both on technical grounds and also because of its urgency socially and culturally.” (Negrotti, 1993). Gregor Schiemann, Nanotechnology and Nature On Two Criteria for Understanding Their Relationship HYLE--International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 11, No.1 (2005), pp. 77-96. “"Nanotechnology […] can be oriented either to reproduce natural things or processes, exhibiting different features, or to produce new objects or materials" (Negrotti 2002, p. 4).” Gesine Lenore Schiewer: Zur Diskussion des Künstlichen in KI-Forschung und Ästhetik, Conference, Kassel, 2000 „Massimo Negrotti muß noch 1991 darauf hinweisen, daß außer Simons Ansatz aus dem Jahr 1969 kein wesentlicher Versuch unternommen wurde, den Begriff des Künstlichen als solches zu klären (Negrotti 1991, Preface). Er knüpft hier mit verschiedenen Publikationen, zuletzt Negrotti 1999, an. Negrotti bindet seine Überlegungen u.a. an einen "funktionalen Dualismus" R. Capurro, ‘Ethics and robotics’,2009, IOS Press,Amsterdam “There is a tension between technoid and naturoid artificial products [Negrotti 1995, 1999, 2002]. The concept of artificiality itself is related to something produced by nature and imitated by man. Creating something similar but not identical to a natural product points to the fact that anything to be qualified as artificial should make a difference with regard the natural or the “original” (Negrotti).” BOOKS by M. Negrotti (1991) (ed.) Understanding the artificial: on the future shape of A.I., Springer-Verlag, London. (1999) The Theory of the Artificial, Intellect Books, Exeter. (2002) Naturoids. On The Nature of the Artificial, World Scientific Publishing Company, New Jersey. (2002) (ed.) Yearbook of the Artificial, Methodological Aspects and Cultural Issues, Peter Lang Academic Publisher, Bern. (2004) (ed.) Yearbook of the Artificial, Models in Contemporary Sciences, Peter Lang Academic Publisher, Bern. (2006) (ed.) Yearbook of the Artificial, Cultural Dimensions o the User, Peter Lang Academic Publisher, Bern. (2006) (ed.) Yearbook of the Artificial, Kyosei, Culture and Sustainable Technology, Peter Lang Academic Publisher, Bern. PAPERS by M. Negrotti (1984), Cultural dynamics in the diffusion of informatics, FUTURES, London, XVI, 1. (1986), M.NEGROTTI, D.BERTASIO , How European A.I. people think. A survey, COMPUTER COMPACTS, Amsterdam, III, 3 4. (1986), M.NEGROTTI, D.BERTASIO , The Archimedes syndrome: cultural premises and A.I. technology K.S.GILL (ed.) Artificial Intelligence for society, Chichester, Wiley & Sons. (1986), ‘The A.I. people's way of looking at man and machine’, APPLIED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, Washington, I,1. (1987), ‘The piping of the thought’, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE & SOCIETY, London, I,1. (1988), Editorial, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE & SOCIETY, Springer-Verlag, London, 2,2. (1993),'Towards a Theory of the Artificial', CYBERNETICS AND HUMAN KNOWING, The Royal School of Librarianship Odense-Kopenhagen, 2,2. (2000) 'The Culture of the Artificial' (M. Negrotti, Guest Editor), AI & SOCIETY, Springer-Verlag, London (14, 3-4, 2000). (1999) 'From the Artificial to the Art', LEONARDO, Isast-MIT press, 32,3. (2000) 'Designing the Artificial', DESIGN ISSUES, MIT Press, n. 32, april. (2002), 'On The Logic Of The Artificial', YEARBOOK OF THE ARTIFICIAL, 1, 2002, Peter Lang, Bern. (2004), ‘Model thinking', YEARBOOK OF THE ARTIFICIAL, 2, 2004, Peter Lang, Bern. (2004), ‘Naturoids’. From representations to concrete realizations, PRAGMATICS & COGNITION, John Benjamins, 12, 1. (2005), ‘Artificiality’, entry in C. Mitcham, ESTE (Encyclopedia of Science, Technology and Ethics), MacMillan, Farmington, Vol. I. (2006), ‘Systems, models and observation levels’, proceedings, International Workshop on Ecological Informatics of Chaos and Complex Systems, TUAT, Tokyo (anche in giapponese). (2007), ‘Information to control, knowledge to decide’, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE & SOCIETY', Springer-Verlag, London. (2008), Discussion of Lee Spetner’s paper ‘The evolution controversy and randomness’, in Divine Action And Natural Selection Science, Faith And Evolution, New Jersey, World Scientific. (2008), ‘Why the Future Doesn't Come From Machines. Unfounded Prophecies and the Design of Naturoids’, BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY, Sage,Vol. 28, No. 4, 289-298. (2008), ‘Where the future doesn’t come from’, DESIGN ISSUES, MIT Press., 24, 4. (2009), ‘Nature, Technology and Naturoids: A New Cross-Talk’’, JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL THOUGHT AND EDUCATION’, SSETE, Tokyo, 3, 2009, 89-96. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.43.11 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply: in closing this debate I read carefully through all the arguments from both sides and concluded that the consensus was to delete, for the reasons I described. Using the words you yourself supplied during the debate: "Dear professor, your work is very interesting, but, due to WP rules, an article about it cannot be accepted in WP. Best wishes for your future work!"

If you wish to challenge the decision, you can file a request at WP:Deletion review. This process is like a legal appeal - it is not intended for continuing the same discussion, but for arguing that the debate was wrongly decided. If you choose to do that and need any assistance, please let me know. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

NORMAPME article (deleted)

Dear Wikipedia editorial team:

I write to you as Press Officer of NORMAPME, The European Office of Crafts, Trades and Small and Medium sized Enterprises for Standardisation. An article related to NORMAPME in Wikipedia has been deleted for alleged copyright reasons, as this article is similar to one present on the NORMAPME website; as NORMAPME press officer I wish to inform you that we allow reproduction of this article on Wikipedia. NORMAPME members represent over 12 million enterprises in all European countries, including all European Union and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) member states; further to this, NORMAPME is engaged in a mission of public service that goes beyond its constituency, to bring information and services on standardisation to European SMEs with the support of the European Commission. As our services are open to all European SMEs (without fee or membership) we believe it is important to be referenced in Wikipedia, to reach and help more SMEs in standardisation.

Would it be possible to re-publish the article (attached) that was deleted last 17 february 2010, by user JohnCD?

I remain at your entire disposal if you need additional information,

Thank you very much in advance and best regards,

Rémi Orth Press Officer

NORMAPME a.i.s.b.l European Office of Crafts Trades and Small and Medium-sized Entreprises for Standardisation E-mail: press@normapme.com Website: http://www.normapme.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guti jorge (talk • contribs) 11:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Carr

I apologise for the page with Peter Carr, I started it but got interrupted before I got a chance to indicate why he is notable enough.

He is head quant at Bloomberg LP, and as such his models affect how a decent % of all derivatives are priced. Others have put him on lists of notable people in his profession, and he is Director of the math masters in finance at Courant. He's written a pile of highly cited papers, and won "best quant of the year" from both Wilmott Magazine and Risk Magazine

http://www.math.nyu.edu/research/carrp/

I'm relatively new as a contributor to Wikipedia (which is not an excuse for half finishing something), but have noticed that the coverage of quantitative finance is not as good as it could be, so have taken to improving it. I'm a headhunter for people who do this, probably the best known (though probably not enough to have my own page), and am qualified to do it myself. Being new, I confess to being vague as to the next step in this process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicConnor (talk • contribs) 14:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Carr

Thanks for the tips, and I shall go away and produce a properly referenced article, when I've done that should I come back to you ?

As I implied either, my work means I have a good knowledge of the work of notable people in that field, so if I could invite you to be especially tough in your comments, since I would like to increase the set of useful bios, but without adding to the backlog you mentioned; also I want my contributions to be good, else what's the point ?

DominicConnor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC).

Editing

When I edit, that whole group of boxes of everything- the nowiki button, the italic button, etc. doesn't show up. I using the MonoBook theme. How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 02:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In "My preferences", click the "Editing" tab, and about half way down make sure the "Show edit toolbar" box is checked. JohnCD (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The box is checked but I still don't see anything. How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 01:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Alongside that box, it says "(requires JavaScript)". Can something have gone wrong with Javascript on your system? Did you make any change or update to your system at the time the edit toolbar disappeared? If those suggestions don't help, you'd better try the WP:Help desk. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to delete user page

Delete user my page. --Epsonix (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done There is no way to delete your actual account; if you don't want it, you can simply stop using it, but you can return later, if you like. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

k thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by BertramIT (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hey I didn't know if this was any better and i don't know if you would be able to unprotect -Runescape Lords Conquest-

If you look at what i have added as I have read the terms and conditions and I have tried to change it to include all the nessasary things

I would Be delighted if you would Just look at the page one more time at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BertramIT/Runescape_lords_conquest

and 

you would look and see if it is good enough to perswade you about unprotecting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runescape_Lords_Conquest

and then letting me copy it onto there —Preceding unsigned comment added by BertramIT (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael T Butler

That was quick! thanks! --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Julian Mroue article

HELLO my name is Julian Mroue. You recently deleted a page about me that my friend created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Mroue). I need it for a personal reason that, due to privacy reasons I would not like to disclose. If you could "un-delete" it for a day it would be much appreciated. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpool12 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done - userfied temporarily at User:Deadpool12/Julian Mroue. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I now understand your concern RE: Rogers P.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpool12 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Request For Unprotection of Article

BertramIT (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

((Hello I would like to request for you to unprotect- Runescape Lords Conquest- Article as I have sufficient information to perswade you to see the importance of it: If you look at this site link and see what i would like to put on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BertramIT/Runescape_lords_conquest - FOR THIS TO THEN GO ONTO : en.wikipedia.org/Runescape_Lords_Conquest )) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BertramIT (talk • contribs) 13:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Declined, replied on his talk page. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Suffolk Accident Rescue Service

Good afternoon,

Am I able to create a page without it being deleted before I have collated all the information I need for it?

ie you deleted the Suffolk Accident Rescue Service page within minutes of me creating it - I had just gone tothe kitchen to put the roast potatoes in and returned to start adding content to find it deleted. I see the reason you deleted it but within about 10 minutes that would not have been the case.

Can I re-instate the page please?

Dr Tim Watson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smudgefish68 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page)

re: Suffolk Accident Rescue Service Thank youfor your reply - I will try again!

Tim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smudgefish68 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ross Norris

Hi there

An article I was editing has been deleted - is there any way to recover the text as it was at the time of deletion?

It was actually for a writing project I'm working on. Everyday I'm writing the beginning to a different story. Today's was about a character who hits the random article tab on Wikipedia and finds an entry about himself in which the date of his death is given as today - the article you deleted. My intention was only to screengrab this fictionalised entry (the one I was editing), paste the image to my blog to give a bit more colour, and then delete the entry.

Is there anyway to recover the text, albeit temporarily? I can instead include the text in my blog, rather than link an image of an apparent Wikipedia page.

Any help would be much appreciated - none of the copy was saved, which was very stupid of me. (Ross and Norris, as you may be aware, are the names of the two twins who started the Guinness Book of Records. The names of the people Norris knew at university at all named after the colleges at my own alma mater, Durham).

Kind regards

FourthWiseMonkey (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have put a copy into your user space at User:FourthWiseMonkey/Ross Norris and will leave it there for a day. You can copy it out by clicking "Edit this page" and then "Select all" and "Copy", and pasting into Notepad or any word processor. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Many, many thanks - the copy is now saved down. Apologies for any inconvenience. I should say that everything in that page actually happened to me, so I'm not sure how to feel about it being flagged for abuse!

Kind regards

FourthWiseMonkey (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've deleted it again. As for being flagged as abuse, would you have been happy if someone else had posted that article about you? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Commons files with the same name

Fyi, regarding this, it is the Commons file showing through.--Rockfang (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, that explains it! JohnCD (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for clearing the mess with RanksTel :-) Anna Lincoln 12:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

from me too - forgot to look at the prehistory of that page. Materialscientist (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. JohnCD (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris Tanner

Chris Tanner is a famous lecturer in Lulea university. So I want to create a page for him. I will keep update the page for him everyday as I find more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaying c (talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Advised on his talk page about WP:BIO and WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How about userfying it for him? I'd willing to check in and help him build it to be suitable... or advise him how it might not be. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I left it up with an {{underconstruction}} tag, to give him a few days to see what he makes of it. I'm sure any advice you can give him would be helpful, and if it hasn't got anywhere in a week your opinion on whether it's worth userfying or incubating would be valuable. (I have just noticed that by the birth date given, Mr Tanner is 107 years old, which if true might make him notable as the oldest practising English teacher!) JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...

I appreciate how quickly you responded to my request at [3] I have the properly named image now up and linked to the article. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User-requested speedies are the easy ones - with the others you have to think! JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What was wrong?

Thank you for reading my response on my talk page. I just feel it is unjust. What was so wrong with what I was writing?

Thank you though HistoryFan2 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Runescape_Lords_Conquest

I hope now that i have reviewed the following guidelines about notability that you would now freely consider my origional request and tell me if it would be good enough to be put up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BertramIT/Runescape_lords_conquest —Preceding unsigned comment added by BertramIT (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Block

Hello,

You blocked me a few minutes ago. Please justify this. 94.193.145.187 (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the block notice, you were edit warring and failing to maintain a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy, propaganda, or promoting particular opinions. Please read WP:Bold, revert, discuss which explains how Wikipedia operates: if your edits are reverted, do not just re-insert them but discuss on the talk page with other editors and try to reach WP:Consensus. Failing that, use WP:Dispute resolution. If you disagree with the block, you can apply for an unblock, as explained in the block notice, and another admin will consider your request; but you cannot evade it by using another IP to continue edit-warring, so I have blocked this IP, too. JohnCD (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your efforts! Okip 00:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ashley Gibson

Thanks, much appreciated.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It took <no small> mind to find that

[4] Thanks. If the last smalltext on a page isn't properly closed, it won't show as a problem in preview. Sorry. I'll check all the others I put up at the same time.... --Abd (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem - it gave me a pleasant feeling of having solved a problem when I worked out what was making the one below look odd. I only spotted two. JohnCD (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I created a dozen of those little beasties. They should all be fixed by now. --Abd (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Rene Berthiaume

Dear John,

You recently removed Rene Berthiaume's wiki page because he is a "businessman of strictly local notability; no demonstrable reason for being in an international encyclopedia." However, I authored this page after reading Wikipedia's policy concerning "people who are relatively unknown," which states, "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability." Did you remove Rene Berthiaume's page because there is information that is not relevant to his notobality? If so, I can attempt a re-write according to your interpretation of the requirements for relatively unknown people.

It should be noted that Rene Berthiaume was on Wikipedia for several years before I ammended the page, as he is a relatively notable politician in Eastern Ontario, Canada. I hate to be responsible for his removal from Wikipedia.

I would like to try and re-introduce Rene Berthiaume to Wikipedia, and would appreciate some guidance from you so that it is not removed again. Can you please tell me what would guarantee a successful re-write?

Thank you for your help and time.

Respectfully,

Connor Quinn —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRQ (talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Article restored as contested PROD; advice on his talk page. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jollydarity

Hi John

With reference to your deletion of my contribution "Jollydarity" I believe that this term as defined is valid for Wikipedia because following the success of the original campaign to reopen a public house it is now being used in regular parlance (albeit only locally but spreading) to represent general community movements with a similar bent. In other words it represents a new way of taking action that needs explaining to those unfamiliar with it's meaning or origins. It perceives community action not as reactionary, political or in opposition to anything, in contrast it is action through celebrating for the sake of it, but as a by-product delivers far better results than tradition forms of action. In psychological terms this might be understood as the 'cognitive approach' to community action where creative ways are found to forge community rather than identifying with self-interest groups, local and central government provisions, social, cultural, religious or political interests.

Although as a term its relevance is not yet obvious by virtue of being new, it's significance is never-the-less important to those who seek to understand this new approach to community action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtchaser (talk • contribs) 04:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not here to help publicise newly-invented words or movements. We only report on things that are already established: what we look for is notability, which is not a matter of opinion but needs to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." What we're asking is, is there evidence that other people, independent of the subject, have thought it interesting and important enough to write about? That means that brand-new ideas, movements, whatever are unlikely to qualify. For more explanation, see:

• WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day
• WP:Notability (organizations and companies)
• WP:Neologisms#Articles on neologisms

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

List of castes from the Alien expanded universe

Hi. I have undeleted this article which you deleted as expired prod because it had been kept at AFD and therefore didn't qualify for prod. Hope you don't mind. Regards, Cenarium (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, of course - I didn't notice that. Thanks. My excuse: there wasn't an {{oldafdfull}} on the talk page - I've added one now. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hertfordshire1234

You had some experience with User:Hertfordshire1234, so you should recognize the handiwork in the Lord Elliott Windsor article. I was just going through my watchlist prior to a bit of spring-cleaning, and ran a search (for old-times sake) using the obvious search terms (Elliott being one, of course) and found this article from the start of February. So, if you are in the mood to block Qwertyuioproyal (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock ...? :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Blocked and tagged. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Zee talk to zee back

Hello, JohnCD. You have new messages at A little insignificant's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Duck.

I've included a picture of a duck with this post. ALI ^{nom nom} 23:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The British Political Tradition

Hi

You deleted my article 'The British Political Tradition' because it was 'an essay'. Would you clarify why, so I can amend this as the copncpet of the BPT is one that features a lot in politics and users such as A level and University students would benefit from this I think.

Thanks

MPH326 Mph326 (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Article restored as contested PROD; advice on his talk page. JohnCD (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Politicians

I've actually started working on an update of the current notability criteria for politicians, which is meant to provide more detail than is currently present at WP:POLITICIAN. I'd actually welcome your input and/or suggestions if and when you have some time. It's at User:Bearcat/Whatever for now, though I'll move it to another title eventually. I'd stress that I'm not attempting to invent new rules here, but simply to codify in more detail where consensus currently stands for various types of politicians. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - I'll look at it tomorrow. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Isaac Solomon userpage

Might I ask what it is a copyright violation of? I did not see that raised as a comment in the MfD discussion, to be sure. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

His Facebook page. No doubt he could give permission, but I have added to his talk page (already full of warnings) pointers to WP:MUSICBIO, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SOAP as reasons why it wouldn't be acceptable anyway. JohnCD (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? Seems to me that GFDL covers this - one can not violate one's own copyright in any case. Nor does COI cover userspace to my knowledge (everyone has a COI about themselves, I would posit). Might you relist and specify the discussion about whether one's own Facebook material is a copyvio? Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That Facebook page bears a copyright symbol, and we have no way of knowing that the user is who he says he is - that's why people have to go through the process at WP:Donating copyrighted materials rather than just say "it's OK, I wrote it". JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now I look again at the Facebook page, it ends "Article By Julie Nyguen Of Alternative Press Magazine" who is presumably the copyright holder. Agreed, COI and AUTO don't apply in user space, those warnings were more in case he is planning to bring it back as an article. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And I would !vote delete in an AfD <g>. I am just zealous in my belief that userspace does not have the same requiremets as mainspace for very sound reasons. Collect (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, but (from WP:UP): "The same rules for copyright apply on userpages as in article space." If it were not copyright, I wouldn't argue for deletion of this - IMO draft articles in user space are OK for some time, like months, if there is some indication of eventual intention to make them into acceptable mainspace articles, though (also from WP:UP) "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive... disputed or previously deleted content... In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host." Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page of Cain Velasquez

Firstly, thank you for explaining to the user about the biting comments on the talk page. Secondly, could I please take 5 minutes of your time and request that you explain to the new user/IP the rules about copying and pasting information from websites. I'm struggling to get through to him/her at the moment and I cannot revert as one more edit is a 3RR. Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Article reverted and semi-protected for 3 days. I have given the IP a {{uw-copyright}}, which is the appropriate warning for a persistent copyright violator. JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Just one pointer, I strongly believe that the IP is the same as the new user that has been posting on the Velasquez talk page. Don't know if you feel that warning only the IP segment is sufficient or not. Just a heads up though in case you hadn't considered that. Cheers. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had guessed that, will give the new user account an explanation of copyvio and WP:BRD shortly. Being newly-created, he won't be able to edit a semi-protected article yet, anyway. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a final message from me: Thanks very much for your advice and action on this matter. I've had to deal with a few unprofessional admins before, so it's good to see decent ones every once in a while. Much appreciated and keep up the good work. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm just waiting until I qualify for promotion and can fling off my mask and come out as a Rouge Admin ! A final piece of advice - don't start a feud with the intervener - just let it drop. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please

I'm not the editor involved with that talk. I just happend to know that one of the editors in that disscussion is "A Newbie" I was not trying to get involved with there discussion I was mearly pointing out the the aggression of the talk. I'm not a "Newbie", Please check the flow of the talk a see I just made a comment and this user page User:Paralympiakos eplains the nature of the talk, maybe you should have a talk with aggressive nature, or do we throw all "Newbies" to the sharks ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 21:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, newbies can expect consideration, but they should also listen to what they are told, and this one showed no sign of listening, particularly about copyright, which is a serious issue - I checked four sentences from his material in Google and three of them were straight copies from other websites. As he did not seem to accept that that was a problem I have semiprotected the article for a short time and explained on his talk page. I understand that you were trying to help, but that was not clear to the other user, or to me when I looked at the record; it might have been better to raise it on his talk page. Anyway, let it drop now. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the "re-look" I didn't look at "what" was being said just the "tone" of what was said, Issue closed Mlpearc MESSAGE 00:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

HolyBoly

Why you deleted HolyBoly article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.128.238 (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it gave no indication that the website is notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. Notability is not a matter of opinion but needs to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." More detail in WP:Notability (web), and good advice in WP:Your first article. JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ARC Weekly Top 40

Yes. There're two categories: Category:ARC_Weekly_Top_40_number-one_singles and subcat Category:Lists_of_ARC_Weekly_Top_40_number-one_hits. Go ahead and G8 them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sean Rubin

Hello, you recently deleted my bio, which I created as a stub for a link to my name on this page- The Sable Quean. I was hoping you would either reconsider this or tell me what I could do to make it more appropriate, add links to newspaper articles, illustrator databases, include more works I've contributed to, etc. Right now it seems that as the illustrator of that book, it is acceptable for me to be listed in the book's information, however as it stands now my name is still a red link, and I'd like to change that.

Thanks. Gooseball12 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Between the screams

Hi, you recently deleted the 'between the screams' wikipedia and I was wondering why you did this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.160.119 (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted by the proposed deletion process: a user tagged it, and when no objection was raised in seven days it was deleted. That means it is automatically restored on demand, so I have undeleted it; but I will notify user Twinsday (talk · contribs), who proposed it, in case he wishes to nominate it under the Artices for deletion process. That would start a discussion, again lasting seven days, to which you could contribute. The main reason given for the PROD was Notability, a requirement to have a Wikipedia article, which is not a matter of opinion but needs to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There is more detail at WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

SJC Custom Drums

John,

I would like to create a Wikipedia page showing the history of SJC Custom Drums and putting information about what the company has done. Is this possible? I see it was deleted in the past and I am unsure of how to create a page without simply sounding like it would be promoting them? Truth Drums has a very similar page and theirs is active, so I just wanted to contact you for more information.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drummerkid88 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• (advice on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Daphne Caruana Galizia

You recently deleted the Daphne Caruana Galizia article, even though it contained various external references denoting notability from several national media organisations, including The Times of Malta. Obviously, these media organisations did not satisfy your own strict requirements for references. As you evidently know a lot about the Maltese media (because otherwise you would not have made such a judgement) could you inform me which Maltese publications you would consider sources of reliable references. Please do not include The Times of Malta, The Malta Independent, Malta Today, Malta Star, di-ve, l-orrizont and it-torca as all of these were cited in over thirty references on the AfD page you will have noted and read thoroughly and understood the background to before reaching your decision to delete the article. So just a simple question: which publication would you, in your wisdom, deem acceptable? Here is a quote from The Malta Independent stored at the Maltese government`s Department of Information website: "Ms Caruana Galizia has been writing in public for a number of years, and while many read her writings, she has been controversial too many times in the past. While she does have her admirers, she always has a greater number of denigrators."[5] So, in your vast knowledge of the Malta gained by living in the North of England and New Zealand, would you deem our humble little Department of Information of the Government of Malta acceptable as a source on wikipedia? Qattusu (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As administrator closing the deletion discussion, I did not need to have any knowledge of the Maltese media: what I had to do was read the discussion in full and decide whether there was a consensus on the proposal to delete the article. I decided that there was a clear consensus to delete. If you do not agree with that, you can take it to WP:Deletion review; but note that Deletion review is not for continuing the same discussion, but for arguing that I interpreted the debate incorrectly. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to learn that people who know nothing about the Maltese media feel well placed to delete articles about Maltese media personalities. Right, so all you needed was "consensus". It`s the "just following orders" response. You can`t demonstrate that any of the verified, referenced sources from national media organisations were inaccurate but presumably you think someone else in that discussion can. Fine, please quote where anyone successfully disputed the reliability of the sources of the article that you deleted. Please, just one tiny, tiny quote to show that any of the 30 or so references I provided were from inaccurate sources. You must be able to surely produce one quote from one source to show that some of the quoted sources were wrong. Qattusu (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at interminable length in the AfD, and I have no intention of continuing the discussion here. If you disagree with my close, take it to WP:DRV. JohnCD (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That is quite untrue. The issue of the reliability of the sources wasn't discussed "at length". It was not discussed at all. A discussion requires an exchange of ideas. Neither you nor anyone else has been able to respond to my repeated request by demonstrating that any of the verified, referenced sources from national media organisations were inaccurate or unreliable in any way whatsoever. Please don't pretend otherwise. Qattusu (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And as it was such a lengthy, in-depth discussion, I don't suppose you'd be able to point me to the pertinent part of it where it was demonstrated that the Times of Malta, The Malta Independent, Malta Today etc. etc. are not reliable sources to use as references? No, I didn't think so. Surely you can provide just one quote from the discussion that demonstrates that, say the Times of Malta can not be relied upon as a reference, despite being used as one in hundreds of other wikipedia articles. No, I didn't think so. Qattusu (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Why is this page getting deleted?

I don't understand why I can't post about this company...I seems that the follow pages have the exact same information listed, but are not being contested. Can you shine some light on what I am doing wrong, as I simply included 2 sentences which say the same exact thing as these other companies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_drums http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Drums —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drummerkid88 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Userfied his two sentences and pointed him to WP:WAX, WP:CORP, WP:YFA. JohnCD (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

From Johnny Petro regarding McMaax

John,

Thanks for your quick modification and deletion of my page however, if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Cook

You will see McMaax is as world renown in the seduction community also. However, what is about owen's page that allowed him to be included. McMaax, deserves to be on here because he is the only one in the world who has developed a powerful "7 step system" to court women that no one else has called his 7 step model for pick up and seduction mastery. In fact if you google, 7 point model, you will see his name associated with it. His inclusion in your directory is rightly deserved because of this unique accomplishment. He even talked about his world famous 7 point model, with members of Keys to the VIP , the famous show on the comedy network, z103.5 Canada's #1 morning show and top 40's radio station along with the Dean Blundell Show on Canada's cfny 102.1 the edge. Also, I have cited references when stating facts regarding McMaax. What do I need to do , to have my article allowed inclusion into your directory

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Petro (talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT A DIRECTORY. It's an encyclopedia. More advice on your talk page soon. JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

!!!!!

You deleted my WIP pages. You did that without saving the content that I worked on. Apologies? 4 PAGES CREATED TO DATE. KingofFilm, the mighty Wikipedian. 22:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingofFilm (talk • contribs)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism on Output device

Thanks for cleaning up there. I had reported this range of IP's previously [6], [7], [8], and [9]. I made a list of all the IP's at User:Dawnseeker2000/Misc. Dawnseeker2000 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

McMaax

Hi John,

This is Johnny . Are you sure we are not twins :)))) Anyways , thank so much for your quick and professional response.

Now I did look over your guidelines and here is what I found, for an article to be listed, it has to have credible references and if it is a biography than it has to be for a specific category of people. In this case I would regard my subject McMaax as a creative professional because, he did create and develop a unique 7 step model to pick up and seduce women and his 7 point model is noted and used globally by men. You can do a web search and type McMaax or 7 point model and you will have it linked to him only. This is a revolutionary system because, McMaax incorporates the most thorough breakdown of the courtship process into his model by including 2 phases, 1) The Pre Opener Value Calibration phase and 2) The Hook Phase, both his inventions that a woman must go through in order for her to be fully seduced physically and emotionally by you, and I can explain these to you in the article. It is by far the most bang on and most accurate model of how courtship works. You can find many references of this on the web.

Now the guidelines stated that I need to cite verifiable references and I did that. I footnoted in the biography whereever I stated a fact about him and also cited the resources below the article. I also mntiond that he is worth noting due to his unique contribution to the modular approach to courtship and inter-sexual communication. Now John,

Please tell me what changes I need to make to allow this to be included into the directory. I value and respect the high standards to which you expect all of your writers to uphold and I really feel that the world should know about McMaax's contribution and theory as it would be a value to them.

Best regards

Johnny

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Petro (talk • contribs) 23:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Murphy

Thanks for pointing me at the contact for Michael Murphy. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pleased to be of help - hope it leads to a family reunion! JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hi JohnCD, last week I asked for the undeletion of Colin Ramirez. You pointed out that I should talk to the admin that made the decision of deleting the article as there was a deletion discussion. However, such an admin, Jennavecia, is no longer an admin and has given a statement that sounds a little bit cryptic for me. Could you translate this to plain English? Should I recreate the article in my user space? Once done, what happens next? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the article into the Article Incubator (a place where articles not yet ready for the encyclopedia can be developed) at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Colin Ramirez. What you should do now is edit it there to add sources to demonstrate notability, and then make a request at WP:Deletion review to get agreement to restore it to the mainspace. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much clearer now :-) --Ecemaml (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi JohnCD, sorry to bother you again. I'd like to ask you to delete the incubator article you restored. The sources I was handling to argue the notability of the player have gone subscription-based and not having access to it makes my efforts to restore it baseless. Sorry --Ecemaml (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. Sorry about that. If you find sources later, or his career takes off, the article that will need to be resurrected is Colin Ramirez, as I moved it out of the incubator before re-deleting. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bridgette Tatum

You deleted a page I had just started working on because of "Copyright Infringement"

The article I posted is listed on multiple sites and I do have permission by the owner and the artist to use the Official Bio that is pasted on many sites. I only stated putting up information 30 mins ago and you went and deleted my page without giving me time to edit it the way I needed it. You claimed I copy and pasted the bio from www.route49music.com when really I took it from www.bridgettetatum.com and it's listed on other sites as well such as myspace (which is public domain which rules out copyright infringement). Why don't you google her and see that she is a real person and let me finish doing my work before you jump to deleting. (Ktstrange (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

It doesn't matter where you copied it from, you must not put copyrighted text into Wikipedia. At the bottom of every edit screen, it says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" and "Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites." See WP:Copy-paste.

Myspace is not public domain: at the bottom of the Myspace page it says "©2003-2010 MySpace. All Rights Reserved."

It is not enough just to say that you have permission: you must follow the procedure at WP:Donating copyrighted materials if you are yourself the copyright owner, or at WP:Requesting copyright permission if someone else is. Release to Wikipedia is more than just permission to reproduce: under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license it means granting permission to anyone to copy it from us, modify it, and use it for any purpose, and the copyright holder must understand and agree to that. As I explained on your talk page, you would probably do better to read WP:Your first article and write an article in your own words, as Myspace pages and the like are usually much too promotional in tone for an encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

John I didn't even have time to edit...I put the hang on at the top of the page and went to talk and by the time I was done the page was deleted. I was going to reword the whole bio to begin with. I didn't even have a chance to do that. (69.245.61.225 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

Sorry, but copyright is a sensitive issue which could get Wikipedia into big legal trouble. That's why we have the warnings on the edit screen. Just tinkering with the wording is not enough - see WP:Copy-paste#Can I copy-paste if I change the text a little bit? You have to organise a copyright release or write it in your own words. Re-do the words off-line before you post them; and do read WP:Your first article. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the ' Mark R Boardman page '

Hello i tried to add a page for a well know journalist and TV personality, Mark and it was deleted.

Having checked your guidelines I provided details of notability and he is also mentioned on several other wiki pages and should get his own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.0.2 (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:TVfanaticlady. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

South Suburban Conference (MN)

Hello!

I was just doing some looking around at various things, and being curious about this conference myself (I went to a HS that is going to be joining it myself, and it was on the page for that school that I saw the link) I did a Google search and did find a number of references to it in newspaper articles. Here's just one of them: http://www.savagepacer.com/news/school-news-burnsville-eagan-savage/district-191-intends-join-new-south-suburban-athletic-confe

The conference itself has a site too: http://www.southsuburbanconference.org

As it says there the official start date is July 1, 2010, so at this moment there would not be an overabundance of information, but if the article is there people will be able to add more as time goes on. After all, you've got to start somewhere!

84.78.157.137 (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted under the Proposed deletion process, intended for uncontroversial deletions, so it is automatically restored on request. I will notify user IShadowed (talk · contribs), who proposed it for deletion, in case he wishes to nominate it under the WP:Articles for deletion process, but I have added the references you provided, and tweaked it a bit, and I think it is probably OK now. You could usefully expand it a bit, by reference to some of the other Conference articles, for the benefit of readers who like me don't live in the US and have no idea what a High School Conference is about. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Business Line Directory

Hi JohnCD

It seems I have had a trigger happy mod delete my wiki, to me it did not seem what they thought, I can’t understand as It follows the same guideline for yellow pages SG which has not any issues, half way through it was deleted, I don’t want to try again and make someone angry but I really can’t understand for the life of me why it was removed when I was editing it.? Can you help out as i am confused now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodz37 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The "trigger happy mod" has already explained and offered help on your talk page; I have added some more advice there. JohnCD (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Rod, I think that you have to bear in mind that having no understanding of a subject and not having read anything by anyone who has any understanding of a subject is absolutely no impediment to an article being deleted. The creed championed by JohnCD is not discussion, analysis or debate. It is consensus. If enough people say the emperor is wearing clothes then JohnCD comes along and puts his stamp to certify that the emperor is wearing clothes. Any attempt to engage in debate is farcical. There is an Orwellian flavour to wikipedia which dictates that consensus is truth. In the case of an article I was working on with many other Maltese people JohnCD and other wikipedia "administrators" were actually duped by the subject of the article herself into deleting it! That is how wikipedia works: not quality, references, just numbers of people being successfully duped. This is a major news story in Malta about the most prominent journalist being charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment but the subject has successfully duped the likes of JohnCD into a total blackout on wikipedia. Try to engage them in discussion and they will just put their fingers in their ears and run away. Try to find a single wikipedia article about a Maltese journalist. You won`t find one. I was told by another wikipedia "administrator" that if I started another article about the most prominent journalist in Malta then he would "pursue" me! All the articles have all been deleted by the likes of JohnCD. So don`t take it to heart when article are deleted. Normally it is just the ignorant being led by the ignorant. Here, it is the ignorant being led by the ignorant being led by the duped. Qattusu (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Holligan

Hi. I have reluctantly, and narrowly, declined your A7 speedy on this; a "hangon" was placed, and it could be argued that significance is asserted. We may as well let the AfD finish it off, so that the author doesn't think he is being persecuted by a lone "trigger happy mod" (useful phrase from my morning's mail). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Thank you. Sole Soul (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bizzarogrod

No worried on declining the DB Hoax on that one. Your Dated Prod is probably more appropriate, since we don't have a better DB category. Cheers! Bagheera (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mélanie-Antoinette de Lusignan de Massy

The article is about a member of the Monaco Royal family , 11th in line of succession to the throne . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smellscoffee (talk • contribs) 08:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited and the article did not indicate any independent notability. More advice on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pierre Ecout

I think this is the most elaberate hoax I have ever seen. not only was the page really well done (I really want to find out who's sock this guy is) but it has been found in two of the language pages. the only reason I spotted it was that he added it to the Foucault page, and anyone who was an influence on Foucault would be known.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have known more elaborate hoaxes, with fake websites to back them up, but this was quite plausible-looking (though the word "hermeneutics" tends to set off my bullshit-detector). I don't think the hoaxer is a sock - he first signed on both here and on :es in November 2006, and his user page then said he was a student at the Univ. of Buenos Aires; in fact, he's on Facebook and so is Ecout! An IP registered in Buenos Aires also edited the article, which is what gave me the idea to look in :es. The Spanish are fiercer than we are - I only gave him {{uw-hoax}}, but they have blocked him for 3 months. JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

For years trying to contribute to the Spanish wikipedia, in articles on Greek history and philosophy (I am a graduate student in ancient history and philosophy), but I am prevented by managers with more power than the normal user called "librarians". These "librarians" are kids of 15 years, and have poor education.

This situation is frustrating, and I get to try to prove that the Spanish wikipedia uses the circularity as appointment of authority and epistemological validation.

Ecoute's article is part of a long-term academic study to show that Spanish Wikipedia is inefficient. In fact, the article was deleted in the Spanish Wikipedia only after it was removed in the English Wikipedia (the only reliable).

These arguments and I explained in the Spanish Wikipedia, and "Librarians", people without education or titles, they laughed at me and deleted my contributions.

Excuse my academic experiment, and thanks for keeping working the English Wikipedia, who actually works rigth. Rodrigo Illarraga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.181.142 (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment; we can never claim to be a reliable source, but we do our best to discourage hoaxes, because successful ones discredit the whole encyclopedia. Better to prove Spanish Wikipedia inefficient by finding mistakes there and correcting them. We have bibliotecarios here too, called admins; just as unpopular - see elsewhere on this page - and often supposed to be all 15 years old, but this one at least is actually jubilado. JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

deletion of Hannah Poff Mercury Energy Tactix

Hannah Poff is indeed a Tactic player from cheviot as evidenced by the Mercury Energy Tactix website team list and player profile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.166.245 (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure she is, but that isn't enough to get a Wikipedia article: see WP:Notability (people) and specifically WP:ATHLETE. JohnCD (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia wikipedia

excuse me, but i was just wondering, why did you delete my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handsome49 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• (replied on user's talk page) JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Boardman page was deleted

Hello,

I wish to note that a very worthy page on a notable person was deleted. The relevant sources were checked and the addition of Mark Boardman page has all the details relevant to the page. He is a TV personality and has been on BBC, Channel 4 and runs the promotions for all the UK film premiere and is listed on many websites as a celebrity.

Please review this file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.0.2 (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was reviewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Boardman, and the decision was to delete it. That means it is no good just putting it in again. See my message here to another of his supporters for what you should do. JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)