Jump to content

User talk:JohnCD/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

In appreciation

Vroom! "Speedy" Award
In grateful acknowledgment of your consistently excellent work with speedy deletions. - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you - not 100% yet, though - see just above! JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • There's a growing trend to use A7 in preference to G11 when A7 seems appropriate, meaning there's no assertion of significance. Personally, I don't use A7 unless a search (and usually the relevant one is Google archives) convinces me that there's a high probability that additional searching is not going to uncover notability for the person, organization, group or website. In this case, I agree with SoWhy and would have gone with A7 myself, but most people would also be comfortable with G11 for that one. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Hm, I should have mentioned that I don't do a search if it's pretty clear a search won't turn up anything and/or it's not an easy search term, for instance: "Jane Doe Jane Doe is 11 years old and attends Smith Elementary. She likes horses and strawberries." - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Eagle's Prey

I have reworded The Eagle's Prey to avoid copyvio. As for notability, as there is an article devoted to the series, and even a template for it, I assumed notability had pretty much already been established. If not, I suppose the article will be gone before long. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

New Page Patroller's Barnstar

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
For your tireless work in the new pages SpitfireTally-ho! 11:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I never got a chance to say thanks for removing the speedy tag from Shay's Bones and Biscuits, but it was appreciated, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 11:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks (though I don't feel very tireless this morning!) I'm interested that Shay's Bones survived - it must have dropped off my watch-list, I didn't see it had gone to AfD. You could actually have removed the db tag yourself - if I had seen it taken off with an edit summary like "db tag removed, I can find sources" I would have considered that quite OK and would not have been offended. Still, using "hangon" gave me a chance to take it off myself. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Driss Almou

Hi !! Sorry, this is my first article and I thought that i wrote it in the Wiki FR , if u can show me how to make it in i ll do it now :) !

Thanks a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqbal.a (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the articles ;)
Thank u a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqbal.a (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Ronkohler number

Hello JohnCD, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Ronkohler number) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! Ale_Jrbtalk 16:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I worried about that one, but I reckoned these boys really did coin this term and argue about it, so it didn't seem to me to qualify for G3 either as blatant and obvious misinformation or as blatant hoax (which implies intent to deceive). The only alternative I considered to db-nocontext was a PROD as unsourced, un-notable and WP:NFT, and I was maybe too reluctant to use a PROD (and probably ensuing AfD) on something so trivial. I keep wishing we had a speedy for "blatantly made up one day". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it most definitely had context, and it wasn't very short. It could have been PRODed, but I considered the assertion at the beginning of the article, which was made in a serious tone when the subject clearly doesn't actually exist, to qualify it as a hoax. Incidently, that CSD criterion would be amazing. :) Happy editing! Ale_Jrbtalk 16:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Fish articles

Hello

Thanks for the advice.

I logged onto the original articles and added some info there. I am not sure if the other articles I made should be deleted?

I have not quoted any full sentances from the books I used - I am trying to add information from my own observations with regard to some of the rare species for which there is not much information.

I intend to expand on the articles in future when I get more information if that is okay?

Michael Purves michaelmozzie@hotmail.com

Hi. You recently warned this editor about copyright violations in some chef biographies. However, if you look at the actual copyright notice at the bottom of the source pages he used (e.g., http://www.greatchefs.com/chris-yeo/), it apparently does permit copying, under some minor conditions that the editor has complied with. Now, I agree that the articles are unacceptably promotional, and probably qualify for {{db-spam}}, but they are not technically copyvios. Keeping in mind WP:BITE, you may want to go back and amend your message to this editor. Cheers, Hqb (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I have just noticed that - the source site is very confusing, displaying ©-all-rights-reserved as well as a GFDL/CC release - but yes, I'm just on my way back to his talk page. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

IRC

Hey; do you ever go in Wikimedia IRCs? --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 00:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And BTW, do you think I have waaaaaaaaaay too many userboxes? And also, please sign my autograph book. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
IRC - never got interested enough to work out how to do it. What sort of thing goes on there? I always thought it would be rather like blogs, i.e. boring. User-boxes - well, as you can see from my user page I wouldn't have that many myself, but I think it's entirely a matter of individual taste and I wouldn't tell anyone else how many to have. Autograph book -  Done. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

IRC Channels

Well, right now, the Wikimedia IRC channels I go in are Wikipedia and Wikipedia-En. Wikipedia is generally on topic while Wikipedia-En is still on topic but has more off-topic discussions in it. The IRC channels can be pretty useful. And you can also discuss you opinions on things to other Wikipedians but I guess you don't want to do that since you said that if it was like a blog it'd be boring for you. See Wikimedia's details here: [1] and to see a complete list of Wikimedia IRC channels with details and descriptions then go here: [2]. Since you have download Mozzilla Firefox, I would strongly suggest downloading Chatzilla. I use it and I find that it is very useful. You should try it- maybe some time when I'm in there. But that would be like... 8-9 o'clock in the morning for you. :\ --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 01:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

$10 Dinners

I've removed the prod tag you placed on the above-captioned article since (for reasons I've explained on its associated talk page) I feel the programme has notability. I've added another citation to the article and a sentence of explanatory text that may bolster that notability. I just wanted to say that the article I found didn't have a whole lot to suggest that the programme was notable, but I happened to be familiar with its circumstances and background and went to work to improve it a bit. I trust you'll find this satisfactory; if you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually kind of agree, but had heard of this since I'm a Food Network fan; rather like CariDee English, the individual won a reality show contest and parlayed it into hosting another. In actual fact the ending to the reality show won't be broadcast until next week here in Canada, so the discovery of the winner was something of an unpleasant surprise!! Thanks for your courtesy. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

IRCs?

Did you try it? And actually that would be like 6 hours from 8 or 9 or so in the evening for your time. (See above). --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 01:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Splendora magico

Got it. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hasslefree Miniatures and Twilight

Hi there,

i didnt put them on as adverts, i put the articles on initially to link in with other sculptors on the miniature wargaming page.......i thought that it would help expand this topic I was planning on linking these two topics on our forum and inviting members to log onto Wikipedia to further edit and add to the articles to build them up. I didnt realise i was doing anything wrong and am quite happy to remove the urls to the websites and make any further changes you need me to.

can you please tell me what i need to do to alter them or whereelse they should go?

Sally :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meggiesmum (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Kelly dirt

its just a game made up with a random name the name could have easily been D.j there were alot of names but kelly dirt sounded better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkbme1 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your AFD edit

After you did the following edit [3] everything after your edit at AFD was concealed. I do not see the code that is messed up. Could you please take a look? I will also mention it at WP:ANI in case someone there is able to repair the damage. Edison (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks to be fixed now. Edison (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems as though there was a problem with closing the debate - the history shows lots of people trying to fix it. Fixed now, anyway - thanks for pointing it out. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my AfD nom...

Thank you for catching the COI of the author at Robotic Kidney Surgery as it slipped my notice. I've made a few mistakes with this one -- first I didn't check the author's talk page before I AfD'd the article (otherwise I would have noticed a previous version was speedied), and secondly I only skim-read the article, noting it sounded like a patient instruction sheet. When the author claimed to have copyright permissions on my talk page, I assumed good faith and looked into the process for him.

The lesson learned, I guess, is that I should have looked more closely at the article and it's included links. --Tckma (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

New Glasvegas Album

yea i have more stuff too add! didnt have time! ill do it just now! thanks Bobo6balde66 (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Then what kinds of public housing is needed?

You said my articles need to be deleted. Then what kinds of public housing is needed? There are so many railway stations in every countries. But is it allowed to post every station of the railway line in Wikipedia? Need they also be deleted? Ricky@36 (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is, how small a unit of housing is notable enough to have an article? No one would argue for having an article about every house or every lamp-post; the question is where to draw the line, and that is a matter of opinion, and we have to find a consensus. In previous deletion discussions (see WP:OUTCOMES#Places) the general result has been:
  • Larger neighborhoods are acceptable, but its name must have verifiable widespread usage
  • Smaller suburbs should generally be listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments)
That has been the general consensus; I agree with it, because with so small a unit as this there is really nothing to say about it but where it is, how many housing blocks, what they are called - that's material for a directory, not an encyclopedia. That's why I !voted "delete" on Tin Tsz Estate. We'll see what others think.
As far as railway stations goes, the consensus has been "Subway and railway lines are acceptable, but individual stations are questionable" (WP:OUTCOMES#Transportation). There do seem to be a lot of station articles, perhaps because there are railway enthusiasts - I don't know whether they have been challenged. Somebody tried to do articles about tram stops in Adelaide, but they got deleted.
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
One sentence can conclude your view. "Large" or "small" is very subjective. I know the content of the article, but because someone don't know and they can say the articles are inappropriate being posted in Wikipedia. You (or others) could delete the articles that you don't know. Then I don't know many infrastructure all around the world, and I can delete the articles related to them. Ricky@36 (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not a question of what I know or you know: nobody doubts that the article is true, but being true does not make it interesting enough for an encyclopedia article. I can't delete anything, all I can do is give my opinion, when someone starts a debate, on whether a subject is notable enough for an article. You can give your opinion, and other people can give theirs, and we see whether there is a consensus. WP:OUTCOMES shows what the result of similar debates has been in the past, but sometimes opinions change - we'll see. JohnCD (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
But the point is that everyone can request deletions on each article at any time. "Notable" is just equal to whether users know it. If I know it, reserve it. If I don't know it, delete it. This shows unrespectable to the creators and will restrict freedom of information in the Internet. Ricky@36 (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
"Notable" has nothing to do with whether users know it or not. If I lived in Tin Tsz estate I would still say it was not notable, because it is just four big blocks of flats, with nothing to make it different from 200 other housing estates in Hong Kong and many thousands in the world. I used to live in an estate in London - I know it well, but it has no article and if one was proposed I would say "not notable" because there is nothing interesting about it. It would be possible to compile a list of every block of flats in the world, but that would be a directory, not an encyclopedia, and no one would want to read it. JohnCD (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Try to talk with Unschool. I think he/she is your master. He/she wants to delete the whole public housing estates of Hong Kong, a large "project"! Ricky@36 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Err

Err... I don't know if you noticed my "IRCs?" section on your talk page or if you just didn't respond because normally you would have said something. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 00:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I didn't respond because I haven't had time to work out how to set up IRC, and it's not very high on my list of priorities. If I do get round to doing it, I'll look out for you there. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Will you be using Chatzilla if you do get around to it? --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 01:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OI!

Well he has competed at a fuly proffesional level for his team in brazil, he is playing 4 their first team and brazils youth team, both pro-teams!!!!!TheCriticCreator (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you supply a reference to show that he plays for Fluminense's first team? It is listed at Fluminense Football Club#Current Squad and I don't see his name there. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I Can, I don't know how to, can you help?TheCriticCreator (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A link to Fluminense's website would do, if that showed him in their first team, but he isn't there. What is your source for saying he plays for their first team? Youth team or U-17 wouldn't count. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Young guns ( most reliable Arsenal youth website, they say he got promoted, but if he comes to Arsenal hell be loaned out or sent into youth team) I have my source but how do I create a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCriticCreator (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

They havent put him on their website as they are using the same tactics ajax use with their youngsters, to keep them at the club so other clubs wont sign their star youth players, they cant sign contracts till they are at a certain age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCriticCreator (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find him on Young Guns either. Get the page on your screen, and copy the web address over here, so I can look it up. But Young Guns is only a blog, and blogs are not considered Reliable Sources - if that's the only source that says he plays for Fluminense's first team, and their website doesn't, then unless there is some solid evidence he will have to wait until Arsenal sign him and he actually plays for their first team. JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What you need to do is go to the bottom of the page (young guns) and look left bottom, previous entries, click on it do this a few times and u will come to the article, there might be sources if not google wellington to arsenal and there will be a few sources . he isnt an arsenal player yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCriticCreator (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

this is one article,

heres another

and some more

This sort of stuff would count as sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCriticCreator (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jumping in a bit: I would stay away from "wordpress" as it's a blog. I would have to check the others. Plastikspork (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You have done your research well, but the key question is, is there evidence that he has actually played for Fluminense's first team? and I think the answer has to be "no". The only one of those sources which says anything like that is the July 14 Wordpress blog which says "a move appeared to be dead last month when Fluminense coach Carlos Alberto Parreira promoted the Brazil Under 17 international to his first-team squad." But (a) that's only a blog, not a reliable source, (b) being in the squad is not the same as actually playing, which is what WP:ATHLETE requires, (c) Fluminense's own web-site does not show him in the squad, and (d) one of the other Wordpress blogs says "There is now a strong possibility that Wellington may well be handed the chance to play for Fluminense’s first team" - i.e., he hasn't yet. The last three references you list are more likely to be reliable, but none of them says more than that he is a promising youngster, "coming through the ranks" at Fluminense etc.
So in my opinion you cannot produce evidence that he meets the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. Your only hope might be to argue that he is so promising, has caused so much excitement etc. that that makes him notable enough for an article. I'll ask Plastikspork, who is an admin (as I am not) whether he would find that argument convincing. I don't think I would - there are a great many "young sensations", many of whom don't come to anything. That's why we ask for actual achievement, i.e.really playing at the top level.
The way to cite a reference in an article is to put, for instance:
<ref>http://youngguns.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/wellington-jets-in-ahead-of-arsenal-talks/</ref>
at the point in the article where you are citing it, and then at the end of the article:
==References==
{{reflist}} (two curly brackets each side)
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with JohnCD. Once he is signed, it's an entirely different story. By the way, my opinion (technically) carries no more weight than any other editor. I'm just someone with a few extra buttons. This is why there is WP:DRV. Another interesting outlet is WP:AFC. Also, once he is signed, I would go with proper title case for the article. Thank you for doing the research. Plastikspork (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Im actually pretty sure on this one , hell become a half decent player, ive only ever been sure on afew, (IM A BIG FOOTBALL FAN). thanks 4 ur help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCriticCreator (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For this bit of clean-up. I saw the IP edit and was debating what action to take...I didn't want to send the IP to AIV regarding blowing off steam on my talk. You save me the decision :) Tiderolls 09:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chikadibia Ihejimba

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Porturology (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I didn't create that page: I userfied it - moved it to the author's user page - just at the same moment you zapped it. Actually, I'm beginning to think userfying autobiographies is a waste of time, because the users almost never edit again - all they came here for was to post about themselves - but there's always the chance one may turn into a contributor. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes sorry about the message. I agree many users only have expertise when they are talking about themselves about themselves, some might have something to say about another subject but I suspect someone like this who writes that he will be a presidential candidate in 2019 is not likely to be a big contributor Porturology (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hang the Dance!

Re; Hang The Dance and link to article on The Ukrainians and Roman Remeynes. Two things; firstly the name Hang The Dance appears on an existing Wikipedia page (John Peel Ukrainian Sessions). Secondly - independent verification of bands existence and quotes from media sources (music magazines from the era) will appear over time (please specify time limit)

Regards - John Hunter Hangthedance (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That your band's name appears in another article doesn't necessarily mean it's entitled to an article of its own - if there's something relevant to say about it, one option would be to put it in where the name appears. As regards time limits, Wikipedia isn't that highly-organised: you can put {{underconstruction}} (two curly brackets each side) at the top, which will protect it for a few days, but otherwise, if it doesn't seem to meet the requirements it may get challenged any time. If it does get deleted, and you later find adequate references, you can always re-create it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

RfA?

I've always seen you around on a regular basis for the last few years now... have you ever considered doing the job directly? :-) -- Mentifisto 17:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am complimented to be asked, but lack of article building experience means that I would certainly not pass RfA - I do not tick any of the right boxes like DYK and GA - and I am not interested enough in the mop to start on the sort of "study for the exam" that I would need to do in order to pass. I seem to find plenty to do as a gnome, even if it means I have to bring my piles of dust to CSD or AIV for you to mop up. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, but it's no certitude... people would only like to see dedication, and I think you have that. As per 'studying'... I don't think it's exactly like that even though it may seem so. You only need to prove what you most likely already know about WP (since I suppose you got quite used to it since you registered so long ago). -- Mentifisto 18:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again

thanks again 4 ur helpTheCriticCreator (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Naeem mohaiemen

Hi I want to respond to the discussion around the page I edited. Do I just click on talk to do that? Mohaiemen (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry not to reply promptly - I guess I am in a different time-zone, and your message came just after I had switched off for the night. I see you have found out how to comment in the discussion. Wikipedia policy and practice is rather contradictory - autobiography and editing with a conflict of interest are discouraged, but the anonymity of accounts makes it impossible to prohibit them; on the other hand once we have an article, if there is any information that can be saved deletion is regarded as a last resort. There is good advice about how to edit with a conflict of interest at User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you. I don't think your article will get deleted, but probably others will revise it. JohnCD (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User pages

I am very hesitant about deleting user pages unless they are pure spam. There's no harm. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Veiled voices

When YOU note that you're having trouble finding sources, I take it as a worthy challange. I was perhaps luckier that you in my search [4]. But even after cleaning up and sourcing the article, it really is not enough... yet. MichaelQSchmidt (talk)`

  • Thank you. I did do that search, but also decided it was not enough, particularly in view of the element of self-promotion. What I wrote about the other uses of the name was to prevent people getting all excited when they searched on the film name alone and found lots of references. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

UKFast

hi JohnCD

I am Lawrence Jones managing director of UKFast.

I have not put anything inaccurate or that will benefit UKFast other than the simple facts.

Personally my additions benefit wikipedia more than UKFast as your results will now appear in Google for our brand term which gets 100,000's of visitors.

I am very careful not to appear biased in any way.

The wiki tells me that this page is an orphan, it also needs updating, how am I supposed to contribute if people edit this when they do NOT know what UKFast is all about?

As i was stopped mid post, the internal link to Manoc does not seem to be working.

Can you assist and give me some advice for the future.

Kind regards

Lawrence Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence N Jones (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Vaspooher

thanks for your message about Vaspooher


--Peace (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem

Hi,

As an academician myself, I'm always open to suggestions. :-)

Infact, I quite agree with you. And I have edited the hypotheses section (inserted what was null and alternate hypothesis). This is a platform for knowledge-sharing...so, I'll always be game.

Regards, 91.75.53.75 (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Mallika

Elle Kallista

Hello John. Thanks for the notice at User talk:Ellekallista. I searched the template {{subst:uw-coi}} too long. Have a nice day. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Another useful one is {{subst:uw-auto}}, and I think {{subst:uw-hoax}} would have been suitable here, too. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Diehl Technology LLC.

Hi John,

I am trying to build an information page about Diehl Technology LLC. just like what was done for Proctor and Gamble. The problem is I just started this in the editor. If it gets deleted before I am done you will never be able to evaluate the finished listing. How do I proceed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbendler (talk • contribs) 17:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

labeled spam for h p & b law firm page

I was trying to create a page for a new law firm in boca and it was subsequently labeled spam and deleted. Can you help me understand how I can include information about this firm without it being considered "advertising"? I have noticed other law firms in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbalaya1978 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Proposal

Wouldn't (Chris Rex's) Prank Calls qualify for A7 speedy deletion? It contains no assertion of notability, no citations, and exists solely to promote the subjects equally obsolete CD (the long winded story about 'the game' that resulted in the CD seems to exclude it from G11:Unambiguous Promotion - barely). —Preceding unsigned comment added by K10wnsta (talk • contribs) 05:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid it wouldn't - A7 is specifically for "a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content" - see User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes for comment by an experienced admin. I would have liked to speedy this, but G11 is the only possible speedy, and it isn't really spammy enough. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed your PROD on Ruchira addressing the Security Council in 2007

FYI I changed the PROD to nomination for copying to Wikisource, which you mentioned as a possibility. The same editor has added a couple of other documents of the same sort, and they have likewise been nominated. Favonian (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK - does that now happen automatically, and is it now up to Wikisource to worry about copyright? I guess the author is Ms. Ruchira's PR person and able to organise copyright release, but we don't know that, and these speeches are on various websites like www.apneaap.org. JohnCD (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It's my understanding that the copyright is investigated before the document is accepted — a good thing, since one of the other documents just got tanked for copyvio :( As for the automation, I'm really not sure. Favonian (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The process doesn't seem very speedy - I just looked in Category:Copy to Wikisource and picked one article at random - The Princess of the Tide - and it has been there since December 2005! If nothing happens in a week or two, I should be inclined to re-prod these articles and let the author organise them into Wikisource direct. JohnCD (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Jeez, didn't know it was that bad! I agree with the proposed plan. Favonian (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Mood point by now. The last of the documents just got removed for copyvio. Favonian (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Right. I've left the user a note explaining why and pointing him/her to Wikisource in case copyright clearance gets organised. JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD

Why do you beat me to CSDing ? :))--Notedgrant (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty for both of us, it seems a never-ending stream - of NN bands, rappers, companies in particular. I'm thinking of proposing that before creating an account new users should have to read a summary of WP:NOT which would say things like "If you have come here to promote yourself, your band, or your company, forget it, it will be deleted, that's not what Wikipedia is for." JohnCD (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thats true Inform me when you propose that change I will vouch for it Good Day --Notedgrant (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you[5] you beat me too it. I have seen you around, and I appreciate your efforts and fine work. Ikip (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I just happened to see it on Recent Changes and noticed the redlink. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I dont know why but John keeps on beating other wikipedians He's gr8 at wikipeding --Notedgrant (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Flattery will get you nowhere. JohnCD (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Super Diaper Baby 2: The Invasion of the Potty Snatchers

hi jhon i was wandering if you knew when the book super diaper baby 2 was coming out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnanderingcp (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never heard of the book. You could try the publisher's web-site, or Amazon if publication is fairly near. If you want to add a publication date to the article, you need a reliable source. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Living Vampires

If I found stuff on the web that supports my claims would that be acceptable? I would like time to find exact source of where it came from by using search engine and contacting others who might be close to what I'm seeking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strygoth (talk • contribs) 08:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  • You would have to find a reliable source - click that link to see what it means, but it includes having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and doesn't include the sort of site where people can post what they like (for that reason Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source). I don't think http://www.users.qwest.net/~deric2/human_living_vampires.htm or http://vampires.monstrous.com/human_living_vampires.htm would be considered reliable. One thing you have to decide is whether you are saying that these living vampires actually exist, or just they are a subject about which there are stories and myths - it would be easier to find reliable sources for the latter. PROD takes seven days, so you have some time to look for sources; also, you are allowed to remove the PROD, though the article would probably then be taken to AFD - that involves a discussion, and takes another 7 days. Finally, if the article is deleted but you later find reliable sources, you can ask any admin to undelete it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Kelli Winger Smart

Hey slow down a bit with the coffee 4waldopepper (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks OK now and I have marked it "resolved" at WP:BLP/N. Sorry if I was a bit quick on the trigger, but negative BLP is a very sensitive issue - it's worth reading the whole WP:BLP policy carefully - and it's best to have the sources in place before you put the article up. Thanks for sorting it out promptly. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A user at an IP number is defacing the page still. What is the process to provide notice to the user? 4waldopepper (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

PURISTA

Hi John,

Thanks again for all of your advice regarding my posts. My apologies for any conflict of interest or flagged guideline posts that have arisen. My goal was not to advertise those products, but rather write neutral, fact-based information about them. The PURISTA company is a new beverage completely separate from Playboy and has been garnering independent PR and traction via web articles and releases. Would it be better for me to delete the Margarita, Caipirinha, and Blackberry pages? I'd be happy to do so.

Thanks also for your tips on editing and "Show Preview". I am still learning the ways of Wiki and want to make sure everything I do is completely on the level.

Best Regards (Zepolekim (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

  • Quick reply: thanks for your response. Yes, I think it would be best to delete those three pages. The simplest way to do that is for you, as the author, to blank each of them and place {{db-author}} (two curly brackets each side) at the top - that's Wikipedia-speak for "author requests deletion". Then I will close the AfD debate. (It may be that a passing admin will see your note on the AfD debate and delete them anyway; but {{db-author}} will probably be quicker). Longer reply in an hour or two. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey John. I did the {{db-author}} for PURISTA Margarita, PURISTA Caipirinha, and PURISTA Mojito Blackberry. Thanks again for all of your input. (Zepolekim (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks a lot, I was searching how to do that :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by He8us (talk • contribs) 16:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Colours

Sorry, but I don't know who else to ask and cannot find the information among the help pages. Thank you for the welcome message, as I am just now finding out how to properly use Wikipedia, the rules and the guidelines to abide by for proper consistency. My question pertains to infoboxes and the colors used in headers. How do I use a certain color in a template I plan to create. I can not find the information, thank you in advance for any assistance. Geremy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geremysguitar (talk • contribs) 01:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • WP:CHEAT is the short guide to editing, and WP:EDIT has more detail. I looked there for anything about colours (which I have never used), but didn't find anything. However, if you want to find out about something, say OOGLEs, in Wikipedia's behind-the-scenes operations, it's always worth a try typing WP:OOGLE into the search box - on that basis I tried WP:COLOUR, and that may have what you want. If you need more, the WP:HELPDESK answers questions about how to use Wikipedia. One more tip - on talk pages (but not in articles) the best way to "sign" your messages is by ending them with four "tilde" characters ~~~~, which the system converts into a signature of your username and the time and date - like this: JohnCD (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

deleted page

Must have done the first one wrong. See that the page that I posted shows on google. Will this be deleted in due course? Melisa89 (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • If you now click on the link Google provides, you get taken to a Wikipedia screen which says the page was deleted and when and why. I don't know how long it will take before Google no longer shows a deleted page - we have no control over Google, you'd have to ask them. There is another danger which makes it unwise to do that sort of thing: there are several "mirror" sites which copy Wikipedia automatically (as our licence allows) but deleting an article from WP does not delete it from the mirror sites, and it can linger on them, being picked up by Google, indefinitely. With luck, we zapped this one before the mirrors picked it up. Don't do it again! Regards JohnCD (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

about the documentary

I have prepared a documentary on climate change . how to post it on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabindratheparadise (talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For general advice, see the guide to writing Your First Article which is worth reading carefully; but I must also give you some warnings. If what you want to post here is some new original work of your own, I'm sorry but we can't accept it - one of Wikipedia's principles is that it publishes No Original Research - read that policy too. If what you have made is a documentary film, we won't have an article about it until it is notable, which means that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I am sorry to be discouraging, but it is better that you understand Wikipedia's requirements now than put a lot of effort into an article which gets deleted. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

article for removal

hello John, I have an article under 'speedy deletion' category. I have made the article empty, but I would be very grateful if you could advise what should I do next in order to get the page completely removed from Wikipedia.

I'm really sorry for the inconvenience

Baghdadian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baghdadian (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolving Term Used

Hello JohnCD, member of Wikipedia Group, mi intention is to inform about this topic voltrolisys, in this term this word is not commonly used and is acoording to my investigation. what is the best form to avoid the violation of wikipedia term of use?, because in my case this innovation is made by my self. The concepts are trully originals, and If the main restriction is about my name, please delete my name as reference to the author, If is neccesary that many links are referenced this concept, then i wait meanwhile it is published. I've noted that some links are not availabe yet, but i think that soon it appair. thanks, leandrorache.(2009-08-27)

Your article has been deleted because it seemed to be copyright. If you are the owner of the copyright, you can give a release, but that means more than just permission to reproduce - see WP:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations for more detail. But the real problem is that it seems you have something new and original, and Wikipedia is not the place to publish new original ideas - one of our fundamental principles is that we publish No Original Research. To be in Wikipedia, an idea must first have been published elsewhere, and commented on in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - see Verifiablity. So I'm sorry, but it seems your work is too new for Wikipedia. You should also read our guideline on Conflict of Interest. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime

Following your close of this AfD, I have raised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missing prisoners of Chile for a similar list posted a couple of weeks ago. I have notified the (SPA) author of the list; then I thought of notifying the violent defenders of the previous lists; then I thought in that case I should notify everyone who took part in that AfD; and then I wondered of that would be canvassing and I should do nothing. Please advise. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

O gosh - that's a dreadful article. I think that might qualify for a Speedy Deletion under A7.
The guidelines for notifying people are here. It is a courtesy to notify the originator of the article, and if you have Wikipedia:Twinkle, it will do that for you. I don't usually do much more than that - though I may notify people in various circumstances where it might be appropriate. This is a different article to the one just deleted, and - with the best will in the world - you cannot go around informing everyone about an AfD because they took part in a related one. Everyone is welcome to have their say at an AfD, and the more people involved the more rounded is the discussion, so some means of informing people who might be interested in that particular AfD is certainly worthwhile. I suggest a note on this page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile, and leave it at that. Regards SilkTork *YES! 22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I have done as you suggest. JohnCD (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Help!

Hi John,

I have made numerous attempts to add an entry onto Wikipedia but they keep being deleted! I must admit, my first entry did have an advertising spin on it, but since then I have attempted to make it as factual as possible. Please can you help me to understand what it is that is causing my article to be deleted!

Thank you.

Deniz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denizguryel (talk • contribs) 11:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business listing directory or a vehicle for any kind of promotion. Articles have to be of enough general interest for an encyclopedia article: the Wikipedia term for that is notability, and the requirements are explained in the guideline on Notability and in more detail in Notability (organizations and companies). Articles need to be verifiable from independent, reliable sources - a company's own website does not count as independent - and such independent references are the best way to demonstrate notability. Also, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, and so people are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves or their own organizations, because of the conflict of interest involved. For more advice, read carefully the FAQ/Organizations, in particular the sections headed:
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Beings From The Depths Of Time, Space, and the Distortion World

I am just experimenting. Nothing really was at harm JohnCD. I was trying to have fun and it wasn't like the end of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplemonkey8899 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • No, it's not the end of the world, but it's a silly, persistent nuisance that wastes people's time clearing up after you, and damages the encyclopedia because people who see your nonsense think the rest may be unreliable too. This is a serious project, not a place for you to "have fun." You have had a string of warnings, at least eight or nine, and the final one I gave you is serious: if you do it again you will be blocked from editing. JohnCD (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ascended Games

I'm a long time Wikipediaholic but new to posting. I posted a small article about Ascended Games and it got shot in the head before I could add any more info. I must say, you guys are fast. I am posting a note here because I tried to follow all the rules, but I guess I didn't have it fully digested mentally yet. I will create a full article before posting the next version. But I do believe my company is notable as a representative of a few things. One, Small business is what makes this country a great country and is how Wikipedia started out. Two, you have giant game developer companies being highlighted all over the place, but you don't have the little guy. I guess thats because we aren't notable. I believe the Indie is notable and not just as an article about the random Indie Developer. I bet you have an iPhone or iPod or know 10 people who do. Who do you think is notable on that device? The indie developer made that possible. EA, Nintendo, Microsoft, none of them have a big presence on that device. I bet I can look up PopCap games and RealArcade. Ascended Games is one of many new game studios defining an emerging era in game design and production. I believe that to be quite notable. I also had links to my webpage, if you look at PopCap, they only have links to their own site. I was following their example.

I would love to know what your thoughts were on the page when you deleted it (according to all the info I have access to). I would like to know how to improve it, but I would like another shot at posting Ascended Games. I have been pushing your site since its emergence into the public eye, I have plans on pushing my gamers to this site as a reference and learning tool. Help me with my site. Please...

Ray Farrar CEO/President/Lead Designer Ascended Games, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drfarrar (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What follows is a boilerplate reply, because I have had this conversation many times. I will add a more individual reply within 24 hours, but this is all I have time for now - the guy just above you needs a reply, too...
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business listing directory or a vehicle for any kind of promotion. Articles have to be of enough general interest for an encyclopedia article: the Wikipedia term for that is notability, and the requirements are explained in the guideline on Notability and in more detail in Notability (organizations and companies). Articles need to be verifiable from independent, reliable sources - a company's own website does not count as independent - and such independent references are the best way to demonstrate notability. Also, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, and so people are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves or their own organizations, because of the conflict of interest involved. For more advice, read carefully the FAQ/Organizations, in particular the sections headed:
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Longer reply as promised. First, we are using the word "notable" differently. In Wikipedia it is a technical term meaning "of enough general interest to have an encyclopedia article, as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That is not a subjective opinion: the point is that Wikipedia editors don't make value-judgements about whether your company, or any other subject, is deserving, interesting, what-makes-America-great, etc: we just ask, have other people, independent of the company thought it interesting and important enough to write about?
So yes, we have articles on Microsoft and Sony because they pass that test, and not on "the little guy" because he doesn't. Have a look at WP:SCRABBLE - it's about a game, not a company, but the same principle applies. We don't expect to have a listing for every company (but Wikicompany does, and would be happy to list you).
In regard to some other company's article, yes, some slip by - new articles come in at the rate of several a minute, and the New Page Patrol volunteers can't always keep up - but that's not a reason for admitting more. See WP:ININ and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
What were my thoughts when I tagged your page? (I didn't actually delete it, that normally takes two pairs of eyes - I flagged it as not meeting our standards, and then an admin looked at, agreed, and deleted it.) My thoughts were: (weary sigh) this is the fifth non-notable-looking small company this morning, I really should take time off from New Page Patrol to write down my idea that it would be better for everybody if new contributors were made to read a short summary of the Conflict of Interest and What Wikipedia is not guidelines before signing on, because so many of them are only here to advertise themselves, their garage bands, their unpublished novels, their startup companies, and it would save their time and ours if they understood that this is an encyclopedia not a notice-board.
Returning to Conflict of Interest - for all the reasons listed there we prefer people not to write about themselves or their organizations; however, the anonymity of accounts makes it impossible to prohibit. There is good advice from a Wikipedia veteran at User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you:

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

Similarly, if you are writing about your company, then use independent articles written about your company as sources, not your company's autobiography and press releases. If there are no such sources, don't write about your company.

So, on to advice. I should really say, you should wait for others to write about your company, if no-one but you wants to, that means it's not notable enough for an article. However, read Your First Article and follow Uncle G's advice above; if you think, on that basis, you can demonstrate notability, then go ahead. It's best not to put an article in until it's pretty well complete - they get flagged quickly because they come in so fast and because a surprising number are libellous personal attacks which have to be zapped quickly, and a lot more are put in incomplete and then abandoned. You can put {{underconstruction}} (two curly brackets each side) at the top, which will protect it for a few days; or you can prepare it in your user space and only make it an article when it is ready. To make yourself a user page called (say) "Sandbox", type [[/Sandbox]] on your user page (two square brackets each side, and be careful to include the initial "/" character) and save it. That will produce a "redlink" - click on the redlink, type something, and save it. Now you have a user sub-page you can use to develop your article. Good luck.
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I thank you very much for your detailed reply and I will/have read the links you posted. I had no idea there was a Wikicompany site and I will visit that immediately! I'm happy to see a place for everyone. You and everyone associated with Wikipedia have done an incredible job! Keep up the great work and I will continue to support you and your site whole heartedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drfarrar (talk • contribs) 23:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Brandon Peters

Hi John,

I'm not in the PR business. I'm Puerto Rican. Reverb is just something I use because I am a music fan. Please untag this speedy tag for Brandon Peters. I don't think you are in the right to try to delete since I did read everything that was necessary before I posted. I did some photography for him and he is a credible source in the music industry. Since I posted late last night, I was waiting until this morning to retreive source tags from the institutions mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reverb PR (talk • contribs) 19:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • My apologies - we do get a lot of PR people trying to use Wikipedia for free advertising for their clients. Your article has already been deleted (which means that the admin who looked at my tag agreed that it did not "indicate why its subject is important or significant") but I see you have a copy in your user space, so you don't need to ask for it to be undeleted. Before you put it in again, though, read WP:YFA, and then WP:N and WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC to get an idea of what you need to make an article that will stay - you need to cite references to show that other people have thought him interesting and important enough to write about. Also, make the tone more drily factual, Wikipedia needs a neutral point of view, and phrases like "prestigious" and "genius for music" and "ever evolving versatility" sound like a PR puff-piece - see WP:PEACOCK for the sort of thing to avoid. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

Not an attack on Mr. Chris Ebsworth

Mr. Ebsworth is sitting next to me and whole heartedly supports the article which I wrote. Please could you put it back up...if you disagree with specific comments please highlight them and I will edit.

thanks

powpowpowpow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powpowpowpow (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Gamli Garður

I have to admit I feel that you are being unfair in your review of my article and have not given me a proper amount of time to improve before jumping to the conclusion that my contribution is merely frivilous. In response to your two complaints:

(1) I have removed all of the copywritten content. Thank you for alerting me to that mistake. (2) The dormitory is the first to be built in Iceland and located at Iceland's first and largest university. It's well known at the university and serves as the pillar of the foreign student community, which numbers around 1000 visiting scholars.

Kigukagu (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)`

I did not think your article frivolous - it was too well presented for that - but doing New Page Patrol to look at incoming articles I am aware that many new contributors do not understand what makes an acceptable Wikipedia article. Often people think that what seems important to them must be interesting to the world and "My college dormitory" is so frequent a contribution that it is listed at WP:BAI. I had another dormitory only yesterday - look at Barr hall. (The most popular subjects are "Me" and "My alternative-rock band").
As far as time to improve goes, only the speedy-deletion tag for copyright had any degree of urgency - that has to be dealt with quickly, because publishing copyright material could get Wikipedia into serious legal trouble. In contrast, the Proposed Deletion template I put on would not have had any effect for seven days, during which you could improve the article, and anyone including you could remove it at any stage. Once a PROD has been removed it cannot be replaced. What might now happen is the process called "Articles for deletion" which again takes seven days, during which anyone interested can comment and at the end an administrator weighs up the opinions (not the number of votes) and decides. I will give you some time before I decide to start that (but someone else might start it - Wikipedia doesn't have a central authority for this kind of thing).
Notability has a special meaning in Wikipedia - it's not a matter of subjective opinion, of saying that something is well-known, but of whether a subject has had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Can you produce evidence, more substantial than lists of dormitories, that someone independent has thought this one interesting and important enough to write about? I doubt whether just being the oldest in Iceland is enough, though it helps - can you cite a reliable source for that? (see Verifiability).
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

John,

Not sure if you can read Icelandic, but the following text very clearly states that Gamli Gardur is not only the first dormitory at the prestigious university of iceland, but the oldest building still standing there:

Aðalbyggingin var vígð 17. júní 1940. Hún er þó ekki elsta byggingin á svæðinu, þann heiður hefur Gamli Garður, sem var tekinn í notkun árið 1934. Hann dugði þó skammt, enda fjölgaði stúdentum ört og því var Nýi Garður byggður. Fyrstu stúdentarnir fluttu inn á Nýja Garð árið 1943 og nú eru þar aðallega skrifstofur kennara.

[6]

með kveðju (best regards), Kigukagu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

I can't read Icelandic, but Google Translate can. OK, maybe that's enough - better than Barr hall, anyway. Put that in as a reference, and see if you can find anything else. Did you know there is an Icelandic Wikipedia? I see that on :is, Gamli Garður redirects to is:Regensen - I don't know if there's any useful information there? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
No, that seems to be a different Gamli Garður, in Copenhagen. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

On Islamic marketing

Hi John,

I am actually working on developing a comprehensive article on the subject and the small article that has been contributed is only the start of a much larger project. I understand your concerns about promoting self and I already removed my name from the begining of the article. I am adding Islamic Marketing to Wiki for knowldge purposes only. I will remove or rewrite the contents to make sure that there is no conflict of Interest.

This is inceasingly becoming a hot topic and it seems natural that Wiki has something to say about it. Just give me sometime and I think I add something of value to your online encyclopedia.

Best regards Dr. Baker Alserhan College of Business United Arab Emirates University —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alserhan (talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Famous Aka Lil Ken

keep this page up or try to creat one hangon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja210 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi JohnCD

Hello thank you for telling me about the contact me page.--Dwayneflanders (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi JohnCD, it's Quangminhc here. I reakon Wikipedia is the best information site and it is anti-virus. And what does CD at the end of your name stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quangminhc (talk • contribs) 08:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

my bad..i apologize.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craiggie (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Kitami Woome

I am User Infianant. I have to say there are many kingdoms in the continent of Africa that are within the countries that were made as a result to European Imperialism. Most of these kingdoms are very small, some not with even 1,000,000 subjects. They are kingdoms though nonetheless. I am speaking on behalf of the Royal House of Woome, ruling family of the Village of Abua in Rivers State, Nigeria. His Excellency Prince Kitami Woome is indeed the Crown Prince of Abua which is populated of approximately 1,000,000 inhabitants. There are no electronic sources available anywhere to prove that he is however, the same as many others kingdoms in the continent of Africa. Abua, and many of the others Kingdoms in Africa have practiced centuries or oral documentation. Unless European colonialist made written documentation of any Kingdom there will be no reference of them. European colonialist made written documents of only very few of the hundreds of kingdoms already in the continent of Africa before there arrival. I can only state that Abua is a village in Rivers State, Nigeria. The Royal House of Woome is the ruling family of this village, and His Excellency Prince Kitami Woome is the Crown Prince of Abua. It is no possible for me to post refrences becuase there are simply no written refference of this, much less electronic reference. The people of our village, Abua Every thing I am saying to be true. The articles I put up on belaf of the Royal House of Woome are small and will not disrupt this mega website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinant (talk • contribs) 11:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The problem is that one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies is Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What happened about the beginning of 2008 to make the curve change direction so markedly?

Not sure how far this[7] pertains to the question that you posed at WT:RFA but how about now?--Tikiwont (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you can't blame me for that, the steep rise in the number of admins had already topped out by then, though the downward trend was not yet established. Actually, 18 months later my answer is much the same: I would not pass RFA, because I have never got interested in the article-writing side, so I do not tick any of the right boxes like DYK and GA. I was asked more recently, and after that thought about it again and read some RfAs, but it is clear that the RFA community requires article writing experience - WP:GRFA#What RfA contributors look for and hope to see, #1: "Strong edit history with plenty of material contributions to Wikipedia articles", also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps 3, where despite Newyorkbrad's eloquent plea the RfA failed convincingly. From time to time I look at WT:RFA, because I am interested in how institutions like this work - charts like that one are fascinating, and I would really like to know the answer to my question - but I am not interested enough in being an admin to undertake the sort of "study for the exam" which would be necessary to pass. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I somehow missed the recent question and of course, I didn't want to 'blame' you. I would have based a nomination on the argument that after 18 months it is getting increasingly unlikely that you're gonna fit the model of content creating admin and suggested to rather look at your track record at dealing of with CSD and the like, not just with tagging but also in the sense of dealing with fellow editors. But I see your point, although above linked RFA failed also for other reasons. Could still be a co-nom, though, if you ever change your mind and I am still around myself. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - if the climate should change so that it seems a non-content-writing admin could be acceptable, I might give it a go, and in that case I will take up your kind offer; but at the moment I think it would be a waste of time, and as I said to Mentifisto I can find plenty to do without the mop. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

feedback on Mechation

Thanks John for reading my words. I knew from the start that this was a neologism, personal reflection, and inappropriate entry in Wikipedia. I have top respect for Wikipedia and how you are trying to shape it.

My ideas, I find, are "heretical" and incomprehensible to people who have not separated the abstract world of literacy from the experiential world of pre-literate human experience. To be honest, no one in the last three decades of my life has been able to share my perspective.

Who am I? I graduated from Brown University in 1969 and then spent 6 months in prison resisting Vietnam. After that, I dropped out of my social class pretty completely for a couple of decades. In the '80s I decided to use my "mind" to earn money and became a teacher (now 7th grade Science and Special Ed in inner-city Sacramento). As I dropped out of abstracted white culture, I also dropped out of the abstract education I had completed (at great expense to my parents). I stopped reading anything except street signs for 6 months; I continued a personal ban on most reading for 2 years. Since then, I have reaccumulated abstract thinking but in a very different way. I have an MA and a PhD's amount of units, now (but no dissertation). My life is still largely experiential--lots of cooking, basketball, cleaning, meditating, and parenting; my teaching job (of course), a little reading, some computer use. I am taking weekly Hmong lessons as well.

So why did I write down my ideas? I guess as "service" to the culture. I have always respected Salinger's idea that an audience will corrupt a writer, and I have relished having written nothing and having no audience. It has given me quite free reign to think. You are my first audience! At the age of 62, however, I feel like it is time to share my ideas with my culture. Mechation is becoming obvious now, and many people could benefit from looking at their lives through this lens. The speed with which computer power is modifying human lifestyle is extreme. I read about Grisha Perelman's posting of the solution to a 100-year-old math problem and his refusal to accept a Nobel-type prize a couple of years ago and decided that there was an opening for me and my ideas as well. I slowly put together the 3000 words for Wikipedia and submitted. I also sent off a copy to the Atlantic Monthly. I have done my share! I would be happy to forward my information to any other source you recommend, but not happy to spend much time editing the material on mechation. If some writer wants to work on the project, I would be happy to answer questions.

Thanks for your time! I greatly appreciate the Wikipedia approach and manner of doing things!

Best regards, Ffdssa (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)RF BellFfdssa (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. First, I should point out that the article's time is up and it may go at any moment, but as you will see in the PROD notice, you are entitled to remove the PROD for any reason, and if the article is deleted you are entitled to ask for it to be undeleted. What would happen then would be that I would invoke the Articles for deletion process, which would start a debate lasting another seven days, at the end of which an admin would decide (based on the arguments, not the number of votes) what to do. I have to say, though I am not Authority, that there is no chance your article would survive that, as you clearly understand from having read WP:No Original Research.
It took me a bit of time to work out the logic behind No Original Research, and I haven't seen it written down in quite this form, but my take on it is: Wikipedia editors don't have to make the subjective judgements, is this idea true? useful? important? beautiful? They only have to ask, have other people, independent of the originator, thought it important and interesting enough to write about? That approach enables a motley collection of people without necessarily much more skill than the ability to check out references to do much of the work of keeping the encyclopedia going.
In regard to other places to publish, WP:Alternative outlets might be some help. I hope you won't be discouraged from continuing to contribute here, but it is worth reading the (rather long) list of What Wikipedia is not before planning an article. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:DERM:MA

We are making a lot of great progress with the Bolognia Push 2009. If you are not currently involved, perhaps consider contributing as we are always looking for more help at the dermatology task force. Feel free to e-mail me for all the details. ---kilbad (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, but I think that, even if the work is mainly summarising from the source book, it would be better and more accurately done by someone with more medical/biological knowledge than I have. Also, I have plenty on my to-do list already! Out of curiosity, how did you choose me to invite? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Norton Canes

Your comment and tag on the article were both completely ridiculous. Perhaps you should do some reading on the issue before throwing around accusations. Although I concede that the article is poorly referenced, how can you claim that it is "historical nonsense"? Surely an unbiased account of an event is not "nonsense". "Historical nonsense" is a chaotic use of the English language. Nominating the article for speedy deletion without any research to substantiate this is abuse of the principles that wikipedia attempts to promote. You should use your editing powers to filter out genuinely false articles, based on significant resarch. I do not see how you can possibly accuse an article of being a "blatant hoax" without researching from reliable sources. As I have said, your tag and comments were absolutely ludicrous and not appreciated. You have been overly presumptuous and pugnacious in your correction. Higginson21 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I did do some reading, and have explained on the article talk page why it is historical nonsense. So far as "researching from reliable sources" goes, you didn't provide any, but I did not speedy the article on that basis alone - I looked for them, and they weren't there. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your response merely highlights the ludicrous nature of the deletion. On the talk page, you simply stated that it was "historical nonsense". That hardly can be described as "[having] explained on the article talk page why it is historical nonsense". As I previously stated, the term "historical nonsense" is a shambolic and ridiculous use of language. This phrase in solitude hardly substantiates why the article deserved to be deleted. Can you please tell me of what your "research" consisted? I am sceptical that you undertook any research, as even the most superficial would have proven the article to be genuine.Higginson21 (talk) 05:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

After your first message I put this on the talk page, but you evidently didn't have time to read it before the article was deleted:

If you want detail about why it is historically nonsense: York and Lancaster were branches of the house of Plantagenet, competing with each other but not with some independent "Plantagenet" faction. The house of Tudor was descended (maternally) from a branch of the Lancasters, who did not survive the wars. The first Tudor King, Henry VII, came to the throne by winning the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, which was Tudor vs. York. The next year he married Elizabeth of York which helped legitimise his claim to the throne; but any tensions in the next few years were Tudor vs. York, not Tudor and York vs. "Plantagenet assemblies."

Research: I read the articles Plantagenet, Tudor dynasty, Battle of Bosworth, Henry VII of England, Elizabeth of York, checked the links Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and a few on-line sources about Norton Canes, and off-line checked A.R.Myers, England in the Late Middle Ages, p.185, which lists risings and disturbances from 1486 to 1497 but does not mention this, and C. Ransome, A Short History of England, p.173, ditto.
JohnCD (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon reading my messages, I admit that I have been quite aggressive and I apologise for this. The reason for this was that I found the phrase "historical nonsense" and the accusation of my article to be vandalism both offensive. I understand that my article may have not been well worded and that it was poorly sourced. However, I think you may have misconstrued the Battle's specifics (I concede that this may have been due to the article's ambiguous wording). The Battle of Norton Canes was not contested between the entire Plantagenet house and the entire Tudor and York houses; as you have clearly outlined, this is impossible and may have appeared to be nonsensical. The Plantagenet assemblies to which I referred were composed of aggrieved Plantagenets who had previously been in influential roles; it was by no means the entire dynasty. Rather, the assemblies were small reactionary groups drawn from the previously dominant Plantagenet house. While the York house derived from the Plantagenets, Yorks who were currently politically powerful were attacked by provoked Plantagenets - some may have even been fellow Yorks. In this sense, it was a revolutionary war, because reactionary Yorks and Lancastrians were rebelling against both their own house (the Yorks) and their opponent (the Tudors). I have read over my article and see now how it was unclear and appeared differently from how I intended it to. I sincerely hope that you believe that my intention was certainly not to vandalise. I have come across this battle in my research and thought that wikipedia could be improved by its inclusion. Again, I am happy to admit that it was poorly written and referenced, but it was in no way frivolous or malicious. Now that I have explained myself, is there any way that my article could be reinstated if I make the allegiances more clear? Thanks. Higginson21 (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and I apologise in turn for taking your article to be a deliberate hoax. Unfortunately we do get a lot of hoaxes, and the presence of false information damages Wikipedia more than the absence of true information. It didn't help that your article talked about a "revolutionary cataclysm" (if I remember right) which seemed to have left no record, and didn't give any source in support.
The key question is, do you actually have a reliable source? Remember that one of Wikipedia's key policies is verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The source(s) need to confirm everything that the article says, not just that the subject exists.
You can ask the admin who actually deleted the article, DGG (talk), to undelete it into your user-space so that you can work on it. Refer him to this conversation, or explain that you realise the article was misleadingly written but it is genuine and you have a source. If I were him, I would need convincing about the source before I agreed. Alternatively, since it will need substantial rewriting, you could just put it in again - there is nothing to stop you doing that, though it will be regarded with suspicion and you would do well to cite your source in the first version you put in.
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I can understand that wikipedia follows strict guidelines and that these must be obeyed. I appreciate your apology; I am glad that you do not think I was attempting a deliberate hoax. My plan is to now carefully consult wikipedia's guidelines on notability and referencing and to attempt to rewrite the article from scratch. Cheers. Higginson21 (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Broadway (band) AfD

I appreciate you nominating Broadway for deletion. That may sound strange, but noticing everything I screwed up, I'm glad someone wasn't blind to my mess up. Thanks. Krazycev13 (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • No problem - thanks for withdrawing gracefully. I was alarmed at first to see the articles, because I thought Artery Foundation was returning to the charge with a new sock, but I realise you are an established editor who just happened to pick on the same band for an article. WP:MUSICBIO is actually quite demanding, though a lot of band articles that don't really match it seem to manage to sneak in. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
You have got to search as serradillano or garrovillano. --Der Künstler (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
>Congrese about the Extremaduran in Serradilla</ Serradillano = Serradillian --Der Künstler (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

WVL

The page for Where Vegas Lies has been marked for Speedy Deletion. John, why do you insist in getting the page for Where Vegas Lies deleted?

(1) It's copied from a website that clearly displays a copyright sign, and (2) in any case, the band does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for a band to have an article, explained at WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin

Hi are you an admin, as I am very interested in becoming one. Thanks Frankreichman (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Hardy bucks

Hello JohnCD, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Hardy bucks has been removed. It was removed by 93.107.158.234 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 93.107.158.234 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Re:That long article

Thanks for correcting me. I just started using Twinkle, and tagging for deletion is an area I'm new to, so it's good to learn from someone who's familiar with it. I should probably read and memorize WP:CSD rather than trust the little blurbs in the Twinkle popup. Anyway, thanks for the message. :) A little insignificant talk to me! (please!) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of "Suresh Rajendran"

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Madlobster (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I didn't create that page, actually; I "userfied" it - moved it to the author's user page - just as you tagged it, so I got the warning. I've given him a welcome message and a pointer to WP:AUTO and WP:BIO. Actually, I'm beginning to think userfying these autobio articles is a waste of time, because the authors almost never contribute anything else, but it's less WP:BITEy than deleting. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

lead with love

Thank you John for the feedback. I read about books that are not yet published and it mentiones that if you give more details about the publication date and sources that point to the book than it is ok to feature it. I added the book details and its information on Amazon.

I read all the other rules that you are referring to though do not see why I cannot post the book as an article item based on the other claims. I am not advertising the book and am an outside refrence to it.

Limorwindt (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is that as an encyclopedia Wikipedia doesn't expect to have an article about every book that exists, or every person or company. The criterion for having an article is notability, which has a special meaning in Wikipedia-speak - it's not a subjective thing, it means having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." For particular types of article, more detailed criteria have been worked out - for books, they are at WP:BK#Criteria, and you can see that it would be impossible for a book to meet them until it had been published and, at the least, received independent reviews. Hence the paragraph WP:BK#Not yet published books. Yes, it does provide for an article to be accepted "under criteria other than those provided in this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right", but that's thinking of something like a new Harry Potter.
You have removed the PROD template I put on, which you are absolutely entitled to do; what I shall now do (but not till tomorrow, because it's late where I am) is nominate it for deletion under the Articles for deletion procedure. That will start a debate lasting seven days, to which you are welcome to contribute; at the end of that time an administrator will decide what to do, based on the arguments put forward in terms of Wikipedia's policies, not on the number of votes.
I removed your signature from both your articles - we don't sign articles, because no author owns an article - any user can edit any article. All contributions are recorded in the article history.
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete my page?

Tyler Jerman.

Extramarket

I don't feel that this article about Extramarket.org should be deleted. It's the first site of non-profit auctions. Please check it again! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extramarket (talk • contribs) 10:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

demi is a fictional charecture

demi is a made up charecture...sorry to cause offense —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macki102 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris Sutcliffe

HI why did you remove "chris Sutcliffe (young actor)"? --Last5 (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you click on the red title of a deleted article, it will show you who deleted it and when and why. I tagged Chris sutcliffe, and an admin deleted it, because it gave no indication that he was notable - Wikipedia doesn't have articles about everybody, the criteria are explained at Notability (people) and for actors WP:ENTERTAINER. Then Chris Sutcliffe (young actor) was twice tagged and deleted as a copyright violation, being copied from somewhere else without the necessary copyright release. That is all explained in the messages on your talk page, which also include a link to WP:Autobiography, in case these articles are about you. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Adam Walliams

I Didnt make personal attacks, they are hammerhead sharks and wombats... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc sharky (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

He's a hammerhead shark and he "attends staffordshire university"? Pull the other one. JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of the article Foobrew

Hi, The article Foobrew I've just created has been "speedy deleted" because it's not a 'notable' subject. I perfectly accept the situation, but could you explain what you consider 'notable' or not, because I'd consider that the article about the company Foobrew is linked with the article JamLegend (that I created too). Is that a good reason for Wikipedia to accept the article or should I reconsider the article etc. with the conditions as written on the Notability article. Well, I don't know if I should write the "hangon" tag ;) Thanks ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriweb (talk • contribs) 20:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses "notable" as a technical term, and the general definition is that the subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." More detail at Notability and Notability (organizations and companies). Significant means more than just listing-type mentions, reliable excludes blogs and Myspace and places where anyone can post, independent excludes press releases, PR etc. The basic idea is, have people independent of the company found it interesting and important enough to write about? If you think you can meet that, by all means put {{hangon}} on the article and explain on the talk page - an admin will read what you say before deciding.
A good way to check on notabilty, as well as avoiding any conflict of interest if you are connected with the company, is to follow the advice of an experienced editor in User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you (which is worth reading in full):

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

If you can write an article on that basis, there is no harm adding the company's web-site as an additional reference.
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

hello

she is a madeup charecter in hollyoaks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macki102 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:JohnCD/spare

Just letting you know that me and Closedmouth have removed a couple of invalid prods you added to the page, and replaced them with the code used to generate the prod (presumably what the purpose of putting them there was?). Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - that page must have puzzled you. The thing is, when editing I have a Notepad text file I normally keep open with various bits of boilerplate text, lists of things to check and so on. Being away from home for a week, I dumped the lot in a spare userpage as a way to make it accessible when editing from other systems. I thought that by bracketing the lot with <nowiki> ... </nowiki> the various templates inside it would not be activated and would cause no problems. Evidently I was wrong - sorry you were troubled! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem :). I know what you mean about the notepads, I use them all the time myself :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Boomz

Hello JohnCD, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Boomz has been removed. It was removed by 219.75.93.68 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 219.75.93.68 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Vain message

Thanks for creating the page on Millais' painting The Ruling Passion. Petty vanity impels me to point out that the article on the painting you footnote was in fact written by me! Lara Perry and DP Corbett were the editors of the book. Paul B (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Excellent! Thank you for providing the information I needed. I will amend the citation as soon as I can work out what it should look like, and will Wikilink it to your username, unless you would rather I didn't. JohnCD (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
No, link away! Thanks. Paul B (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Zeus Cockatiel

This is absolute crap! I made this page as a tribute to my bird that just died so my kids could see that he left his mark, you have so many different articles on wikipedia that are garbage, unreliable and you delete this one. Seriously! Fuck you!

Re:Ashyj555 (talk · contribs)

Hi JohnCD. It seems like User:J.delanoy has already declined that unblock request - I agree with J.dealnoy's and your judgment about Ashyj555. As a rule of thumb, admins generally aren't supposed to unblock users who claim someone else was using their account anyways (See WP:BROTHER). -FASTILY (TALK) 21:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Class project

JohnCD I'm a little unclear. The project is to create a mini-course which has been done by this professor before. Here is the link. http://tccl.rit.albany.edu/knilt/index.php/ETAP_623_Fall_2009_Design_Project_Agenda

Is this not allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Sunderlin (talk • contribs) 14:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the problem. There is often confusion between the idea of a Wiki - "a type of collaborative software program that typically allows web pages to be created and collaboratively edited using a common web browser" - and Wikipedia which is a particular Wiki devoted to building an encyclopedia. Your project is based on a wiki here at the TaCCL/Albany website and that's where you should be creating your mini-course; you have accidentally wandered into quite a different wiki at Wikipedia, which is why you find us a little unwelcoming. We do have some educational projects here, but they need careful preparation - see WP:School and university projects. Best of luck with your project. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Attack pages

Thanks. Actually I did not think of it as an attack page - Thought of it just as some imaginative vandalism. Maybe I assume too much of good faith, even from vandals :-). Will make sure I tag potential attack pages with {{db-g10}} in future -- Raziman T V (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

sir james kimbell

i am writing this article as a stubb of the book the thirteen treasures so dont delete it as your articles are stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanword (talk • contribs) 10:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

adesilfe

it a description of a website. y should it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondmzn (talk • contribs) 20:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Antiques rogue show'

I was just wondering why my page, 'Antiques rogue show', was deleted. The reason i created this page, is because i ama relative of the group, and i thought, with them being a charity group, that it would bring some publicity in their favour. I would be extremely greatful if you were to undelete my page. :) Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjmarshuk (talk • contribs) 18:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Moffat hills

Hi JohnCD - brilliant and so quickly done thank you. I am a bit at sea with the whole process - it takes a bit of learning but I believe in learning by doing - so please tolerate a beginner it is all new to me.

Thanks again Scothill (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Learning by doing is the only way on Wikipedia - if you read all the guidelines first, you would never get started! JohnCD (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

New Wave (album)

I have deleted the page just to make another one New Wave (The Auteurs album), to avoid ambiguities. I think it's quite better, the page New Wave (album) I've blanked can be deleted.

  • Your message crossed with mine. A page shouldn't be deleted in these circumstance, because that loses the edit history of all the previous contributions. Better to edit it to improve it and, if you want to change the title, use the "move" button at the top. I have made the old page into a redirect to the new one. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

delete tag

dear John, I'm a professional concert player (xavier diaz-latorre). I've received a delete tag. A lot of my collegueas (like Jordi Savall or others) are in the wiki. My question is: why may I not be there? Thanks xavier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laberintosingeniosos (talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

It looks like you've never had an RfA, which is surprising. Have you considered giving it a go? You have thorough experience, and are very good with communication and judging whether articles should be deleted or improved. Although I'm not totally familiar with your work, I've seen you around many times and I think I'd be willing to nominate. Let me know (reply here is fine). Best, JamieS93 22:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I have taken a day to think about it, because I have recently turned down two approaches (1, 2) but they made me consider further. The problem I see is that, looking at the requirements in WP:GRFA, I fail the very first one: "Strong edit history with plenty of material contributions to Wikipedia articles." I have never been much interested in article writing, I think my total of articles actually started amounts to two stubs and even when I have improved something like a wrongly-flagged hoax or deletion candidate I have seldom gone beyond the "acceptably sourced stub" stage. I read with interest in this RfA Newyorkbrad's eloquent plea that if you trust someone with the tools you should be able to trust him not to use them where he doesn't have expertise; but the RfA still failed convincingly, and my feeling is that the RfA community still regards article writing experience as essential, and that a candidate who can't point to DYKs and GAs will fail. So my response is: cautious interest, but in the light of the above do you think I have a chance? JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello John. Of course you have a chance. In my opinion you are one of our best new page patrollers and I highly value your clear and straightforward comments also at AfD. It would be absolutely beneficial for Wikipedia. You have my full support. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that you've taken some time to think about it. I've already given that issue some thought, too, but IMO it's not a roadblock. I tend to hang around WP:RFA; article-writing is something that the community would like to see, but from my experience, it's not a deal-breaker. A few WikiGnomes who share your same sentiment of "not much of a new-content contributor" have been promoted lately. As long as the candidate is otherwise very keen on experience in particular areas (such as you are with NPP/deletion), RfA participants don't seem to mind it much. This is evident in some of the recent successful RfAs, e.g: 1, 2, 3. In my opinion, you have a strong chance of succeeding. Most RfAs get a couple of opposes, and you'll probably have a few users concerned with the lack of article writing or a few little concerns. But people tend to really appreciate candidates who patrol NewPages with a careful eye; replacing an attack page "G3" with G10, or adding sources to an article that was tagged as a hoax or A7. You're also great with communication. For those reasons, you're a strong candidate for adminship, and I'm confident that you would pass.
And as far as I know, there's no problems in your contribs, either. But if you decide to run, don't be surprised if you receive a few opposes/neutrals for random issues, which is common at RFA. I'm not gonna push the RFA idea on you; but do keep considering it. :) Best, JamieS93 13:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I will now take several days, probably a week, to think more about it, look at some past RfAs and decide what my case would be and whether I want to run. I will come back to you. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi again! I'm very glad to hear that. :) I'll create the RfA page on Sunday or so, and the co-noms can add themselves (no more than ~3 noms in total is good). From there you can answer the questions, and then accept the nomination on Monday or whenever you're ready to take the plunge. JamieS93 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I've started the page. No rush, answer the questions whenever you have time (one or two co-nominations are welcome). I might tweak the nom statement, but the essence of it is there. Regards, JamieS93 15:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will ask Mentifisto and Tikiwont whether they would like to co-nom. If you would like another example of finding potential in unpromising new articles, there is Tinkus Wistus which I found as six lines of unreferenced Spanish and rescued from an (erroneous) db-a2 tag. I will probably transclude some time tomorrow; I want to make my user page a little less austere first. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I would have liked to nominate you as well, I think you'd make a good admin. Don't worry about the article writing, I never wrote a single real article before my RFA and I still only had a few opposes because of that. By saving articles from SD and fixing stuff you have demonstrated imho that you know the value of content writing even if it's not your chosen field on Wikipedia. So good luck with your RFA :-) Regards SoWhy 13:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Your hint here also helped to encourage me. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hint? What hint? I have never seen no hint! SoWhy 15:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added a co-nomination. Feel free to do a have a look and point out anything misleading or unhelpful. Otherwise good luck.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
...and mine too. I'm sure you'll do well. :-) -- Mentifisto 18:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks folks. @ SoWhy: would it be fair enough if you just left a tl;dr support as a substitute for co-nomination? ;-) Nobody reads that blather at the top of the page, anyway... JamieS93 18:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, don't you worry, I'm just as happy to support instead (although I would have loved to add John as a member to SWAT ;-)) Regards SoWhy 19:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have transcluded: please (a) check that I have done it right (b) add the edit stats on the talk page - I haven't worked out how to do that. Thank you all again. JohnCD (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good. I've posted your editing stats to the talkpage (either the nominator or some outsider adds those to the talkpage, usually). Best of luck, hope everything runs well. :) My quick advice would be, don't reply to opposers much unless you're clarifying something for their sake, and give the optional Qs some thought before answering them. Regards, JamieS93 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

deletion article

Dear John, thank you for your explanations. Anyway, I consider, comparing my article to other colleagues which are already in wiki, that is correct enough. I can change the subjective areas, but I find other subjecitve areas in other biographies. The question is, that I'm member of Hesperion XXI (one of the most important early music group for spanish music in the world) which is leaded by Jordi Savall (in the wiki). I'm in the group since 1997. I was pupil of Hopkinson Smith (also in the wiki) and I'm professor myself in Esmuc (also in wiki) the University for music in Barcelona. I'm just mentioning a couple of my colleagues (the important ones), but there is a lot more which are not more releveant than myself. All those things are easily to find on the net. How should I give references? thank you Greetings

xavier∼∼∼∼ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laberintosingeniosos (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote

That is a great quote. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Pues

Hi John,

"Pues" is the past participle of the French verb "pouvoir" when the subject is feminine plural. I do not believe that redirecting Pues to the section of French conjugation about the verb it refers to contradicts Wikipedia's guideline stating that the project is not a dictionary, however I will gladly discuss the matter with you further if you disagree.

Neelix (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I'll think about it, and decide whether I want to raise a serious objection. One issue is - if you start down that track, where do you stop? Do we have articles/redirects for every French irregular verb form? And what about other languages - shouldn't we disambiguate Spanish pues? Even if an English-language encyclopedia should have these entries, they seem to me Wiktionary material, articles about words rather than about the things those words denote. JohnCD (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi John,
I understand what you're saying. I would not want to see disambiguation pages with entries which are simply verb forms in other languages. What do you think of turning the current internal redirects into soft redirects to Wiktionary?
Neelix (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Century of humiliation

G'day John, you may find this page relevant to your activities as a new page patroller. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 03:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! You did a brilliant job of deception - I was aware of the experiment and interested in it, but I never for a moment suspected that your article was part of it. I will comment on the relevant page. JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lowther Hills page

I have put up a page called Lowther Hills and it seems to work fine in many respects. However when I sent a link to a friend it would not open the page and if you put "Lowther Hills Wikipedia" into Google, Google can't find the page - so there would seem to be something weird going on. Can you help please? Scothill (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just put "Lowther Hills Wikipedia" into Google and your page came up top. The link to send your friend is http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lowther_Hills - that also works for me. Not sure why you are having problems? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi John sorry about that must be getting neurotic in my auld age - thanks again Scothill (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

GAcopyPaste

Thanks for that move - Guess I was a little brain dead. I've updated my links. --Teancum (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for saying hello, I will try and follow your advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Organismluvva (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

New College Glasgow Article

John, Thanks for your extremely swift and welcome editing of my article. I am new to this and I have to say your changes make it read much better.

--86.165.63.206 (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New College Glasgow Article

I'm just showing how much of a newbie I am. I tried to sign without being logged in. thanks again for you improvements to my article.

--Wastededucation (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

WJ Souza

Good idea, the article incubator was a useful creation :) Thanks for moving it!-- fetchcomms☛ 23:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar

I'm sorry, but I would not consider this a good academic guide. If I was studying at a good university and came up with that, I would be laughed at (rightly). Same goes for wikipedia, sadly. Surely the best guide would be to get hold of a lichen expert and ask them. The fact that the article author was a new editor "MacTroll" was hardly a point in their favour.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that the immediate problem is: here we have a new article, from a user with no track record and a dodgy username, that says "Andreaea regularis is a species of antarctic moss"; we very reasonably suspect a hoax; is it one? - a Google Scholar search, which turns up several papers about an antarctic moss of that name, is a good quick way to settle it. Granted the article is a very basic stub and might need a lichen expert to expand it, but at least we now know that it shouldn't be deleted. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, my last message came over a bit personal, which was not the intention. However, I am extremely sceptical about the use of online resources. Not only are they somewhat patchy (as I found with research for a talk I gave earlier this year), but they can be somewhat misleading. A lot of the best academic material online is "locked up" in subscriber sites as well, unfortunately. I also prefer to give "hard" references, because websites tend to have a very short shelf life, and many of them expire within a few years. Doubtless the ones in question here won't be around in ten, fifteen years time.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Persistent subtle vandalism

Hello John, You are on my watch list from long ago, and I know you to regularly counter vandalism. User 82.23.187.195[8] appears to make frequent subtle unsourced changes to data, height, birth date, etc. Are you in a position to do anything about him? or what should I do? regards Autodidactyl (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  • That's a nasty one. I see another user has just warned him about needing sources. It will be a tedious job to go back through his edits and see whether there is any reliable source for the figures he has changed; if enough of them are demonstrably false, IMO that would be grounds for reverting everything he has done and issuing a strong warning so that he can be blocked if he persists. The steady pattern of the edits suggests this is a static IP. I shall not have time to do that for a day or two - if you have time, you could do some checking and keep a list of the results. I'll also do some when I have time and check back with you. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
His edits are consistently clever, a combination of a good change with (often) a small piece of embedded subtle vandalism. All the way back, so many. Regards. Autodidactyl (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC) (PS, this was serendipity, not just an induction test for new admins :) )

Restore my article

There was nothing attacking in that article, i was making it about my friend and he was watching me do it. Please restore it, i am just going to rewrite it if you dont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevind1234 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nyctohylophobia

Just in case you're not actually looking, I've put a reference on the page you want to delete, and some comments on my talk page. Well done on becoming an admin, by the way. --06SmithG (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Replied on his talk page. Summary: The Book of Uselss Information is not a convincing RS, and the article is still a dic-def; I doubt there's anything substantial to say about the phobia as opposed to the word; but he has a week, and is allowed to dePROD. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

First day with the mop - haven't managed to please everyone

You dnt know anything man, except deleting and deleting , You even dnt know the the meaning of volunteer. I if are so much frustrated delete all the pages related o any company , and then I will believe that You are really doing your job. Else F... U —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.133.132 (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

7 Guys

i will hope that you will stop deleting the 7 guys page that i just created. We are a group at UMASS Dartmouth, that was created to Britten up everyone's days around the school due to a series of negative events. we are no differant than a band, or any other organization that it on this site, i dont understand why ours cant be noted on this site just as other organizations can be noted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asinkus (talk • contribs) 19:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a notice-board or a social-networking site where anyone can write about themselves and their friends and their groups. To have an article, a club or group has to be notable, meaning that they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Not many University clubs qualify, even old and well-established ones; I don't think a newly-formed group of seven students who "all set around eating pizza and watching NASCAR" makes the grade. More details in Notability (organizations and companies). Also, if you are writing about your own group, see the guideline on Conflict of Interest. JohnCD (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, That is A Stupid Idea, Posting A Stupid Notice. Create A Sub-Page in your userpage for that crud! Wikipedia isn't a Forum To Be Screwing Around in! Watch What You Do, Or It'll Bite in the butt later on. --The Demon Of The Wiki Sea, Razgriz 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You are now an admin

I'm pleased to inform you that I have closed your RFA as successful, and that you are now an administrator. The community has seen it fit to entrust you with the tools, and I hope that you will use them according to this trust and to your own potential. If you'd like to test your mop out, you can head to New Admin School. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me or a fellow administrator. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 22:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  • My genuine congratulations, John. I knew you'd pass well, but I didn't quite guess it would go this well! Let me know if you have questions, and enjoy the new mop! \o/ JamieS93 23:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Whatever I expected, it certainly wasn't 77-1-1 ! Thanks again for your encouragement and nomination: expect me knocking on your door for advice which end to hold the mop. JohnCD (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Gratz, and thanks for your great CSD work. - Dank (push to talk) 23:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I knew it. :-P -- Mentifisto 00:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Not surprised that you got the mop but I'm really glad to see it go through! I'm not even surprised that it was almost unanimous. -- Atama頭 01:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Silly me, I forgot your shirt. SoWhy 10:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Atama - see you in New Admin School soon where, as your senior by four days, I shall be in a position to tell you off for running in the corridors or shouting. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Eek, don't jinx me! But I hope to see you there, thanks. :) -- Atama頭 17:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I can only echo those comments above. Congratulations, I am sure you will do fine If you need any help, you can ask me at any time as well. Regards SoWhy 10:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks also for WP:10CSD and WP:A7M which I constantly recommend to inexperienced NPP-ers - just been doing that again. JohnCD (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, you are too kind. I'll recommend it to Amalthea that he makes an honory member of SWAT? Regards SoWhy 12:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

ROFL!!!!!!! "I'm An Admin and All i Get is An Crappy T-Shirt?" That is Very Funny! --The Demon Of The Wiki Sea, Razgriz 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

194.242.148.91 and Nunthorpe School

Hi John, congratulations on your recent adminship and thanks for your swift action on this user and Nunthorpe School. I remain slightly concerned that the potentially-libellous comments remain in the page history; however I am not even sure that I am right to be concerned, and I don't think this issue was addressed before the report was removed automatically from AIV. Do you think there is still a problem here, or is it too trivial to worry about? I feel as if I've exhausted what I can do over this and should now leave it to others to follow up, or not. Please feel free to tell me to shut up if I'm talking nonsense. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not talking nonsense at all; you have sent me back to re-read WP:Oversight. I knew that was only for use in extreme cases, but looking at the list in the "Policy" section, a new item 5. "Vandalism" seems to me to cover this, and I will request suppression of those edits and see what they say. Thanks for raising it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks very much for your help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Oversight replied "Done. Thanks for bringing this to our attention!" If you look at the page history, you'll see those edits are now inaccessible. Thanks again for raising it. JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's really excellent - many thanks. I was worried I was being a bit of a hysteric on someone else's behalf, but I know I wouldn't have liked it if it were me, my kids etc - so, thank you very much for taking it forward and getting it sorted out so satisfactorily. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

AIV and User:Alex_george2001

Thanks for your message, John. At first I was hesitant as well, i.e. I only issued User:Alex_george2001 a simple level 2 message that his article did not satisfy Wikipedia standards, but then I noticed that this editor had actually been warned before by antiuser, together with the second speedy deletion notice on his talk page and so I turned my warning to a "final". That and the fact that all these notices AND your explanation right below my warning did not seem to work, made me report Alex_george2001. Let's hope that he now takes some time to wait until his band has gained credits and notability. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JohnCD/Archive_5&oldid=1136175032"