User talk:JohnCD/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, JohnCD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Dlyons493 Talk 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

October 2007

Elbo

Thanks JohnCD for reminding me to put a reference in the stub for the article on Elbo. Indeed it was from Herodotus. leecharleswalker | Talk

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, just ask anyone on Wikipedia and they will help you. Thank you. Freshacconci | Talk 18:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. Guess I've been writing it wrong all this time (not that it comes up very often). Cheers. Freshacconci | Talk 00:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Block on 168.8.132.2

Blocked users can edit their own talk pages to request an unblock (in case the block was unjustified). If the user misuses this facility, their talk pages can be protected. utcursch | talk 11:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Article

I created the article on steven hagen "only" because I saw it as a dead link on another page (red text) so wanted to add something to make it not a broken link. Then it was marked for speedy deletion, please explain? Again, I only started it because I saw it as a red link on another page. businessman332211 18:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just another random note, I really don't think the article on the books about elegance should be deleted either. They are awesome stories that you can't find anything hardly about their authors! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desaraev (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Labcorp

Actually, copyvios tend to get speedy deleted faster than spam articles do... Since being a copyright violation is a legal issue, it seems to trump the "spam" issue, which while bothersome, it is a) debatable and b) does in itself open Wikipedia up to legal problems, as a copyvio does. I thought it prudent to change the tag to a copyvio tag, as that is a CLEAR indication of the need to speedy the article. Spam articles often demand clean-up rather than delete, and this was a borderline spam issue, IMHO, while it was a CLEAR copyvio. I hope that explains my reasoning. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Literary Society

Good grief! How idiotic of me. 2007 indeed! 1807 it should be. So sorry. Thanks for your forbearance. Tim riley 16:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism ? Wicca = Satanism. Perhaps POV, POV is not vandalism, dumbarse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.171.163.20 (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

John, in case you aren't watchlisting my talk page, here's the reply i just wrote you:

No JohnCD, I didn't. It's a little confusing. The IP 66.38.238.208 was trolling, adding something that "looked" like a vandal report to WP:AIV, when it was really a trick; the talk and contribs linked to "MyTalk" and "MyContributions", so whoever clicked on the link; when you clicked on it, they were yours, when I clicked on it, they were mine. I kept reverting him until an admin blocked the IP. No one thinks you're a vandal, as your information was only visible when you clicked on it. If i didn't explain that clearly, let me know. But the short version is, nope, we're on the same side, No one thinks you did anything wrong. --barneca (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Listen, John

I don't like you sniffing around articles that are in the process of being perfected. Please stop viewing the Patrick Alexander Ehler article.--major q9 (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that guy, I just made my first page and John I'm sorry I didn't have all my stuff sited but your going to get me blocked for writing a damn article that their was little to nothing on here about it. Desaraev (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

FUGAZI (acronym)

The article is about the acronym of the band and how it is being wrongfully used by people who think it is military slang. Hotspur23 11:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how to change Principia Education, can you suggest what to add etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifty lightning (talk • contribs)

Reverting vandalism is vandalism?

Well, that's new.

November 2007

List of Adverbs

Thread copied from KieferSkunk's User talk page:

I take your point about WP:NOT not providing reasons for speedy deletion; but as a fairly recent recruit to the RC patrol, I'd be glad of your advice. I have been concentrating on the {endless flow of) obvious no-hopers needing speedy deletion, and have several times found it hard to find an appropriate reason in CSD, particularly with:

1) rambling articles about nothing much, obviously unencyclopedic but too long for "nocontext", not about a person so not "bio", not quite incoherent enough for "nonsense".

2) school-project type definitions of things already thoroughly covered in Wikipedia. Is there, for instance, no CSD reason that would have fitted that "List of adverbs"?

The first time I tried a ProD, the originator promptly took it off again without amending the article. As the wording on the template says "you may remove this template if you object for any reason ... if removed it should not be replaced", ProD seems to me fairly toothless for newly created articles, whose proud authors are still watching them; then we are back to AfD, which seems a sledgehammer to crack some fairly trivial nuts.

Any advice appreciated! - JohnCD 22:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm pretty new to this myself, so I'm not sure how much advice I can really give. But in general, if an article talks about some person, group, company, website, music band, etc., and doesn't give an indication of notability, it qualifies under CSD A7, which states that an article must have an assertion of notability. WP:N further sets the bar for what kinds of sources and information will satisfy that criterion. A7 is pretty broad, so it will cover a lot of things that other criteria don't.

That said, "List of Adverbs" is a topic that really could only have a WP:NOT rationale placed against it. It might qualify for "no context", but the context is pretty easy to discern (it's an article about a part of speech). It doesn't really qualify under A7 because it's an abstract concept rather than a concrete entity the article is describing. And the CSDs specifically say that, by itself, any reason derived from WP:NOT doesn't qualify for speedy deletion.

That means this particular article kinda falls in a bit of a grey area, and in cases like that, I either don't touch it and let a more experienced admin handle it, or I convert the CSD into an AfD or PROD, as appropriate. Since you said you tried PROD already, AfD is really the only remaining alternative.

Hope this helps. I'm learning as I go along, so if you were to ask me this again in a couple months, I'd probably have more info for you. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Napier Company (jewellery)

I saw your tag at the top of the page I just made about the Napier Jewellery company, so I went through, trying to remove anything that seemed non-NPOV. I removed one part completely, and cited two other sources, but most of what's there is company history and a discussion of their designs. If you could point to something there that is non-NPOV, I'll go back through and fix it. Thanks. - LeeNapier 20:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Chennai Corrupt

Hello John, I created a page called Chennai Corrupt, to expose corruption in my city. And it did have a personalized attack on man who was corrupt, and it was deleted. I want to expose corruption in my city, my state and in my nation, so that one day we can be a better nation. Is it any wrong what I did ? If you feel I am doing a mistake, delete India Corrupt page too. This really shows how free and honest wikipedia is. May Wikipedia and corruption in this planet prosper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.K.Karthikeyan (talk • contribs) 11:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From your friend

Yo, this is Blaze Ya Dead Homie, I recently wrote an article about the energy drink, Spazmatic, as you may or may not know, this is a real drink and i have 6 cans of it un-opended. But i am new to this site and i need a little help trying to put info into this article. Please help me by improving my Drink...... THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!! FROM THE BOYS AT ICP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaze Ya Dead Homie (talk • contribs) 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wave Selling CSD

Thanks. I thought it was borderline, but was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt until the article might be expanded into something worthwhile. I wasn't aware that he had made multiple attempts at recreation, all of which had been speedied. You might want to also take a look at Generic sales scripting (which title he initially misspelled). — BillC ^talk 13:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK fine, Sorry

OK fine, I admit my mistake of creating India Corrupt on Wikipedia. Thanks for your explanation. You may delete this page as I have found a server to host it.

Regards A.K.Karthikeyan —Preceding comment was added at 13:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion of deleting NyLON

Is "Financial Times' spam to you (and the other German language refference?). I live in London and I can assure you this emerging term, NyLon, exists as such and it is not made -or being made- up. It's not counterfeit. It's not a "fraud". It's not my fault that some people live in hellholes (perhaps in the deep countryside accompanied by the music of the tractors) or "campuses" disconnected to the reality, having no or little contact with the real world. I'm not saying you yourself are one of these, but your rushing onto endorsing the deletion tells a lot about who -and how might you look- in reality. I'm not gonna let a "negationist", nihilistic type, a nagger and a contrarian-again, I'm not saying you might be one of those- to ruin a well-written and interesting article describing an emerging term, already acknowledged as such, which is on everybody's lips already. It's not my fault you haven't heard about it in grim Grimsby or in Crapville, Idaho Apostolos Margaritis 18:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's another reference Johny John

"World capital? Nylon, of course " in "The Observer" Sunday, March 25, 2007 So we'got the Financial Times, we've got The Observer what else on earth do you want more than that? Apostolos Margaritis 18:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Corn Dollies

I have expanded The Corn Dollies with additional info. The band meets WP:MUSIC on the basis of their national and European touring (including touring with Ian McCulloch), and their album releases. I would be grateful if you could remove the speedy delete tag, so that I can carry on working on the article without the risk of it disappearing at any minute. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Fortunes of King Croesus

Thanks for this. I wrote up the synopsis so as to avoid having to repeat it in various online opera forums. My personal thoughts on the performances in Leeds can be found here. Thanks also for the corrections.

"Singe-spiel" was a favourite term of Keiser. Apparently, in his time, the expression was equivalent to the Italian term "dramma per musica" - a play written to be set to music. Opera Grove says "Until the mid-18th century, the term tended to be restricted to operas that were sung throughout"! And apparently the current usage of "Singspiel" to mean opera with spoken dialogue, rather than recitatives, only dates back to the early C19, or so says Grove. Best. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Theodore Theodorsen Relativity Theory

John, I'd just like to let you know that I have great admiration for your perstistence on this - I get the impression that the article has somehow caught your interest almost to the point of obsession! It's good to see someone trying hard to save something that might be notable (even though the theory itself is pretty obviously complete bollocks) rather than just saying "delete it because I don't understand it", which seems to be the prevailing attitude round here. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

About patent nonsense

Patent nonsense doesn't include material that's obviously false, or counter to current belief; it's for things like "a;ewoicrma;ewoirhca;eowihc" or "teapot sandwich fish". If the material makes sense, like this did, in the sense of 'can I read this and determine what it means', then it isn't patent nonsense in the Wikipedia sense. On the other hand, the article in question certainly reads like it's just been made up and is false and unsourceable, which is why I prodded it. --ais523 12:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wendi Scott article and my incompetence

Hi - Thanks for picking up on my idiocy - I completely botched the references (cut and paste from an earlier submission). I have fixed and removed some non-referenced text (related to how I heard about it but not stated in any of the references. Hope that makes everything work... still learning (though my stupidity is an ongoing trait, unfortunately... Psinu (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Psinu

Theodore Theodorsen

John, I have been away for a while and got a call that someone was deleting an article I posted. You know T.T. and his theory of Relitivity, well, I am here to answer any question you may have or at least get you an acceptable answer. If you would like a copy of T.T. journals or the publication that is allowing the content to be posted, just ask.

I think that T.T. and his contributions to the world of science are everywhere. Not just on Search engines. The Family of T.T. that asked me to post the Article wants to work this issue out. I know that the article needs alot of work and the Math needs to be changed from images. I was hoping that the math community would help out on this process. You did ask the Math section, the valitiy of the Math?. To just delete this article makes no sense. Just add it to the section on Alt. relitivity. To just delete this article is wrong. The math is beyond me but I trust his family and what they say. GPA (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• I just spoke to T.T's son. Any information you require he will gladly supply.

theodorsen@AOL.com. GPA (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry... i didnt realise what the tag was when i deleted it...

but is it any better now? xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

o you deleted it?! but... i thought i made it better... and i added citations... why is it gone? :(

xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

can you help me make it better then?
and oh something is telling me that I need to tag one of the images... and I cant work out how to do it...
xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi John,

Thanks for your message I will do that next time what is RC Patrol??

The Helpful One (Talk) 20:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

THANKS FOR YOUR MESSAGE

Hi John,

Thanks for your message I will do that next time what is RC Patrol??

The Helpful One (Talk) 20:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

LISTEN YOU FUCKING PRICK

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO MESS WITH MY PAGE?! LIKE IT MATTERS TO YOU, MAN... JUST LEAVE IT BE UNTIL IT'S FINISHED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusofmorrisville (talk • contribs) 02:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: Edited so that swearing has been removed ... The Helpful One (Talk) 19:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it...

That a "contributor" like you can disrespect me like that? If you are a real person, then understand this... I want to finish this article before it gets deleted. I worked hard on it so just leave it alone or I will just keep remaking it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusofmorrisville (talk • contribs) 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the Gunt(slang) article nominated for speedy deletion

I agree, delete it, i was trying to fix/apeaze the "Gunt" article refering to the river. - Tundrawinds (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Regarding "Copyright problems" on User_talk:E.baracke

I think http://tubious.com/quervain-tenovaginitis-stenosans is copying the article from Wikipedia itself, not the other way round. -- Mentifisto 14:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He probably didn't notice that text is released under the GPL here... and yeah, deleting it from that tubious website would be good although I don't think it's that overly important... -- Mentifisto 16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. -- Mentifisto 16:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Quervain teno wossname (sore thumb disease, as I recall)

Good catch there! Yes, I should have checked more carefully as well. One thing does perplex me though - if it was copied off WP in the first place, why was it being created as a new article? Where is he original that they'd copied? Tonywalton ^Talk 17:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

About the article

Hi John:

I'm new here, and I'm afraid of to do a mistake (I'm very perfeccionist), but when I saw that article, I thought: "this artcle don't look well; I'll put a tag of "unreferenced"; for sure another user or administrator will see that article and will delete him"; well is this, but I'll be more critic with that type of article.

Thanks for the tip, and have a good job! =D --Brunoy Anastasiya Seryozhenko (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: AtTask

Hi John,

The AtTask article I edited today was a candidate for deletion in February because of many of the same issues that were brought up today: self-promotion, notability, etc. The only changes I made to it were adding two sentences about its integration features under "Software" and adding it to a couple of categories. In February, it was agreed that the article should be kept, so I'm wondering what I did that makes it a candidate for deletion. I'd be happy to undo my changes if they caused this. Vpdjuric (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)vpdjuric

Re: AtTask

Thanks for your reply. Below is February's AfD. There is a significant and legitimate wiki for project management software, and AtTask is very well known in the space. See the arguments below:

Weak Delete - it isn't advertising per se, but the external sources don't seem sufficient to prove notability per WP:CORP. However, the fact that independent third-party sources exist means it may have a claim to notability, although this isn't clear at the moment. Walton monarchist89 18:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep, as this company does fit the notability criteria per WP:CORP. I am the editor who added the references. AtTask has been covered by several third parties, however I had trouble finding all of them online. In addition, the two that JzG says are "evidently based on press releases" aren't press releases, and weren't issued by the company itself, so I don't see how they should be excluded per the source criteria in WP:CORP.

Also, this article existed for quite a long time before JzG deleted it. Compared to several other related articles, such as 24SevenOffice (which has no more reliable sources than AtTask, but has been left alone because substantial effort has been put in to making it a legitimate article), and others like AceProject which have no notability assertion, the only crime that it seems AtTask has committed is landing on JzG's watchlist as spam. I'd be happy to rewrite some of the copy to make it less like an advertisement, but I want it to be clear that this is a notable corporation per WP:CORP. -- Vms37 19:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep and expand. The multiple sources added by Vms37 and these ([1][2]) sufficiently demonstrate notability. -- Black Falcon 19:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Vms37 seems to have made an adequate argument for keeping the article. --JJay 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Another few references for notability. [3] and [4] and [5]. AtTask is project management software. There is a legitimate wiki for Project Management Software. AtTask is a well-known participant in this industry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.193.186.130 (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Macabrismo

Please reconsider your vote for the deletion of this article. See what I wrote. Cbdorsett (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC) My page ya wanna read sometin funny is about to be deleted and dont delete it. It gives people that are bored sometin funny to read and it should stay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aveman2244 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Karel Šviha

Thanks for the corrections. I apply the rule "the should everywhere" and yet, I usually omit half of them. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal rumble drinking game

Deleting the Royal rumble page would call for deletion of about 50% or more of the articles on wikipedia, for they do not meet the notability requirement...just like this page doesn't meet that criteria. There has to be some sort of relativism involved, or a vote of EVERY one on wikipedia. If wikipedia is supposed to be this great encyclopedia, much like the Encyclopedia Britannica, why are their pages regarding Superbad, Wedding Crashers, etc... How is an assistant coach of a baseball or football team really notable? And how can something become notable people like you continue to block pages from coming up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruinfan13 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

prod2 tags

Just a heads-up, the prod2 tag shouldn't be substituted. Thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, I am working on creating this "Christopher Nagar". I am collecting more information, pictures and references... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcpkumar (talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reproduct

I see this article was deleted for advertising. I was kind of following along with something I saw for Swingline. In my thoughts Swingline is a company whose name doesn't really mean anything and the article on Swingline talks about the company. I was trying to do the same thing for Reproduct, but guess I missed the mark. Any enlightenment is appreciated!

Reproduct (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reproduct

AfD nomination of Brownbagging

An article that you have been involved in editing, Brownbagging, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brownbagging. Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Newbie help

Hey, thanks for helping the newbie with Gaudí -- it's good to see, and all-to-rare (people are awfully quick on the trigger at CSD, I've noticed; there are a lot of good-faith but clumsy first edit attempts, many of which are just greeted with warnings). Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How to add article for Afia

Hey, How can I add an article for my company to the site if you keep deleting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jernel22 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or notice-board or advertising service. To stay in, an article has to be about something Notable, see Notability (organisations and companies) for more detail, and backed up by independent reliable sources to avoid any conflict of interest. Read those links: you will see that a newly-started company is not likely to be notable until it has become established enough that people independent of it are writing about it and can be quoted. Wikipedia isn't the route by which you become well-known. JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Dventers78

I userfied the newbie's page. No harm done. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, any user can move ("userfy") an obvious user page, especially to avoid biting newbies and to reduce wikidrama. No need to even cut and paste the whole article, just cut and paste the creator's name from the history to the move file. If it's just a name, or a mini-bio, I'll userfy a newbie page. If it's of a band, company, or another person's bio, then I delete it. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Have you thought of trying to become an administrator? Bearian (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks

thank you though i was told it should be on the talk page, but w/e ill start doing it on the main page Elderleo (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

AtHomeNet

In response to your comment on the AtHomeNet debate on its debate page. I read the new protocol on being tougher on "vanity listings". I feel that since Athomenet has been around for almost 10 years, and the coverage be it not as often, reflects that the market and the nptability of that market has grown over that time. Would you suggest an edit to a wikipedia article on the subject of community websites with mentions on some of the top pioneering companies on it as a starting point? I think the market for this product should not be ignored, nor the contributions of the people whose companies and internet development and research pioneered this project. The fact is, this company was the 1st natiowide company to exclusively develop and explore thus standardize this industry. What would it take for this article to be deemed universally notable, in specific terms? Thank you. ---69.15.97.161 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Edenrage

I think the real problem here is that your underlying question is the often-heard cry: "how can I (or my band, company, team or whatever) get to be notable if you won't let me into Wikipedia?" - to which the answer is: that isn't the right way round, Wikipedia isn't an advertising service, it's an encyclopedia. First you do whatever it is you do well enough to become well known, then people are writing about you, then there are enough independent external sources to make an article - and probably someone unconnected may be interested enough to write it, which is another good indicator of notability - if only the company itself or its agents want an article, that suggests that the right place is a trade directory rather than an encyclopedia.

Your specific questions:

What would it take for this article to be deemed universally notable, in specific terms?

See WP:NOTE and WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Those are the guidelines that will be applied in any debate about whether the subject of an article is notable.

Would you suggest an edit to a wikipedia article on the subject of community websites with mentions on some of the top pioneering companies on it as a starting point?

That would be one approach, but you would have to be careful (a) that you could provide reliable, independent sources so that the article "on the subject of community websites" did not seem to be original research, and (b) that there was enough "meat" to the article that it did not seem to be just an advertising "link farm" - see WP:LINKS and WP:SPAM.

One last point: in the AfD debate, you remarked "I appreciate this forum to debate this topic, and I wish that users like me as well as editors could all weigh in... " AfD debates are open to all, there's no distinction between "editors" and "ordinary users", I am an "ordinary user" who saw the debate and thought of a point to make, and you were indeed able to weigh in - at considerable length. The final AfD decision is made by an administrator, but he makes it on the basis of the arguments presented in the debate.

JohnCD (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

January 2008

Removing reports at AIV

Hi. Thanks for your tidying up at WP:AIV. May I ask you that you include the board status in your edit summary when removing reports? Ending your summary with "EMPTY" or "NOT EMPTY" will allow other contributors who watchlist the page to know if there is anything that needs looking at. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll certainly do that in future - I didn't know it would be useful. Normally I only add things to WP:AIV - this time I added a report and then removed it when I saw that ClueBot had made the same report just before. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

tagging A land without people for a people without land

I put up a one phrase page A land without people for a people without land to redirect people to a page with an explanatory article on the standard version of the phrase A land without a people for a people without a land

This is a useful feature to help people find the phrase they are looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by American Clio (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you also put up another page with exactly the same title, but in quotes: that was the one I proposed for deletion as an unnecessary redirect.

A small piece of advice: when you post on a talk page, it is polite to sign your edit by adding four tilde characters ~~~~ at the end, so that the recipient knows who the message has come from. The system converts them into a username and date and time, like this. JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Gelare

Thanks for the messages about the delete tag - I noticed when I published, the it worked when I refreshed - I guess we were editing at the same time. I'll take more care with tags next time. I did add a message on the user's talk page. I noticed that there was already one you'd put there and suspected that they'd either deleted your original tag or recreated the page.

Again, thanks for the messages. After using Wikipedia for years I've decided it's time I put something back in, and it's good to know that I'm not over-stepping the mark. Cheers Gaffertape (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciaran Shaman

In this AfD, you forgot to give a reason. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't forget, but something went wrong with the process and it got lost. I've added it now. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Souljah Boy

that article is about a whole different person not that dumb fuck that did crank that souljah boy shit, and it was only started yestarday, as i had to leave, and theres more to that artist rather than just hes from mo thugs.Lil'Layzie-One

If there's really a person called Souljah boy who's different from the one called Soulja Boy, you could edit the page and make an article about him: but first be sure that he is notable as described in Notability (music), otherwise the article will just be deleted again. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Zinc finger chimera

The best way to protect your article (for a short time) while you work on it is to put an {{underconstruction}} tag at the top of it. I've done that for you. JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not so concerned about it getting deleted but rather people correcting things while I'm still editing (the construction template actually encourages people to "help"!) -> edit conflicts which I then have to see if they need resolving. Is there a template that actually asks people not edit? Probably unlikely to be a problem anyway, but I wondered. ----Seans Potato Business 21:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem with {{underconstruction}}. The one you want is {{inuse}}. But in the longer term, read WP:OWN - other people probably will edit the article in due course. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Polished Gemstones

Hi there: I've removed the speedy tag from the above-captioned article -- although I can certainly understand why you would want to get rid of it, the article is about a song, which isn't covered by the (db-band) tag, and there is some small assertion of notability ("97 on the Irish charts", whatever that means). However, I would definitely encourage you to either add a PROD tag or take this to Articles for deletion, whichever you think is more appropriate. If you need any help, let me know, and my apologies for substituting the tag. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, and frankly I wish A7 DID cover songs, it's a perpetual problem for me when I do new page patrol. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing "Sea Truck". I was just trying to fix it myself! Dirkbb (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (CSI)

Hello, I have determined that the referenced AFD was closed out-of-process, and I encourage you to create a new nomination. Although the nominator changed his mind and withdrew the nomination, this is not suitable grounds to close the debate, as another editor (you) had already !voted delete, and provided valid rationale to back your !vote. My personal opinion of the remaining !votes there was that they were very weak, and the only policy they cited which had relevance was WP:IAR, which does not often trump clear policy and guidelines for notability. If you decide to renominate these articles but require assistance to do so, please do not hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. I am here to help! JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Universalutils

Hello John,

Can you please advise why this content is perceived as ‘advertising?’ The narrative is descriptive of our organisation.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Universalutils (talk • contribs) 12:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sort of business directory where anyone can list their business. To get in, something needs to be notable, meaning of enough general interest to appear in an encyclopedia - see Notability and for businesses Notability (organizations and companies), and the entry needs to be backed by verifiable references from independent sources. Also, articles must be written from a neutral point of view: if you are connected with the business, you should be very careful about putting in entries about it - that is a conflict of interest, see WP:COI and WP:ADVERT and the notes above. Basically, unless your business is important/interesting enough for someone outside, not you or your PR or advertising agents, to want to write an entry about it, it probably doesn't qualify. JohnCD (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wood Street, Cardiff

What about Wood Street, Cardiff. The user has removed the prod tag. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Online freelance

it's fine if you would rather add a prod then have it speedy deleted. i agree totally with reasons you gave when you added the prod and, it may interest you to know, the author of this page has been blocked so doubt the page will give us any trouble after the five-day limit. cheers- Ryan shell (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, it was intended as a joke between myself and a very close friend, and was going to be removed when it had been seen by her. Doe123 (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Doe123

A bit to trivial

Hiyas John,

I just reverted your edit on the Noor Jehan article. I can certainly see that this is not vandalism, but the wording is somewhat non encyclopedic(Example: * Sour and oily food is death to a good throat - who doesn't know that). Could you have a look into that little text? Thanks in advance :-) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the history of Noor Jehan, I was undoing a deletion by vandal Stuti16 (contributions) who had been busily blanking sections of the article. So I didn't write the section you don't like - it was in there before. I've re-reverted to put the article back to how it was, but you may like to do some rewriting. JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your spelling corrections on the equipment page, I will be more diligent with spell checking my work next time.128.12.168.7 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

January 20, 2008

Well, not everyone can live in Southern California, sorry. :)

FYI, I didn't deliberately set out to create a goof article, I was just copying a reference from one article to use in another article, and updating the "accessdate=" tag for my usage. Once saved, it created a red-link in my article, which was like waving a red shirt in front of me, i couldn't help it.

I will go back to the first article and fix its reference, too.

Hope ur weather takes a turn for the better, or perhaps u like rain? cheers, doncram (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now i am puzzled, i had not myself created a link to January 20, 2008, that was generated by my using "accessdate =January 20, 2008" in a footnote using a standard format. This is in List of National Historic Landmarks in Oklahoma. That seems like a bug, if it generates a red link to January 20, 2008. I presume u r an administrator, perhaps u can direct me where the bug should be reported, if anywhere? doncram (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for following up again. Your sharp eye to note the other treatment, when the input to the accessdate= field is different, was helpful to me just now in more clearly posing the problem at Wikipedia talk: Citing sources#Glitch in Citation accessdate= treatment. Thanks, doncram (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

MiniManager

Dear John, I'm relatively new to Wiki and have just tried adding an article about miniManager which was speedily deleted. I do have an association with the product in that I co-designed and developed it, but the reasons I want to wiki it are that we have a different way of displaying project information and replicating the data. In itself it is an interesting piece of research in the data visualisation area. I tried keeping the article as unbiased as possible and it is genuinely not an attempt to spam or self-promote as I'm keen to have feedback and discussion on the subject. I would be most grateful if you could advise how I might restructure the submission? Kind regards --Issenquiries (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Crazy Jay and the Partytimers

John, I'm going to need more time on this article. Thanks Antien (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ovamed

Hi, thanks for the tips. I am not connected to Ovamed, I am interested in Helminthic therapy. I read the guidelines and intend to follow them. I estimate it will take up to two weeks to write a good draft. Should I do this offline, or just keep editing what I have started with?

thanks for your help.

FQ1513 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

hello mr john cd..

i would just like to say that what i made wansn't an attack page, it was me, ok.. i want my page to be funny thanks =D

Comment

JohnCD, I would like to say thank you for leaving the warning to 24.222.70.32 for the unconstructive edit he or she made to Senate of Canada because I reverted his or her bad edit to its good version. I was about to leave a warning at the talk page. But I forget to, but thanks anyway! --Healthykid (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Monkeygirl3493

That was a history merge: I deleted the userpage, moved the article to the now redlinked userpage, then restored the previous userpage revisions on top of the newly merged article content. It's a bit of a hassle and you need an admin to do it, but copying the content over, as you did, works just as well for userfying. Thanks for taking the initiative and informing Monkeygirl3493 about userspace. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC

Abusive Citing of "Original Research"

copied and pasted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Original_research#Abusive_Misuse

The admin should add a section along the following line:

There have been many occasions where users use "original research" as excuse to immediately and silently delete entries that they personally dislike. While there has been no known announcement for Wikipedia's official stance on this abuse, this behavior frequently lights the fuse for flame wars and trolling behaviors, so it is recommended that users reframe from immediate removal of any entry unless particularly harmful (such as personal attack or other obviously abusive editting). Even then, an administrator and/or at least the original poster of the entry should be notified for advice/discussion on proper treatment to the entry in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssh83 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why have you sent me this (unsigned) message? I am not an admin; the only article of yours I am aware of was Cooper Lawrence which I tagged for speedy deletion as an attack page, nothing to do with original research. And speedy tagging doesn't "immediately and silently" remove an article - deletion is done by an admin who looks at it and agrees. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I thought you were an admin. The only Admin i know of is on personal leave, and since i witnessed 3 flame wars started from little things like this over the course of 2 days that I've been actively involved editting stuff, i thought an admin might want to know, since the root of this problem they can easily be avoided. Would you mind forwarding this concern to an admin instead? Thanks. Ssh83 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)ssh83

• You can find a list of admins here; or you could post your comment at the admins' noticeboard here. But the answer you will get will be something like this:

1. No Original Research is one of the three key content policies which make Wikipedia an encyclopedia rather than a sort of notice-board where anyone can post anything they have written (the other two key policies are Neutral Point of View and Verifiability).
2. There is no way that an ordinary user can use OR as an excuse to "immediately and silently" delete articles they don't like. Even Speedy Deletion takes a user to tag the article and an admin to look at it and agree, and OR is not a reason for speedy deletion. The other two methods are Proposed Deletion, where a tag sits on the article for five days but can be removed by any user who disagrees with deletion; and Articles for deletion, which again takes five days and is decided on a consensus of users who comment in the deletion debate. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Preston Black

Thanks for the notice and giving me about 30 seconds to have a chance to improve the article. Yeh, right. However, on reflection, that should probably be a redirect to John "Jack" White, film producer and brother of Jules White, who produced and directed many of the Three Stooges films, and who sometimes brought John White ("Preston Black") into the productions. You might not like the Stooges, but their notability is well-established. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got nothing against the Stooges, but being their producer's brother didn't seem to me an adequate claim to notability. JohnCD (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He directed several of their films, and a bunch more. It is not fair to zap an article that was created a few minutes earlier and not give its author any chance to expand upon it. In any case, I wrote a new article that hopefully will meet your approval. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, floods of articles come in that are very short and really un-notable, and "Recent Changes Patrol", looking at them as they come in, is one of the more effective ways to filter them out. You can avoid premature zapping by waiting to put the article in until there is enough of it to make it clear it's a serious article, or by putting an {{underconstruction}} tag at the top, which protects it unless it's left un-edited for a week or so. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And how was I supposed to know that? It used to be that you guys would mark them with "stubs" and the like, encouraging further editing. That's the positive approach. This, that you did today, is the negative approach. The fact that I put it in a category and attached a connection to the Stooges should have given you a hint that something was brewing there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

re reverting blanking

Thanks. I was paying attention to diff only, showing the deletion tag being removed, and completely oblivious to the author. Sorry about that. Triona (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Delete

So, are you saying that my speedy delete request was wrong? Dusti^talk 18:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I'll be sure to do that next time. Dusti^talk 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

deletion

I have looked at the reason for the deletion of Demetritus, It was not gibberish, therefore you either did not read it or deleted it for another reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skullmiser (talk • contribs) 02:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the reason for the deletion of Gunnersbury Youth FC and i think is pathetic it is a real Football Club with a lot of fan base, If you dont believe us you should visit www.football.mitto.co.uk under Hayes and District Youth League, like i stated other Football teams have their team posted up but for some discriminating reason we cannot even though all the information posted up are factual compared with other articles i have previously seen which are built up on opinions. Could you please consider the article as i believe it should be allowed and if you dont believe it you should come down to perivale on sunday for the semi final —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goaway679 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for tagging 163.153.142.100. The district has reported that they have identified the students involved and that they are taking appropriate action. --NERIC-Security (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• No problem - glad to hear it's being sorted. JohnCD (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I have approved your request. Just make sure to use it for reverting vandalism only. Malinaccier (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Cliche-29

A tag has been placed on Cliche-29 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 notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this John! I think I marked the page for deletion the moment you redirected it and Twinkle caught your edit. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• No problem - I had just userfied a biographical article, so the original needed to be speedied anyway - you saved me the trouble. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Aerospace engineering

No problem, only those, who do the work, can make mistakes. Thanks for hunting vandals.--Thw1309 (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

That's it. You're fired. Gromlakh (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Claire Sproule

Hi. I don't think tagging Claire Sproule for speedy is ok. The article is not orphan and Wikipedia has an article about one her albums and two songs. We have to think a little bit it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK, no problem - when I tagged it, after several edits the article offered only a single sentence saying she was a singer/songwriter. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. The guy who created it, deleted on his own much information. I recovered it. I put a notability tag. The artist doesn't look that notable but since we have articles for an album and 2 songs of her, we have to solve that first. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

deletion

In that case you should have marked it as fictional material instead of Patent nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skullmiser (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Patrolling

Hi, can you assist me in patrolling the French Commune stubs by Blofeld of SPECTRE? Direct link to view only his posts on my talk page. If you take the second page of 500 we won't clash. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go, don't guarantee the full 500... JohnCD (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lava pillars

This is not a copyvio as it is a cut-n-paste from a U.S. government page. Not a good article but a free one. Rmhermen (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

TrimWater

What is the difference say between an article about Ramune and TrimWater especially if I have references and facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarisbad (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of MacMobile

I appreciate your message, and the concern about the notability of MacMobile. I apologize; I started the article as a very basic skeleton with the intention of fleshing it out over the next few hours.

I did consider the notability of the business when creating the article. I determined it to be notable because it has had articles written about it in community newspapers around Columbus. The business has also made charitable contributions to students of the public school district and has a large influence on the community around it-- I therefore determined that it warranted at least a stub.

I'll post a modified version of this on the deletion discussion page and the article talk page. If you honestly think the article doesn't meet WP:Notability, I'll be happy to reconsider.

Aaronbeekay (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the editing help. I'll collect sources and write it up externally, then paste it all in one go. No hard feelings :]. Aaronbeekay (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perepiteia

I hoped my ironic tone came through.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I love it!

Some bored kid comes along and calls himself the incarnation of God...and you tag him as non-notable! Too funny! Thanks for the laugh. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Alas, 'tis true. He may well be the Second Coming, but alas yet again, he has no reliable third-party sources and is therefore ineligible for an article. :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Tagging

Don't you think its a little bit, well, Bitey, to nominate a new users first article for deletion the same minute they created it? --Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Which article that I speedy-tagged did you have in mind? I don't think an instant speedy tag is out of line on an obviously unacceptable article (vandalism, spam, attack, autobiography, "Tracey is awesome!!!" etc.), and for newbies I add a "welcome" paragraph with links to help them find out how to do better. The trouble with waiting is that once an article drops through the Recent Changes Patrol filter it's unlikely to be caught later; if an article seems to have possibilities I do add it to a list, and come back and check on it in an hour or a day. Usually by then someone else has speedied it. JohnCD (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The article was Eskew which has now been deleted. It was possibly a test but it could be the user was trying to write an article and struggling with the wikimarkup. They haven't posted since and I genuinely worry that getting a template telling them their content is unwelcome could easily drive a potential long term contributor away. This is a generic concern and I see you did leave them a note but the whole point of being able to mark pages patrolled is that we don't have to do everything immediately because the unpatrolled pages are visible later on. NPP isn't a race and as a community I feel we sometimes need to give new users more time to develop their content before we tell them its not welcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "Eskew" consisted of a header line only; I wouldn't normally tag such an article at once, but in this case the header read "Robert Eskew" and the username was Reskew, so it was going to be autobiography. But I take your point about the unpatrolled marker.

May I bounce off you an idea I have been brooding over? What concerns me when doing NPP is not the silly vandalisms on the one hand, or the articles which have problems but can be improved on the other, but the continual flow of articles that people have worked hard on and submit in good faith, but that have no hope of being acceptable - e.g. earnest autobiography of NN student, puff piece about "up-and-coming" band, hilarious drinking game made up in the pub yesterday, PR piece about new company, original research essay about new theory - you can add to the list. Those authors go away disappointed and aggrieved, because they have not understood what Wikipedia is about. My idea is that before being allowed to submit articles, a new user should be required to read a short piece - one page with links - about what WP is and is not, particularly notability and references, and click a box at the bottom to agree "I have read and understood the above", like you get on "terms and conditions" pages. That might put some people off, but the people put off would probably have gone on to submit unacceptable articles, and then gone away anyway, but with a grievance.

I have a feeling that I should be told that this proposal is against the spirit of Wikipedia - do you think it is worth making? and if so, where should I make it? JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its that silly an idea, in fact I think it has some possibilities although by the time the user has got to submit they have already written the piece. Perhaps something when they go to an empty page before editing would be the best idea or even for their first edit full stop. The play to discuss this is the village pump. I'd suggest you start a thread there to test the waters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Stuplid Question

Is there a reason you are not an admin? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think I would qualify - my experience is fairly unbalanced, I have not done much on article creation or improvement. But in any case, I have no particular wish to be an admin - I need to spend less time on WP rather than more, and I can find plenty to do without the tools. JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You have a good atttitude. If you decide to give it a go later on let me know. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanking

Thanks, I didn't realize that that was his purpose. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User_Carerra/Nintendogs

I've removed your speedy deletion nomination of the named page as a test page. The creator clearly intended to create it in user space, so I've moved it there. Deletion criterion g2 does not apply to pages in user space. tgies (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks - I should have realised what he was trying to do. I've sent him a note explaining, with some pointers to what Wikipedia is about, as I'm afraid he thinks its a new sort of Myspace. JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Just wondering: How can I fix my secret page. I don't want it deleted. If you decide to respond, Tell me how.

• OK thank you. I was going to do that when I got home anyway. I realized what I did wrong.

--I love Porsches (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I considered this vandalism so I removed it (Hope you don't mind). - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not at all - thanks for cleaning up! JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Curious...

...as to why you did this for an articles whose only content was "Kinetic Communications is based in Birmingham, Alabama and is an internet technology studio specializing in web site development, video production and interactive multimedia presentations". John Reaves 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• If your question is, why did I mark Kinetic Communications as "patrolled" at 22:23, the short answer is, because I saw that it had been tagged for speedy deletion as spam (at 22:21 by user:ukexpat).

I had actually seen the article a few minutes before, when it came in: it had obviously got problems - no references, no indication of notability, username indicating COI - but the author Kinetic1 (talk · contribs) was a newbie and I've been encouraged (see "Speedy Tagging" about six entries above) not to be too trigger-happy in tagging such an article at sight; it is possible that once the author understood the rules he might have been able to demonstrate notability. So I sent him a welcome message (at 22:15) with advice in bold type to read the Business' FAQ which explains what he ought to know, and added it to my list of articles to come back and check on later.

What I don't understand is how it came about that user:Scope creep also marked it as patrolled at 22:26, unless it had been deleted and recreated in the interval; but the only deletion seems to have been by you at 00:25. JohnCD (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Alex O'Carroll

A tag has been placed on Alex O'Carroll 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 notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eóin (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't create that article - he did (or Lex224 (talk · contribs), who I guess is him, did). What I did was to userfy it - move it into his user page - as a rather friendlier approach to a newbie than just zapping it. You must have moved to tag it at just the same moment; you saved me the trouble of putting {{db-rediruser}} on the left-over redirect page. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn Straight

Please review my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damn Straight. I don't believe the article should be deleted in line with the examples I cited, and have legitimately been too busy to gather credible research. As you can see, I have barely been active since joining Wikipedia because I have been swamped in the real world. However, I do intend to be a long term participant, and this is really my first foray into article writing (which is why I picked something which I thought would be uncontroversial. Avayafone (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help with this John. I think I see the light now, and appreciate you taking the time to get help me navigate through my newbie phase! I'll spend some time getting up to speed on the policies you pointed me to! Avayafone (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Respond to JohnCD

Regarding User:Malaka, here are my comments:

• University of Colombo: Keep the updated 'Academic Subdivisions' changes since they simply add links. For the Academics that he adds, only keep those that are linking to existing articles, because then we know they are notable. The other ones, we have no clue about at all, unless you want to spend time finding references.
• List of Sri Lankans: I would say to only keep the linked articles; remove all the red links (that the person added.)
• Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation: Remove "History of Radio Drama in Sri Lanka" because it's unreferenced and considering the past, non-notable information he's added, I don't think this would be notable, too.

Gary King (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Alex O'Carroll

Hey there. I was the person who created the page and didn't actually know that some things weren't meant to be added to the wiki. Thanks anyways for adding it to my personal page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex224 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hockertonite

The facts stated on the page were 100% true —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockertonman (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, they were 100% nonsense. If they were true, then cite references for them. JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Inacronym

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. The article just looked like a neologism to me, but I didn't check the link, and I suppose with that link it could count as spam. The But if you've already taken it to AfD then there's probably no harm in letting the discussion run its course. Natalie (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Alexander William Gaskarth

I made a page today about Alex Gaskarth (the singer of All Time Low) which you deleted shortly after it was put up saying it was "patent nonsense". The information on the page that I created came directly from Alex's personal Myspace page, therefore it is information that he has stated about himself so it would not be disrespectful to him in any way. Lipsxliee (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• It may be what he puts about himself on Myspace, but "raised by a kind family of badgers" and "the greatest Matador ... that the world would ever know!" sounds like nonsense to me - OK for Myspace, but Wikipedia is not a social-networking site, it's a serious project to build an encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"bethany erickson"

Yes, that's me, thanks for the file ;)

Ok for the explanation, but I probably won't blank again an article here, I was not completely awaken and thought I was on FR WP (hence my comment in French when blanking the article contents), I only realized afterwards. --NicoV (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, try WikiCleaner, it's not only useful for participants of the dab project, but also for regular editors who want to clean up their articles (fixing dab, fixing redirects and probably in the future: fixing red links, fixing spelling, ...) --NicoV (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

DEFCON, Inc.

The reason for posting the description of the Company is that there is constant confusion with the Hacker Convention, the video game, etc.

There has been a link in the disambiguation page to clarify this fact, but there is no internal link for the reference from that page.

Thus, the need for a separate listing with a very small bit of elaboration to distinguish the Corporation from the Convention, from the Game, etc.

Suggestions? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantstep (talk • contribs) 12:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Faculty of Humanities

Yes, you're quite right! Thanks. --Duncan (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)