User talk:JohnCD/Archive 10

Irene Gauthier

Hello, I have resubmitted a definition about Irene Gauthier. You were one of two people who flagged her previous definition and I can only assume it was due to lack of citations. Unfortunately the news articles and sites previously posted are on websites that archive the articles making accessibility difficult. I have submitted four new citations that are most current and will slowly have the time to add more from the past as I pay for the access to news archives. There is 40 years of material floating out there!

I hope you may find my submission worthy of Wikipedia as Irene is certainly worthy of the attention.

Sincerely, --Derek S. Derek1974 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ironwater the holder of the end

why was this deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.135.253 (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted after this discussion because it had nothing to do with building the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a web-space provider for other purposes. There is a site at http://theholders.org/ where these stories, or whatever they are, can be posted. JohnCD (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Seymour Architecture

Can I please ask why you have deleted Seymour Architecture ?

A number of people have requested info on this company as it formed as part of a larger company spilt, and thought wikipedia was a viable forum, as existing architectural companies, such as foster and partners, use wikipedia as a platform to detail projects etc.

The intention is to build this page into a profile page containing a similar level of detail to that of the foster and partners page, as Seymour Architecture have been responsible for a number of large architectural projects, such as the largest business park in europe (Cobalt).

I'd be interested to hear your comments and thanks for your time.

Kristennetsirk (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Kris

Irene Gauthier

Thank JohnCD for your quick response. I have emailed Scientizzle for review of my submission and my new references. All are about Irene and are from 3rd party sources. I am going to start to slowly pay for the access to various news archives. However I am hopeful that those I posted will be enough to get it online and to allow others to post as well.

Thanks again, Derek1974 Derek1974 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry (DASHBot error)

Hey John, just wanted to leave a quick note saying that I'm sorry for the error the bot made. Last night was the first time I've let the bot run without me watching it, and it seems that I will have to spend some more time babysitting it until I shall try it again. In any case, I echoed your apology on the user's talk page, reiterating that the fault was my own. Thanks so much for being vigilant, and for reporting the error to me in a pleasant way. Cheers, Tim1357 ^talk 18:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for fixing it quickly. I was more worried that two human editors then repeated the mistake, so that the unfortunate newbie ended up with a #3 warning and threats of blocking. JohnCD (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hossein Omoumi

Article is back. Nyttend (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see about expanding it a bit. JohnCD (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Lache Park Limited

Can you explain why a charity such as St john Ambulance is in your opinion Notable but a small community based one is not. Compared to much of the crap on wikipedia I should imagine writing about a charity should be allowed in regards to it being relevant to people.

Stephendw (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Create a Wiki

Hey JohnCD,see this Wiki http://www.wiki.srb2.org now say me:"Where can create a Wiki equal this ?" Please reply. Don't put tutorial,only put where create, my Wiki was Created in Editthis.info like of there, more don't gives nor to change the Logo Please help me. KnuxD (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I cannot help, because I do not know how to create a Wiki. To make one like http://wiki.srb2.org would be complicated and expensive, because you would need to have your own server and your own copy of the Mediawiki software. It would be much easier to make one using a Wiki farm. If you have problems using Editthis.info, you can try one of the others listed at List of wiki farms such as http://www.wikia.com, or even better http://pt.wikia.com where the instructions for making the wiki are in Portuguese, even if you want English to be the língua por omissão para os visitantes da sua wiki. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

- All Right I'll try. KnuxD (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

- How install MediaWiki version 1.15.1 or how get ? I only whether this version,for me is the best. KnuxD (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.mediawiki.org/. JohnCD (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

- I already see, more don't need install progammer mediawiki 1.15.1 you already see ? I whether version 1.15.1 equal it below.This version. http://www.wiki.srb2.org KnuxD (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The address doesn't have "www" - it's http://wiki.srb2.org, and at the bottom left of the screen it says "Powered by MediaWiki 1.15.1". JohnCD (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

- I know,but know how create a ? Please help me. KnuxD (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Try asking at pt:Wikipedia:Contato/Linha_direta the Portugese-language wikipedia helpdesk.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The two questions I have tried to answer are:

• How to set up a wiki using a wiki farm? - see http://pt.wikia.com
• How to set up a wiki using mediawiki software on your own server? - see http://www.mediawiki.org/

If your question is not one of those, and you cannot get an answer at the :pt help-desk, you can ask it here in Portuguese; I may be able to understand it, or to find someone who can help me understand it. JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Total solutions

JohnCD, just making sure you saw the request to userfy on Total solutions. (After the author requested userfication, I pulled the db tag and put an adminhelp tag on the talk page above the request.) Did you catch it? If not, could you provide the author a userfied copy? --Bsherr (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And it appears you were a minute ahead of me. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Did the author know about the existing userfication? That's strange. --Bsherr (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

He made it in his userspace yesterday, then copied it into mainspace today. I'm not sure what he meant by "have it made inactive" - I suppose some sort of suspension while still in mainspace. He has been blocked by another admin as a role account, and invited to choose another username. IMO he has big problems with COI, spam and notability, but I'll put some links on his talk page. JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

CSD G11

The explanation you requested is at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. If you let me know what sticks out to you, I'll try to modify the proposal on the fly. Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That was quick; and a well-reasoned explanation. I still disagree, and will comment there, but maybe not till tomorrow. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ramananda Chatterjee

Thanks John. I have added the explanation at the bottom (next to the reference itself). The anglicized surname caught on after say 1960s and most people use this version today - although the original Bengali surname is Chattopadhyay (and there are Mukherjee=Mukhopadhyay and Bannerjee=Bandopadhyay 's also). So I guess a redirection page is not required since he is not known by that name in common parlance. The reference is from Bangladesh - a little more 'traditional' - if you know what I mean. Tinkswiki (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fine. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Professor Victor Grimble

I notice you very swiftly deleted my page. Victor Grimble is a fictional character in a book. If I state that he is fictional, can I either have the page reinstated or create a new one? Thanks 19:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knivesandvaux (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete of Muticolored Mosque

Please note that the redirect I wanted to delete was Muticolored Mosque (notice the missed letter 'l' - my typo when creating that redirect!), and not the legitimate redirect, Multicolored Mosque! -- Vmenkov (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. You're quite right, I have deleted it as R3. JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pricer1980 evading block

Hello, since you blocked Pricer1980 (talk · contribs), I wanted to let you know that he is editing under 86.174.166.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He made this edit just like Pricer did at the same article. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion about Pricer1980 (where you're mentioned briefly as the one who blocked his user account) is here. A more extensive block seems necessary at this point. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message - sorry not to have responded, but I have been unexpectedly off-line for a couple of days. I see you sensibly took it to ANI and it's been sorted - thanks. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you able to block the IPs listed in the ANI discussion, at least 86.186.36.188 with the recent contributions? (Not sure how IP addresses that vandalized in July should be treated.) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens has blocked that one. We don't really like blocking IPs that have not been vandalising recently, unless it's clear they are static; the number of different ones our friend is using shows he's not on a static one, and they're not even close enough to consider a range-block. I'm afraid we'll just have to play whack-a-mole until he gets bored. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem; I'm willing to do that. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Harry B. Flood Middle School‎

Wow, you waited a whole 8 MINUTES before deleting a cited artice with a REGULAR (not speedy) deletion tag. I've reverted this senseless deletion without discussion. Markvs88 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has deleted Harry B. Flood Middle School. What happened was that you created the article as "Harry B. Flood Middle School", with quotes around the name; that is not our style, so another user helpfully "moved" it to the correct title. What I deleted was the unnecessary redirect from the title with quotes which was left behind by the move. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand why but even though it appeared with quotes in my feed, the article w/o quotes displayed as deleted. Best,Markvs88 (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know either, but this shows what happened. Never mind, but another time please AGF a little more. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting

Hey can you help delete the redirect page Charles Augustus, Hereditary Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (1912–1988) for me so I can move Charles Augustus, Hereditary Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-EisenachEisenach (1912–1988) (wrong title) to Charles Augustus, Hereditary Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (1912–1988). DON'T DELETE THE ARTICLE. Thanks!--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

...and now I've deleted the "EisenachEisenach" one as an implausible redirect. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Interpersonal communication

Ive had a copy-vio deletion for a good article when tags or removals at best would suffice. Kudos on resroting it, ill just take a look in a little while (thsi weekend)Lihaas (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, the problem is that even the existing (and long-lasting) version looks to me like a copyvio as well; I did look back in the history. The current article just screams "copied from a textbook", even if it isn't. It really needs to be re-written completely with inline sources and using language that's more accessible to the casual reader. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This revision from 2008 might be a start... Black Kite (t) (c) 00:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lender Processing Services

Hello,

You've deleted the page I started about the company Lender Processing Services. I think this is a bad thing.

Lender Processing Services is a large and important company in the USA, which processes about 40% of the foreclosures in this country. There are many smaller and less significant companies with extensive documentation. It is rather strange that although there are references, there is no Wikipedia page about LPS. LPS itself prefers to keep a low profile, are people being paid to keep information out of Wikipedia?

I believe it would be better to have an imperfect page on Wikipedia, than none at all. This can serve as a starting point, an invitation to make improvements.

I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor and I do not have the time to educate myself to become one. But I do believe there should be an LPS page.

I hope you will consider restoring the page.

Thank you!

-Need to stay anonymous

There is no conspiracy to keep this company out of Wikipedia: no-one has ever tried to put them in until you created an article this morning, and nobody bribed me to delete it (that'll be the day!) I deleted it because the three lines you wrote about them said only that they were "a publicly traded corporation that provides technology solutions and mortgage processing services for financial institutions" and that they were "spun off from Fidelity National Information Services, Inc in July 2008." That gives no indication of why they are important or significant enough to have an article in an encyclopedia. More advice on your talk page, but not till tomorrow - I'm out of time tonight. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Blood Rain (film)

Hi, I see that you deleted this talk page on 2 April 2010. I'm fairly certain that Blood Rain (film) used to have a talk page prior to it's move, though it may have only contained WikiProject banners. Can you please check for me and undelete if possible? Thanks. PC78 (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. It was indeed only a couple of banners, but I've restored it - evidently it got detached from the article during what seems to have a complex series of moves. JohnCD (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hoax

Speedy will work. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I hesitated about that, but my usual rule of thumb when tagging is that if I spend more than about 10 minutes searching before I'm sure, G3 isn't appropriate. The deliberately falsely-titled references maybe were enough here: certainly I won't complain if someone tags it G3 and it gets speedied. JohnCD (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear JohnCD, thank you for granting my unblocking request and understanding me. -- Tanweer^talk 12:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

1 page comix

C'mon man, Can't you let it be one article like that? they are known throughout alberta. Fgycv (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Queensland vandals

Surprisingly, I tried that multiple times. What I encountered was that apparently that article has been vandalized before and overlooked. However, I tagged the article for cleanup and protection, because I am unfamiliar with that subject. Thanks for your tip though, appreciated. Cheers! petiatil ^{»User »Contribs} 10:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you looked through the history as well, did you not see it went past the first page, I'm not sure what was going on with that article, but i believe i restored a version for days earlier, I even considered to going back over a year, i guess you could say i threw in the towel. petiatil ^{»User »Contribs} 10:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't particularly commenting on that article, I trusted you to have cleaned it up right: I was just passing on a useful technique, though it's not always possible to use it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry bout the delay, I just realized talkbacks aren't automatic. Which article were you talking about? I've reviewed so may in the past hour...I don't remember them all. petiatil ^{»User »Contribs} 11:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It was Overall Position, and also Queensland Core Skills Test where we got in quite a muddle with different people reverting. Those kids don't seem to have found another target, I'm relieved to see. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Totsy wikipedia page

Dear Sir,

I would like to understand why my page is deleted as I don't want to advertise the company. It's just a helpful page for U.S moms who are wondering how the website can be useful. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.223.79 (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

DePuy ASR Hip Recall In Ireland

Dear JohnCD,

You recently deleted the above page because of supposed copyright infringement.

I confirm that I am the author of the content which appears on http://www.mccarthy.ie/depuy-orthopaedics-asr-hip-replacement-system-recall/ and that I authorise the use of the same on Wikipedia.

I would therefore be grateful were you to re-instate the page.

Regards,

John McCarthy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfromclon (talk • contribs)

Assertion of permission is not enough; you have to follow the steps explained at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. More advice on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

RE:CSD arlene

It was speedy deleted once before which was why I put it up under that criteria. If the criteria doesn't count under speedy deletions when I apologize.

Many Regards, Yousou (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem; but WP:CSD#G4 only applies when the article has previously been deleted by AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Page

Hello,

I want to create a page about a company, Brainient via www.brainient.com and I saw you have deleted this page. In order to continue, Wiki Guidlines suggested me to contact and ask you about this. Is it possible to continue and create this page?

Best regards, Mihai Sava —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miz252 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if the company is notable; advice on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Now, Now Every Children

Hi, I've written an article on the band Now, Now Every Children which I have been drafting at User:Nexxia/Now, Now Every Children. You've previously deleted the page, so I'm looking for your opinion on if my current incarnation of the page is notable enough for an article. Thanks for your time! Nexxia (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That is much better than the one I deleted. I'm not entirely sure they meet the strict terms of WP:BAND, but I am not an expert on the details of that; in any case I think your references are probably good enough to meet the WP:General notability guideline. I suggest you post at WP:Requests for feedback and see what comments you get there, and then move it into mainspace. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear and will do, thanks a lot man. Nexxia (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Siddharth Mishra

Siddharth Mishra is a real and a living person. Kindly undelete that page. Though I have no "online" article to support his existence but I have newspaper cuttings to support this. My question toyou- do you know him personally? If no then you should not delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid1508 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just being a real and living person is not enough to have a Wikipedia article - a person has to be notable, which is not a matter of opinion but requires showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I do not know him, and if I did I would not edit about him or take any part in discussions about him. If you know him, or if you are him, you should read Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:Autobiography and WP:Conflict of interest. JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of two pages

Hi there

You deleted two pages - Noesis Chat and also Noesis Systems Ltd.

The Noesis Chat used to be the Lycos Chat - it's big and one of the safest online - which is why it is considered notable and was included here. The German wikipedia has had articles about it for years... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycos_Chat - it has simply not yet been renamed or referenced through to the new name/owners.

Can I ask what I would need to do to get it put back in English?

Kind regards Aly

Mystyeyes (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Hart - Deleted page

Dear John,

I recently noticed that this page has been deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hart_(Caribbean_activist)

Although I did not create the page, I happened to stumble across this because the person - Richard Hart - is my grandfather and definitely a person of note in Jamaican history. As one of the founders of the People National Party in Jamacia he's definitely a part of Caribbean history. Here are a few links, available by just googling 'Richard Hart Jamaica' to independent verifiable articles related to Richard Hart.

• http://gleaner-ja.com/gleaner/20100418/arts/arts4.html
• http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060606/news/news6.html
• http://www.socialisthistorysociety.co.uk/HART.HTM
• http://books.google.ca/books?id=adPXlf_ux3cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Richard+Hart+jamaica&source=bl&ots=P_xK16eURC&sig=scEJ7hAlmWTbLUAcGODejJ3Lr9M&hl=en&ei=4b2BTMoUhcGeB6b6tMAB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
• http://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Who-Abolished-Slavery-Rebellion/dp/9766401101
• http://www.brh.org.uk/articles/slaves.html
• http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1809815

If you could restore the page I will update it with more relevant content.

Best regards,

Daniel Hart Nomadhart (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason the page was deleted was that it was a copyright violation - a copy of the University of the West of England's announcement when they awarded him an honorary degree. I agree that he deserves an article, but copyright means I can't restore that page. I could email you the text, but it is probably simpler to give you a link to the site it was copied from. I'll do that, and give you some more advice, on your talk page later today. JohnCD (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Marcel Louzado

Hello,

I am inquiring as to why the page was deleted by you as a hoax? I can help you verify that this page is not a hoax. Marcel Louzado is a respected public figure in the sport of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and coach to several professional mixed martial arts athletes.

StartRevolution (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Ben

The page was deleted as a hoax because it made claims that he had won many championships, including world championships. I checked some of those claims, and they were not true. More information on your talk page soon. JohnCD (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting The Stripes

When you deleted The Stripes you wrote: "Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article". But in fact Nena does have a Wikipedia article, and the article you deleted linked to it. The one song from the album that was a hit (if not a huge one, perhaps) still has numerous youtube videos of performances on TV, and they get quite a lot of comments.

For now I've made The Stripes into a redirect page, targeting Nena, and I've restored the article's edit history so that the merits of the deletion can be discussed. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

....and now I've changed it into an article about the band rather than about their one album. I've seen multiple uploads of their song "Strangers" on youtube, and likewise "Ecstasy" and "Tell me your name". Youtube videos seem to have a habit of getting deleted, and some of what I've seen is no longer there. At least one TV appearance in which they sang "Tell me your name" is still on youtube. Possibly this should redirect to Nena, but probably that should get discussed first. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Seeing an A9 tag, I just read "The Stripes is the only album by the German band, The Stripes", and checked that they didn't have an article as a band. I should have noticed that the singer was a blue-link; her notability might not have extended to the album, but it did mean it wasn't a valid A9. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Help

Do you mind deleting User:JeremyMcClean/Sandbox3? I'm done with it and I don't need it anymore. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 03:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Already deleted by a helpful talk-page stalker. Another time, to get rid of a page in your user space, all you need to do is put {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}} at the top. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lars Pearson

It wasn't clear why you undeleted this page? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I have taken it to AFD. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Inexperienced editor

Hi. I hope you do not mind, but I feel your reply to the inexperienced editor Care4elderly (talk · contribs)here, whilst clearly well-meaning, is not very AGF; it is aggressively negative; it is (IMHO) unhelpful to an inexperienced editor. I suggest new editors need positive advice, i.e. how about this? consider this; what about that. Not do not do this because; do not do that because; etc. I have found considerable success with new editors by doing a little research myself; limited instructional editing; suggesting things to do. I hope you see the above as constructive, as it is intended --Senra (Talk) 19:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, which I have thought about hard, and re-read the talk page concerned. I was brought there by responding to a request to userfy a speedy-deleted article. From the history, the username and the text of the article it was clear that this is another of the many newcomers who wants to promote his organisation, and thinks that Wikipedia is a sort of super-Myspace and that as a Worthy Cause his group is entitled to an article.

That is not a criticism: he is not at all to blame, because we are not good at making clear in advance to new users what Wikipedia is and isn't; and he is entitled to as much AGF, support and kindness as any newbie. But in a case like this I think it is not really kind to be too encouraging at first, as that can lead to a great deal of wasted effort and frustration piling up long lists of trivial or irrelevant references in an effort to make something seem notable which simply is not. I did a bit of a check on this one - it has 17 employees and a turnover of about £850,000, and most references I found in a quick look were statements or releases by it rather than anything about it. I doubt whether it has much chance of passing WP:N. Better to make clear at the outset what is the height of the bar they have to pass to get in, so that they can make a realistic assessment of whether it is worth trying, before putting a lot of work into it.

Having said that, I certainly did not intend to sound negative or hostile, and I am sorry if it came across that way to you. Maybe I could have done more to suggest likely sources or models. Your pointer to other similar articles as models was a good idea, which I will bear in mind in similar cases.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the considered response which I appreciate. I have spent the evening searching for notable references for this particular article and am close to agreeing with you, although I have not given up yet :) I also accept that I do not see the (possibly) vast number of non notable article creation attempts, as I do not patrol new pages—I do not want to.

In recent weeks I have seen a number of PROD's and AfD's which have been succesfully rescued. In all these cases, the inexperienced editors were discouraged by the process and technical discussions which (IMHO) appear aggresive to the new editors concerned. My first was Polly Morgan, a rescued userfy where the editor has not been seen since; more recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxterley Church et al, and a few more from the same nom. Sometimes an article (like Counsel for Care) my not be rescuable such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Chan (actor) although other times a rescue is possible, even though it looks hopeless such as here which became Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Maor.

Sorry about the rambling above. I am trying to show my concern is for the inexperienced editor. I am also trying to show experienced editors that our means of communicating with these inexperienced people needs to be more sympathetic. While wikifying policy is technical correct it can be daunting to the new editor. Again, I accept fully that Counsel for Care my not be rescuable. My main aim is to try to sympathetically deal with the inexperienced so they come back and create more articles, rather than rescue per-se.

Thank you for listening --Senra (Talk) 22:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pricer1980 again

86.161.87.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is Pricer1980, making the same kind of edits. Block? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This one, too: 86.174.47.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Erik (talk | contribs) 21:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No more time tonight, sorry - post at AIV. JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks anyway. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Evolution Incorporates

Dear John,

As it says that Wikipedia's policies do not allow us to continue this page because it has no significance. But I would like to know that how can you judge that any other organization or person is significant and not us.

This was all about a company formed so that it can brief a person about the company and its activities. No spamming or marketing intentions here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techprone (talk • contribs) 12:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Counsel and Care

I realise I may have offended you in my post above, though rest assured it was not my intention. I have since done a little work on the Counsel and Care article with the help of SunCreator (talk · contribs) and I now feel the article is in a little better shape. I think it is very important to engage the original editor, in this case Care4elderly (talk · contribs), which of course I am trying to do; if he/she has not be scared off that is. In the longer term, I hope I can persuade the original editor to run this article past RfC or even peer-review, though in the meantime, I would welcome your brief view on whether you feel it has become a little more notable --Senra (Talk) 14:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I was not at all offended, it was a useful discussion and in fact I was meditating a further reply, though I don't know that I shall actually get round to writing it. As regards the improved article, I'm afraid it illustrates what I was saying about the risk of spending effort trying to make something appear notable which simply isn't. There is a Wikipedia essay somewhere I would like to cite, but I've forgotten where it is, on the theme that "if a subject is not notable, no amount of rewriting will make it so."

Remember that WP:Notability requires showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The references here are:

1. A list entry showing that they are registered with the Charity Commission - but so are 160,000 others.
2. Their own website.
3. The website of the British monarchy - nice try to establish notability by association, but all it shows, after a search, is that their patron is a Royal Duchess who is also patron of 66 other charities. I'm afraid that really does not mean a lot - part of the job of being a British Royal is letting your name be used on letterheads.
4. A BMJ extract showing figures from its 1959 annual report, which is there to establish that the scope of its activities has grown over the years, though the comparison (numbers given financial help in 1959 vs. telephone calls received today) is not really valid.
5. Their own website again.

Conclusion: the references meet WP:V splendidly, they prove that the charity exists and appears in lists, but I see nothing that could be called significant coverage in independent sources. Nobody independent of them has written about them. This might now pass A7, but I don't think it would survive an AfD. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I now need the original editor to jump in here, I appear to have done all I can. Thank you for your help --Senra (Talk) 14:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

An error from your end for deleting the page JULIE BIR

I am the direct person with regards to an article based on me. Someone contacted me and mentioned that the article published has been deleted by you. I am concerned. If you could kindly reply to me why the article, which was based on a living person, who is an actress, model, presenter and has worked in the industry for many years' article was deleted, I would really appreciate it. I have been out of the industry on leave but am back now. Any proof that you require from me of my past work - I can give you. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2964914/ Forjulie (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The article "Julie Bir" that I deleted in January, by a user called Multiglobe (talk · contribs), was very short - only three lines - and gave no indication of enough importance or significance to have an encyclopedia article. The article "JULIE BIR" that you wrote in June was deleted by user Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs), both because it did not indicate importance and because it was written in a promotional tone. You can ask him about it, but you should be aware that writing about yourself on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, for reasons explained here. JohnCD (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

.....thanks alot.....

why the hell did you delete eoinstunts! that page actually meant something to my friend!! he goes on youtube makes vids and gets hate so i make him a page and he finds it gone plz put it back.....you must be a very sad person....eoin has depression issues thanks more making it worse.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoindevlin (talk • contribs) 06:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a serious project to build an encyclopedia and we are selective about article subjects - they have to be notable. See the links on your talk page to learn more about it. Why not make him a Myspace page? JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Mercury delay lines

Hi, nice memory of memory. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion of User:SteephenMumford

Regarding your execution of the CSD on User:SteephenMumford, there are many more where that came from. I have been tracking and documenting their emergence here: User:Uncle Milty/Hoax page links. The seem to all be created by the same user, and are all in some way or another copied from existing articles with only basic facts changed. When you get bored visit my tracking page and poke around if you'd like. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Well spotted. I will work my way through those. Not sure what to do about the hoaxer - I think probably a stern warning and see whether he stops. If so, probably not worth the trouble of doing an SPI and blocking all these fake users as socks, but if he carries on, a checkuser might find an underlying IP to block. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I also have my doubts about the source of those images he has uploaded ("self taken") but I haven't found proof that they aren't his own originals. I'll keep digging. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

All gone. Did you notice that all these fictitious singers and actors had the same birthday, 21 August, in years ranging from 1978 to 1988? The images can probably be nominated at FFD as "no encyclopedic use, uploaded for use in hoax page." JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and now it's my turn to say "Ha! Well spotted." I just did a user space search for that date, and more than doubled your workload. Check my "hoax" page again for the latest additions. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Aaaarrgh! Well excavated. That's over 25 hoax user pages, and he was still working on User:MaaxMootta today, so I have blocked him indef. to stop the nuisance. I will work through the rest over the weekend, and I will enquire whether it's worth running a checkuser to see if there is an underlying IP we can block. I will annotate your list as I go. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for all your effort. I really wonder about this guy's motivation. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC):

HOLD ON...I just followed the AfD link you left on my page ([1]) and it looks to me like an SPI should be done before you waste any more time researching the origins of these hoax articles. Way too many coincidences at this point. Sorry we didn't find this earlier. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bingo! I looked at couple of those, and guess when their birthday is? It's the same hoaxer. I asked J.delanoy (talk · contribs), who is a checkuser, and he has just replied that he's looking into it. I've given him this new link. When I said above that I was blocking JaasoneDeruulo "to stop the nuisance", of course it won't because he sets up a new account for each hoax; but maybe CU can find an IP to block. Where did you find that SPI link? it wasn't me left it on the page. JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I skipped a step...The description in that AfD link you left (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cove_Cooper) mentioned a user moving an article through a series of article titles. That user was User:Amandabilliot. Going to that user page got me to the existing SPI. Gee, I feel like I've stumbled upon a devious government plot or something now. I do feel bad that you've put so much into researching my list of articles up to this point, as I guess they are likely to all be nuked once a new SPI runs. Thanks again, and happy hunting. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

See here and here. Good work. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm just glad to be of assistance. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Eight_queens_puzzle_solutions

Hi, I got your message on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REFUND#Eight_queens_puzzle_solutions. You folks need to set your own "procedure" straight - at least a bit :-) The deletion review page was screaming "don't post here, place undeletion request there" so I did it. I don't know what your definition of "uncontroversial" is and you can't really expect people to know or relate to your internal lingo. In my book for something to be controversial a lot more has to be happening than a bunch of people who don't know anything about programming gang-banging to remove any trace of code just because in their mind "it's not encyclopedic".

Controversial would be for example if someone claimed copyright on that code or if someone protested "why language A and not B" or is there was an uproar that someone used a 4-letter word for a variable name :-) etc.

Also, whatever your "normal seven-day debate" seems to be, it might be perfectly adequate for something that is urgent, but sort something like this it seems completely unreasonable and unfair - as I wrote in 2 places so far, no one has the time to go patrolling around and the need and reason for some code with algorithms apparently flies so high above the heads of those who had the time that there would never be a way to stop such barbarism unless they know that they can't do it quickly.

If there is someone else I can escalate this matter to please let me know and I'll be happy to repeat everything already wrote twice. I just stumbled opon that page while looking to do a quick comparison with a very different algorithm so I don't really have the time to spend ages on this and yet it was the most shocking and ignorant attack on knowledge I've ever witnessed. Don't even have a proper thing to compare it to. Like a medieval priest banning you from writing (using letters) or not being allowed to use a formula or a diagram.

Your info says that you are retired from computer industry so I hope that you at lest kind of know what I'm talking about here. Never thoguht that I'd have to go explaining the significance of precise source code in USA and in 21st century. So sorry if I sound upset - it's a huge shock to realize that medieval mentality is lurking around the corner.

ZeeXy (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(Answered on his talk page). JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your excellent response on ZeeXY (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Just one question. I see you copied the editors incorrect village pump post to his user space. However, you seem to have put that response into User:ZeeXy/Eight_queens_puzzle_solutions, the very place that, if the editor so wished, the deleted userfy would go. Is it worth refactoring and copying that response somewhere else then blanking User:ZeeXy/Eight_queens_puzzle_solutions in case the editor wishes to userfy? I may be wrong here of course and I am sure you will correct me --Senra (Talk) 20:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think of that, but we can move it if necessary - lets not confuse things now. You do realise that Zeexy didn't write this article? (I suppose he may be one of the IPs who contributed). It had quite a long history, having been spun out of the main article in 2007, and eventually deleted at AfD last month. ZeeXy is a new user who appeared at REFUND yesterday demanding its undeletion. JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Page is not working

Hi,

I want to know about my webpage preview. It has been blocked. Please let me know the reason and standard which you maintain.

My Page ID was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Relocationadvis

Kind REgards, Anil Vashistha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.51.234 (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your page has been deleted and your account blocked because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a notice-board for companies to advertise their services. This is explained in the block notice on your talk page at User talk:Relocationadvis. JohnCD (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Dagons

Thanks for your feedback regarding The Dagons article. I am new to Wikipedia - this is my first article --and I find the process of creating articles to be pretty confusing. In response to your message, I changed the Categories to ones that actually exist. (Good idea, that.) Now, though, I see my article has been tagged again. There are multiple issues, apparently, which I'm trying to fix. The tags say that it needs additional references for verification, and that the notability of the subject is in question. I'm puzzled, because I put in 24 references in my short article. They are reliable newspaper and magazine sources and most of the links are still active, so they are easy to check up on for anyone who is interested. I can add more sources, but will that help? Rizmagnusson (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about the "maintenance templates" at the top of the article - they are not a threat of deletion, more an invitation to others to come and help - which I see they are doing, good. I would think myself there is an entirely adequate number of references. What I suggest you do is, look in the article history to see who added the maintenance templates, and leave a message on his talk page to ask why he thinks they are not enough, and what extra he thinks would be necessary to put notability beyond doubt. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your feedback again. I wonder, should I create a specific "Talk Page" for The Dagons article? If I do create a Talk Page, does that mean that all discussions related to the article will appear on the Talk Page?

I'm still fairly confused about the systems of communication between Wikipedia content creators...

Rizmagnusson (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can certainly start an article talk page - just click on "Discussion" at top left. That will be for general discussion about the article and how to improve it. If you have a message for a particular user, leave it on his talk page, at the bottom - or use the useful "New section" button at the top, which will format a header for you and put the entry at the bottom. Most people like to keep a discussion in the same place, so will probably reply on their talk page below your message. Once a "thread" has started, new messages are usually added at the bottom of it, rather than starting a new section (which is why I have moved your post up here), and indented by using colon characters in front. Read Help:Watching pages for a useful way of keeping track of when pages you are interested in are changed, which will help you know when there is a reply. JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've been attempting to communicate with the person who's tagging us, and I was wondering if you would look over our conversations. Just wondering if I am going through the process in the correct way. Rizmagnusson (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're doing it just right, you've asked him, he's given you a first opinion and says he will look again at it shortly. I should explain that admins have no particular authority in content matters (the job is often described as "essentially janitorial", and the admins' emblem is a mop). If there is a dispute, our role is to tell people to play nicely together, point them at WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and WP:Dispute resolution, and if necessary bang heads together. He is right that I looked mainly at the number of references, though I did look at several and checked that they had something reasonably substantial to say about the band; but I don't know enough about that scene to give a very informed comment. I certainly wouldn't add any more (see WP:BOMBARD) unless they have something significant to add. In any case, maintenance templates are not something to worry about, they are more an invitation to other editors to come and help improve an article. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A favor, if you might....

User:Tone is apparently on Wikibreak.[2] Could you userfy Michael W. Dean to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Michael W. Dean? He's the author of $30 Film School, and while working to improve THAT userfied article,[3] I came across a lot about this guy in multiple reliable sourses.... And, in wondering why his article was gone, I found the AFD discussion... which led me to believe that the article was unfortunately SO poorly written by its newb author, that she was unable to convince anyone, even with the sources she offered, that it was salvagable. Her talk page reflects her "warm welcome" to Wikipedia and its processes.[4] Sad. I dropped her a line... just in case... but she seems to have left the project after that. It may require complete rewrite, but I'm hoping the article and its "inline cites" might have enough with which to begin. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. It's got quite a history, I see; the author actually is no newbie, she has been here longer than either you or me and did get a proper welcome back in 2006, but it seems she clears her talk page regularly. The article itself goes back to 2005, created by an IP. After you fix it, if Tone is not back, better take it through DRV to avoid it being hit with G4 speedies. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. I should have checked the page history... and realize that a long time editor should have known what was required for the article. And my thought is that as Tone closed per the consensus reached at the AFD toward the unimproved article, there is no "flaw" in his close that would require a DRV. So.. and after addressing the concrns brought forth at the AFD, I had thought to then send it to incubation for additional collaborative effort by others and then an administrative evaluation before possible retun to mainspace. So this would not be an end run around the proper close, but rather the use of process to see if something properly improved might serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally

Hi, I noticed you made an edit to the locked Restoring Honor rally. Would you be able to make a second edit to the page? Consensus has been reached, 6-1, on a write-up for the crowd size section. The write-up is here. If you could make the edit that would be great. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not going to have time to read all that tonight - I'll try to get to it tomorrow, if no-one else has answered the edit-protected request before then. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your question there. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Alessandro Del Vecchio

Hi. Here is Alessandro Del Vecchio. I just saw that my wikipedia article about me was deleted. I can assure you that I'm a professional musician and a top-notch producer well known all over the world with more than 90 records on the market with both Majors like universal, sony, warner bros, emi and indie like frontiers, mtm music, avenue of allies, afm, 7hard, escape, melodicrock records and many more. Please let me know what I have to do to have my page up. If you google my name everything will show up. Thanks and looking forward to your answer. Regards, Ale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandrodelvecchio (talk • contribs) 11:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

People are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves, for reasons explained in Wikipedia:Autobiography. There are some useful links on your talk page, and I will add more shortly. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

YAY for edit conflits :D

YAY for edit conflits :D --Wolfnix • Talk • 17:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wolfnix has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you. That guy has probably got more advice now than he wanted. Sorry for jumping your gun - I did see your "interim" edit, in fact I conflicted with it, but I had my two cents' worth all ready and thought I might as well add it. JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh no problem, the fact he got "more" help, is good, if he keeps it up, he will end up getting his talk page blocked. If he was smart he would just have a 3rd party edit it, but you know that isn't right either :p --Wolfnix • Talk • 17:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

yeah hi

you closed down rebecca's party, why? what headings/other information did you want me to put down so its all good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.120.17 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to try to advertise a party after you've been thrown off Facebook. JohnCD (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Imagi-King/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story

It's not even a "work in progress." It's a copy of an article that was deleted after a very contentious AfD, then posted again with supposedly-new material and again shot down via AfD. I'm fairly certain this user intends to try to slip this in again somehow, which is why I keep it on watchlist. (The user appears in the film described.) If there's some policy that allows this to be removed, I think it should be. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not really doing any harm there, the "userspace draft" template adds "noindex" which means it will drop off the Google radar. You could try MfD again, but I'm not sure it would succeed - there are people who would say "give him more time... " My advice would be, wait till November, when it will be six months since the last AfD, before taking it to MfD and citing WP:FAKEARTICLE. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Before The Murder

Hello, you have recently deleted my addition to wikipedia, a short article about a Slovene band, Before The Murder. They have had gigs with well-known bands, such as Here Comes the Kraken, Fuck Your Shadow From Behind and they are playing at a gig with Trigger the Bloodshed today. They have an EP and some websites definitely wrote about them. So what must I do to satisfy your so-called criteria of relevance? Cheers Heftybagdisposal (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BAND. More on your talk page soon. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted contribution (Hamlet Sweeney)

Can you specify the reason why my recent contribution Hamlet Sweeney was deleted? Thanks/Anna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olssona2 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BAND. More on your talk page soon. JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Discover coorg

My apologies!! Still learning here, but I'll get there. :-) Sorry for troubling you again. ~dee 16:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much, those last two links are EXTREMELY useful. ~dee 17:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For any talk page stalkers, they were WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Input and output device

can u please unlock these pages as we can edit them with more content —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.143.117 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Whenever those pages are unprotected, they get unpleasant vandalism, which always comes from the same block of Birmingham IPs - and your IP comes from that block, too. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

socks

Hi JohnCD, I wanted to ask your advice. I suspect the sock puppetry of a recently blocked user Pricer1980 - using perhaps 18 different names, some creating disruption. What is the easiest way to follow this up? I know there is a history here I am unaware of and am a relative newcomer to WP. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What I know of the back story is here: 1, 2, 3, 4. As far as I know, he has only been socking with IPs up to now, and as I told Erik there is nothing to do about that but play whack-a-mole. If he has been using registered accounts, we should make a report at WP:SPI. What are the accounts, and what makes you think they are Pricer? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Crealism

hello John about this copyright thing where should I use this ? best LdM

I hereby affirm that I, Luis de Miranda, is the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the site http://crealisme.hautetfort.com

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Luis de Miranda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landscoper (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you undelete this article? We have now received permission via OTRS which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, but tagged for notability and COI. JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection request.

Can you semi-protect Survivor Philippines: Celebrity Showdown? It had been vandalized several minutes ago days after its last protection expired. One of the vandals prematurey put "Sole Survivor" to that effect on the page when the season's not even over yet. I'm sure the guy, despite jumping IP addresses, will continue using the same MO. BTW, I'd filed a report at WP:RFPP, but the admins who regularly watch the page seem to be out right now. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done for another two weeks. JohnCD (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Previously Deleted page

Hello John, I really need your help. I was attempting to create a page for one my life mentors and it says that somebody else had already created a page but that it was deleted by you. I would really like to have this page running and I would like to know why you deleted that page so that I don't have to go though the same thing. The page was "Bert Oliva."

Thank you very much John.

Rivera.jon (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that articles about Mr. Oliva, including two by you, have been deleted once by me and many times by other people, the reasons generally being that the articles were promotional or that they did not establish notability. Advice on your talk page soon. JohnCD (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Osnat Shurer - your help and guidance much appreciated!

Thank you indeed!
The article's talkpage hadn't populated the "living=" field with "living=yes", which I've now tidied. I think it thus would be wise to wait a day or so to re-try the AfD, as the BLP patrol may be better placed than me to have a look at the article.
Thanks again,
--Shirt58 (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wizard sticks

wizard sticks is worldwide you dumb nerd. this is the reason wikipedia sucks. it got deleted because there are no google results? are you for real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.234.20 (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It got deleted because article subjects have to be notable and verifiable, and this discussion decided that Wizard sticks wasn't. JohnCD (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Budigol

Hi John, can you take a look at these:

• 2009–10 Perserang season
• 2010-11 Perserang season
• Perserang Serang

The club Perserang appears to exists at some level in Indonesian football, but the content of all the articles are hoaxes. The articles make claims about matches against top clubs, and claims top players in the team (even Wayne Rooney heh), which are easily proven false. 98.122.178.110 (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have tagged them all for speedy deletion as hoaxes. Wayne Rooney, heh, indeed! JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Red Lights (2011 film)

Hi, I'm sysop from Spanish Wikipedia. Personally, I never use Google as reference, and only I use the IMBd as first reference about a movie. In Spanish Wikipedia was deleted the article because we use these rules. I think that was a rumour, and Google take that false information. This is my opinion. --Taichi (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that one should not rely too much on Google, but when it finds so many sources saying the same thing, including this one claiming an interview with the director, and including even IMDb, it is clear that the article is not an attempted hoax on Wikipedia. What is suspicious is that all those sources are from the same few days last May, with no more recent confirmation. I don't know whether it was a hoax or rumour back then, or whether there really was a deal that has fallen through; either way the article should go unless there is some confirmation, but the Google sources mean (in my opinion) that we can't speedy-delete it as a hoax. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Honor Rally Crowd size section, again

Could you protect the Crowd size section again? BS24 has deleted my cited edits saying they were against consensus of not using analysis of secondary sources such as On The Media. BS24 has twice reverted my edits while not engaging in direct discussion on Talk. This link is characteristic of his use of edit summaries to engage in personal altercations. [5] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Lublin - copywright material

Hi John

I am writing in regard to the removal of the Wikipedia page I setup http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dylanvendor/Richard_Lublin

Which you reviewed and had removed because of "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement" of www.richard-lublin.com. I actually helped Richard Lublin setup his website and create the content, so I have full permission to use all content for setting up a wikipedia page on Richard.

I apologies as a newbie to Wikipedia I am not sure of what additional information I need to provide so the page can be restored. If you go the www.richard-lublin.com site and contact him through the form on the site he will confirm that I have permission to use the content.

Dylan

ps. In the future is there a correct way to footnote content from another website as being used with permission?

18:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Dylanvendor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanvendor (talk • contribs)

William Daniell

Thank you for your response to the large edit I inserted this morning.The reason for the unsuccessful deletion is that I realised that I had not obeyed the rules for inserting references into the text. It felt easier to start again from the September 14 version. Can the September 14 version not be accepted as the present correct version. We are now setting about inserting the references in the correct fashion, and hope to do this asap. (Daniellhelp (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC))

I have restored the article to the 14 Sep version. You could have done that yourself: if you should need to again, the way to do it is like this: on the History page, locate the version you want to go back to, click on the time and date entry to the left of that line to bring up that version, then click "Edit" and "Save page" (over various warnings to be sure you know what you are doing). Use an edit summary like "Revert to version by Daniellhelp at 18:57 14 September" so that anyone looking at the history can see what has happened. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Block

Hi I see you are active on this page, can you please answer this request : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported, as the user is very persistent. Thanks  CET  ♔  09:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.  CET  ♔  09:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

User is at it again... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.40.96.171 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieEchoTango (talk • contribs) 10:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Chrissie Maher

chrissie maher profile is being repeatedly attacked by an ex employee with a greavance. I have tried to revert back many times to sort this out but with the effect of being blocked ...please advise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.96.171 (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You cannot simply edit-war to remove information you do not like. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help for advice. JohnCD (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the advice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.96.171 (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Chrissie Maher. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

chrissie maher

Paragraph 3 is unsourced please remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinos155 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It is sourced to two newspaper reports. The issue is being discussed here. JohnCD (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi, you have deleted the wikipedia page "Myah Marie" and I have tried to make a new one, and it will not work. How do I fix this problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkiphoto (talk • contribs) 06:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Witwatersrand Basin

Thank you. Androstachys (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism (3rd nomination)

• Just thought I'll leave a note to mention that I appreciate the close rationale and perchance agree in tandem to/with what you've written. Regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 13:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The second page I cited, Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus, is a useful articulation of the fact that although these discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE there is nevertheless an element of counting heads in deciding them. JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Also wanted to thank you for stating your rationale. Many admins don't do that. And I hadn't seen Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus, which gives me a new understanding, which I also appreciate. Thanks again! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You deleted the project page for jmtb02. GIVE IT BACK!!! That is my project page!!! It had the most recent edit to the page! I lost tons of information!!! Please give it back and please never do that again!!!!!! Mocha2007 (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What I deleted was a duplicate copy - your AfC submission is still there, with the reviewer's comments, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jmtb02. JohnCD (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see you couldn't wait 10 minutes for me to update the Bitcoin article.

The Bitcoin article, based on its subject, importance, and the work already submitted, represents value to Wikipedia readers and should not be deleted. There are numerous WP articles with near-zero reading stats. The contest regarding the existence of this article alone proves that there is sufficient interest in this subject.

My argument is well supported by the fact that the value of articles (and all intellectual work) should not solely be derived from how *mainstream* or wide-spread a piece of information is. Please look up the meaning of words like "value" and "important". They are completely independent from "wide-spread" and "mainstream". Abolishing slavery wasn't mainstream but it was important. Martin Luther King's views weren't mainstream at the time but were precious and worthy to preserve even before they broke through.

Human history just went through a terrible financial crisis which may still not be over. It's exactly now that we need new inspiring, challenging (and by nature, non-mainstream) thoughts and money systems so the fiasco of the "top" politicians isn't repeated.

I'm not even affiliated with Bitcoin. This money system may not be perfect or *the* solution, but we do need to give people inspiration to think. Otherwise the politicians who brought the crisis upon us will only give us another flawed system.

Please note that I wanted to add links but now, a mere few *minutes* after I reinstated the article and added the "please hold" tag, I can't any more because you deleted it again. It was removed for like the 5th time in a row and is now protected. The tag explanation said it's there to reserve the article for a reasonable time so it can be edited. In the future please respect the requests in wikipedia tags.

It's amazing to me that there are complete wikipedia articles for imaginary characters in sci-fi stories that are infinitely useless from practical point of view, but a serious attempt to eliminate the flaws of the fiat money systems (which affect the whole mankind!) are shrugged and rejected by "editors" of what should be the hub of all useful information on the Internet.

Ignorance is bad. WP is one of the most powerful tools to distribute knowledge. Information regarding the alternatives to the fiat money systems -- which have brought so much turmoil upon us -- should be accessible to everyone. If you don't agree, please at least stand aside so others can find that information on the very website that is most people's first choice when researching an important topic. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShoWPiece (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You cannot simply repost this article the very day after the third discussion on the subject has endorsed its deletion. If you want to add links to a draft, User:Message From Xenu/Bitcoin is the draft you should work on, but it will have to be reviewed at DRV again before it can be posted in the main encyclopedia, and the community's patience is liable to wear thin if you try another DRV immediately. I suggest you read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability and (in regard to the other articles you complain about) What about article x?, and I repeat my advice that instead of spending so much energy clamouring here, the Bitcoin lobby should concentrate on getting some articles about it published in reliable technical journals, which is what you need to establish notability here. JohnCD (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Who?

Who are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris6zep (talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 October 2010

I'm a Wikipedia administrator. You can click on that link to find out more. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring my (Michael Leeman's) User Page

Earlier, I requested that my User Page be deleted (which you did, thank you). However, I want a Talk Page so, to that end, I am going to re-create my User Page and then add a Talk Page. ThanksMichael Leeman (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You already automatically have a talk page at User talk:Michael Leeman, and you also have a user page at User:Michael Leeman which you have never used. What I deleted at your request, and you have recreated, is a user sub-page at User:Michael Leeman/About you. That's fine, if that's what you want to do, but the sort of information about yourself that you have put there is what most people put on their actual user page, because that's where anyone interested will look first. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying things. I greatly appreciate your help!Michael Leeman (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Preciousdiamonds

JohnCD, you deleted User talk:Preciousdiamonds as G11, but it had a history of legitimate talk page comments, which may not be speedy deleted per WP:DELTALK. Those comments also formed part of the page, so the page was not exclusively promotional. Could you restore the deleted page, please? WP:ADVERT parts of the page can be blanked instead. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: {{uw-spamublock}} can go on the restored deleted page. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Earthmanager

Thanks for the block, it seems that he is abusing his talk page by insulting Wikipedia and says that he will just make another account to disrupt more of Wikipedia, I wonder if an IP block would work for him.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 16:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. Elockid has taken care of this situation. Thanks again for the block.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 16:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy 10/10/10

Double Ten Day is, really, unrelated—but we don't appear to have a cool pic for this one

I suppose I should've timed this message at 10:10:10 too, but frankly, I can't be arsed. You know how it is.

Did you know... that tenten in Japaense writing are a little wiggly thing, a bit like a quotation-mark, which makes e.g. "ka" (か) into "ga" (が) or "fu" (ふ) into "bu" (ぶ) ?

So, take time out to have a bit of a giggle.

All the best, and 10-10 'till we do it again.  Chzz  ►  08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, I greatly appreciate it. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 20:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Lionel_Wendt/Temp

Dear friend, could you please assist me to improve this article and Avoid copy right violations.--Wipeouting (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Rdg22/Kate Kennedy Club

Again going through my watchlist and came across User:Rdg22/Kate Kennedy Club, which I posted about here back in July (see User talk:JohnCD/Archive 9#User:Rdg22/Kate Kennedy Club) it is still there. What do you feel should be done ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's been over six months - time for MfD. Will you nominate it or shall I? JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - you can, since it was restored by you. Codf1977 (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Done here. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Lost account

Hi, thank you for your answer. Let's continue the conversation on my french talk page. - User:Dunderklumpen 10:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.48.123.232 (talk)

Deletion of BT Infinity

You deleted 'BT Infinity' on May 19, 2010, apparently because you felt the article did not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Since I cannot see what it was that you deleted, I cannot comment on the level of maturity of the article as it was then. However, I do feel strongly that it behoves you to investigate the legitimacy of the article, regardless of the current status of the article (which I can only guess at) before deletion.

If you had investigated, then you would have discovered that BT Infinity was introduced earlier this year (2010) by BT, formerly British Telecom as a fibre-to-the-cabinet broadband service. Currently, this only reaches a fraction of households in the UK, but it currently being progressively rolled out from 2010 onwards throughout the UK. Fibre-optic delivery of broadband Internet offers significant speed and performance advantages over twisted-pair copper wires. I fail to see why you think this is neither important nor significant.

The main competition BT Infinity is from Virgin Media who also offer fibre-to-the-cabinet; the difference being that Virgin Media use co-axial cable from the street cabinet to the user, whereas BT uses conventional twisted-pair copper. I believe (but have no references) that some BT Infinity customers have fibre all the way to the home/business. References that I did find include:

• BT Infinity
• How to get BT Infinity
• BT - The Race to Infinity (BT competition from 4th October to 31st December 2010)
• BT fibre based broadband launches as 'Infinity' thinkbroadband 2010-01-21
• BT vs Virgin Media fibre optic broadband Broadband Choices 2010-01-27
• BT Infinity rollout Broadband Choices 2010-04-06
• BT to roll out fibre broadband across Cornwall BBC News Online 2010-09-30
• BT competition seeks out UK's next fibre hotspots BBC News Online 2010-10-03
• BT's high-fibre race BBC News Online 2010-10-04
• Bradley Stoke residents fight for faster broadband BBC News Online 2010-10-12
• I note, of course, that some of the above references post-date your deletion date.

This is a case of an article being aborted in early gestation, supposedly because it lacked notability or some other apparent lack of credibility. I feel that Wikipedia is all too often compared to (say) Encyclopedia Britannica and that (sadly) too many emerging articles are snuffed-out before they are fully formed. The differences, of course, is that Encyclopedia Britannica is not published until it has been thoroughly proofed and checked (multiple times). Wikipedia, on the other hand, is always an endless Work in process and so is always subject to group edits, revisions and updates. This has advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantage for Wikipedia is that sometimes the information found may, sometimes, be doubtful or lacking in references, etc. On the other hand, the advantage of Wikipedia is that it is able to describe emerging or new developments far, far, more quickly than Encyclopedia Britannica can, even if the early drafts maybe lacking in substance or content.

I strongly believe, therefore, that articles nominated for deletion should first go through a process of investigation to attempt to bring the article up to a level of notability before unilaterally deleting it based solely on the contributed content to date. I have too many times see articles on emerging topics deleted (sometimes multiple times) before, finally, someone has the patience to prepare a detailed article from scratch, with full references etc., that eventually survives the grim reaper. Furthermore, it is not only the article itself that is important, but often more important is the web of links that it is frequently part of. Deleting the article, however immature, breaks this web and makes it difficult or impossible to link to related articles.

I therefore would appreciate it if you could restore this article so that others can resume updating and revising this page.

Enquire (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The complete text of the article I deleted in May was:

"BT Infinity is a broadband service offered by BT. Recent television commercials in the UK and Ireland have featured the music of Allie Moss."

I see no point in restoring that, but you, or anyone else, are free to create a more extended article on the subject.

In an ideal world, when an unsourced two-liner like that was posted, experienced editors would investigate the subject, determine whether there was actually the possibility of an encyclopedic article, and if so research, source and expand it; but new articles are created at an average rate of rather more than one a minute, and the unofficial New Page Patrol (all volunteers, like everyone here) can barely keep abreast of the flood.

You may feel that an unsatisfactory article should be retained in the hope of improvement, and indeed very many are, though unfortunately that hope is often disappointed, so that of about 3,400,000 articles, only some 15,000 reach the standard of WP:Good article or WP:Featured article.

But there are some which must be speedily deleted (e.g. libel, copyright violation) and so criteria for speedy deletion have been agreed. These are actually quite tightly drawn - you can read the list at WP:CSD - and it takes two pairs of eyes - a patroller tags an article and an administrator checks that the article does indeed meet the criterion cited - in this case, WP:CSD#A7, an article that makes no "credible claim of significance or importance" for its subject. The article author is given a notice explaining the reasons for deletion, with links to guidelines which would help him re-submit an improved version. In this case, the author's contribution record shows that his primary interest was Allie Moss rather than broadband, he did not return to the subject, and nobody else has been interested enough to write an article since; however, as I said, you or anyone else are welcome to do so.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

JohnCD, we both are volunteers here, however I did not have the benefit of knowing what was previously posted under this article title; something which I acknowledged in my original post on this matter. So enlightened, and assuming this was not a case of vandalism of a previously valid article, I would agree that as previously presented it is not worth salvaging. I am not sure if Wikipedia archives histories of deleted articles, but I wonder if it is still possible to determine whether, in fact, this article was vandalised. If so, would it be possible to restore to a previous, valid content? As a volunteer, it was not my expectation to craft this page from scratch, although I might have expected to add to it. Even so, I might have a stab at it if no-one else has previously contributed valid content. Is there anything relevant in the page history?

Regards, Enquire (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The whole history of a deleted article is accessible to admins, but I check the page history when deleting, and that is the only version of this article. I made the remark about volunteers only because people asking why there is no article about a subject often seem to feel that an entity called "Wikipedia" has a moral obligation to produce one, and have difficulty understanding that an article will be written only when someone is interested enough to do the work. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mystery Girls

Hello John, I really DO understand why my small contribution wasn't "Encyclopedic" enough and was deleted. It was about an unknown country punkrock band from somewhere back in the nineties. But that band DID record a unexpected (and heartbreaking) version of the country classic "Angel from Montgomery".

And now I do understand how all these red links can happen. Kind regards,Marlies van den bosch (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The deleted article was about their album; an article about the band might be possible if their version of "Angel from Montgomery" attracted enough comment to meet the notability requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; but it's hard to write about an "unknown" subject without doing original research. JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

David W Hutton

I was not given time to start writing my page. I had to go work and I came home and you deleted it... give me some time so I can write something... that is notable in your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trustfreedom (talk • contribs) 02:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Your article said only that he was a contract attorney and had been cleared of a harassment charge. An article that does not "indicate why its subject is important or significant" may be speedy-deleted at any time. There was another problem - it was a copyright violation, and those too need to be speedily deleted. More advice on your talk page soon. JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

KCL Radio

Hi John,

As you can see, I'm new to wikipedia and I'm keen to adhere to your policies.

On the subject of KCL Radio, I feel it's an interesting subject of note to the 20,000 students of on of the world's best universities. It'll also be of note to anyone interested in King's College London. It's been on the kcl.ac.uk homepage and has just received a large investment. It's exceptional because there has never before been a radio station before at King's. There are only 4/100 of the top UK universities to not have a station.

Obviously, the page is currently quite bare but I'll be updating it over the next few week. I understand if, after the next few weeks, you still find it not notable.

Best wishes,

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfujam (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't give you a free pass - an article that doesn't make a credible claim of significance or importance may be speedy-deleted at any time. You can protect it for a few days by putting {{underconstruction}} at the top (two curly brackets each side). But it's not a case of whether you or I think it's important: I urge you to consider seriously whether you have any chance of meeting the notability requirements of substantial comment from independent sources, before you put as much wasted energy into this as your Netball Club colleagues did - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KCL Netball Club. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi John,

I will read these notability documents. I note, however, that UCL Radio and IC Radio both have a wikipedia page. It is true they have been going for longer and will have more things of note to say but I think our case is strong to be considered notable.

Sincerely,

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfujam (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that either of those would withstand a challenge - at a quick glance I don't see much substantial independent about their references. Probably our standards have risen over time; in any case "they have an article so we should have one" is not an argument that's accepted here: each article is assessed on its own merits. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

John,

Would you consider the article written by KCL independently of KCLSU and us notable? http://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/news_details.php?news_id=1460&year=2010 Also page 23 of King's' independent and official paper Comment (this is nothing to do with and is not influenced by the union) http://www.kcl.ac.uk/media/publications/comment.html Also our mention on the Alumni report page, again independent from us https://alumni.kcl.ac.uk/Page.aspx?pid=3546

I realise that all these references are from King's College London. However, KCLSU is completely separate.

If these are considered not noteworthy then fair enough. Will an article or two in The London Student (a university of London publication) suffice?

If not then could you please advise what would constitute of proof of 'noteworthyness' in this situation.Kungfujam (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfujam (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Some more pointers on your talk page soon. JohnCD (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete Alexander Chain (Chancovich)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TjonesCairo (talk • contribs) 01:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because it wasn't true - a blatant hoax. For instance:

• It is not "Chain's rule" but Chain Rule, and is not called after a person, as can be seen from its name in other languages: Règle de la chaîne, Kettenregel, Regla de la cadena.
• He is supposed to have been born in 1629, but the image you uploaded as "Painting of Alexander Chancovich at age 17" is labelled in the sale catalogue you copied it from as "Russian 19th Century portrait of a young man"
• Google Scholar has not heard of him

Please don't waste our time. JohnCD (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tartarus Press

Hi John. I've just added some references to the Tartarus Press Wikipedia page and wanted to run them by you. All the best Ray —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tartarusrussell (talk • contribs) 11:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the article talk page. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you change the Target Name

My Companies page is Centurion Guard, which is a legacy product and not the name of our company. How do I change it? (Centtech (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

Eamon Feeley

Didn't mean to take up your precious computer space about my article entitled "Eamon Feeley". Eamon Feeley was an American Inventor who among other facts invented a tractor blade used today in agricultural farming. It sounds like Wikipedia is too good for us anyway. No Great loss. I also thwart your hipocritical coment about "sorry for your loss". You had no problem losing this article did you? George Feeley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godar75 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandal alert.

Sorry to interrupt you, but can you block 121.54.42.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? He kept adding anime and tokusatsu titles into titles without providing references for his edits. His edits on three articles in particular have become rampant, BTW. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Kzka

If a users first edit is the creation of a clear hoax page, what are the odds of the user ever making constructive edits? JDDJS (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not very good, perhaps, but if he has been told to stop and has stopped, that's what we wanted. If you look at the blocking policy at WP:BLOCK#Disruption and WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings, you'll see that blocks are normally for persistent misconduct, which is why the box marked "Important" at the top of WP:AIV says "The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop." There are certainly cases where a first edit might be so bad as to call for an instant block, but I don't think this was one of them - it was a silly schoolboy, probably, seeing what he could get away with. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

chatlantis

can you please read the notes on that page... do i need to expand on this as an organization.. we're not a business? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetskiimike (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Adam Josephs

I have left a note in the articles discussion. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. I agree it is not an attack page, and I declined that G10 speedy deletion; but in my opinion it is a trivial incident not encyclopedically notable, per WP:BLP1E (the policeman has no notability except this one incident) and WP:NOTNEWS (it's a short-term news item of no long-term significance). But it will take an AfD to argue that out, it certainly is not speediable. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I compared the article to my material and I found it to be worse than I even thought, so using it in another way (i.e. including it in the article about the G20-Protests as CED suggested) wold not be more work. So could you perform the speedy-deletion-request by CED? Now its just a low-qualitiy article standing around. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't speedy-delete it: it does not fit the definition of WP:CSD#G10, which is for articles which serve no other purpose than to attack; nor does it fit WP:CSD#G7 author requests deletion, because you are not the only or even the first author; and as I have !voted in the AfD I cannot close that. Deletion will have to wait for the end of the AfD, unless some other admin chooses to close it early per WP:SNOW. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

HI JohnCD and Liberaler Humanist, i understand that this work i've done IS a bad translation and that you (L.H.) want do to more. Sorry for any circumstances, i put the CSD#G7 request template in the article. Have a nice day, Peter 232 (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for your note. The article has now been speedied by another admin, as both main authors requested deletion. JohnCD (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles

Please see User talk:Favonian#LouisPhilippeCharles and User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles#Both warnings -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Noted. I thought the form of words I suggested was watertight, but evidently I hadn't read enough of the history! JohnCD (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

speedy deletion

having read it i have now nominated 2 more article and listed in the reason the criteria thereof.

Bihar Assembly Election, 2010 + Bihar Assembly Elections, 2010. Is that better? ‎ Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Better but still not good - more advice on your talk page soon. JohnCD (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"CAMEELY"

did u write a page called "cameely"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pntbttrjllytm (talk • contribs) 00:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I deleted one, because it didn't give any idea why the subject was important or significant enough to have an article in an encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Crewing Solutions

John- I respect and appreciate your editing on WP. Regarding the Crewing Solutions page, I felt that Crewing Solutions was significant because it has created an application using a unique patented heuristic algorithm that fundamentally changed the business process of airline crew bidding. I purposely simply stated who, where, when. Not even much detail at that. Maybe that was my mistake. I could have described the import of what their applications approach does for Pilots and crewmembers. But atthe time I felt that would have been too "Salesy". Being a new contributor to Wikipedia, I'm not keen on the workings.

I now see that a similar company, - navtech - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navtech has a page doing nothing more then touting their organization, it's products, size and goals..

Thanks

Icvdm (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: (a) what is needed is evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish notability, (b) "they have an article so we should too" is not accepted as an argument - each article is considered on its own merits. More advice on your talk page later today. JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ravel Morrison

Any chance you can restore the content for this article or move to my sandbox. Notability conferred tonight by appearing for Manchester United as a very late substitute in a League Cup tie. Thanks in advance Zanoni (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The complete text of the article I deleted was "name=ravel morrison ravel morrison is a reserve footballer for utd and under 17 england he was born in wythenshawe." Not really worth restoring - you're welcome to copy it from here, but I think you'd do better to start from scratch. Cheers, JohnCD (talk)

Ah, thanks - will do Zanoni (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Knowledge (TV series)

Regarding your removal of the {{db-hoax}} template from The Knowledge (TV series)... this article was created by a known hoaxer. A film of that name from 1979 does exist, and an article for that exists at The Knowledge (film). There is no iMDb listing or any other verifiable information about a TV series of that name, however. I hope my logic for the tag makes sense. Thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that - the IMDb entry says "The Knowledge (TV 1979)" which I took to mean it was about a TV series. I suppose it must mean it was a made-for-TV movie. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Affinity4

Hello JohnCD. I have been working with DeltaQuad for some time now and recently started working with Sophie. My talk page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Car0lina01 and my sandbox is User:Car0lina01/sandbox. When we originally tried to create a page our IPs were blocked. I really don't want this happening again so DeltaQuad was working with me to ensure our page met Wiki standards. I haven't heard from DeltaQuad and/or Sophie since Friday. Can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Car0lina01 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

deleted article jeffrey landrigan

was in the middle of editing landrigan article when you deleted it. case is significant because drug used to execute landrigan came from a country where execution is illegal and where the contribution to execution is illegal.

supreme court issued a ruling on this case.

landrigan was executed after a bench trial where evidence of his limited capacity was kept from the trial judge.

just some interesting things that i thought made this article worth writing. Smithcure (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Jim V

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: The Lonely Island II

OK, I understand. Sorry for the wrong tag :) BINOY ^Talk 09:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's a classic case for the WP:HAMMER. JohnCD (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Between Weathers

Hi, JohnCD. Thanks for the updates. My own opinion is that autobiographies and other articles started by editors with close connections to a subject (employees, band members, etc.) are inherently promotional because, irrespective of their content, they serve (and aim) to enhance the prestige and notoriety of a subject by starting an article about it on a top ten website. That the benefit in such instances accrues almost exclusively to the subject rather than to the encyclopedia demonstrates that such activities have nothing to do with encyclopedia-building. It also demonstrates why they ought, in my view anyway, to be outright disallowed. Maybe that seems kind of bitey, but really: if the most you've got to offer Wikipedia is to use it to flog your band, yourself, or your crappy startup, maybe we could live without you. Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a point, but should we delete an otherwise-valid article because of the author's COI? The definition of WP:CSD#G11 is "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic", and if the article text is reasonably neutral that doesn't apply. I see it increasingly used where A7, for an unimportant company or band, would be better, or as a way to find a speedy for a non-notable album or film. Where, as here, it is the makers who list a forthcoming film, book etc, there is a promotional intent, but if the content is neutral then there's nothing for it but PROD or AfD, where an unreleased product will almost certainly fail notability.

We have a rather schizophrenic attitude to users with a COI; some people think they should be blocked at sight, but the anonymity of accounts makes it impossible to police, and in practice I'd bet that nearly every article about a new band, company, charity etc., even where they are notable, is started by somebody with a COI. WP:BESTCOI lays down sensible rules for them, and I'd rather have someone acknowledge a COI and play by those rules, than know he will be blocked if he declares himself and so feel compelled to operate anonymously. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

removed edit

Hi, I removed a personal attack from your page and warned the IP here , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had about three of those today - can't please everyone! JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Modernism

We understand that modernism is widely used, but the point is the title has to tie in with doing something new, and we have shown that people tend to trust things with names that they already know, as if the name is familiar to them....

Could we please have a text copy of the page?

The poems were created with a lot of thought, and things that dont make sense are shown to be more widely discussed, and the point is that we have alreaady created this type of entertaining poetry, or pooetry as it is being dubbed by our jealous competitors who didnt think of using the internet as a medium, and it is useful to get people thinking together.and we would like them to copy them to are scrapbook.

I still think if you read the page it might intriege you. ;-)

The storys are not saved anywhere as this was talked about and we said to write down nothing to give away the idea, as it is an original idea, from something which was actually happening before we decided to do this.

Ojdcharity 11:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Modernism type poetry is real see http://www.lesacvspip.co.uk/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by NamlessIamnot (talk • contribs) 11:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Ojdcharity 11:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read it, but I was puzzled rather than intrigued. I have put a copy into a temporary page at User:JohnCD/draft - you can copy it from there. Click "Edit", then "Select all" and "Copy", and paste it into Notepad or any word processor. I will leave that page for five hours and then delete it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page

I understand why the page I made today was deleted, what I was hoping for was possibly some advice? I realized as soon as I saw the speedy deletion notice that it was not an objective article. If I re-wrote the article objectively, without the "we"s or the adjectives, then it would be fine as an article on the company? I had just registered as a user today so I am trying to learn as much as I can about how everything works.

Also, if I do re-write it, is there a way to have it be checked over before I publish it, so I don't waste my time and yours (or whoever would show up and have to delete it)?

Thank you for your time,

Kev riker (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

For advice, start with WP:BFAQ and WP:YFA which I linked from your talk page - there's quite a lot to read there. More advice on your talk page soon, but maybe not till tomorrow. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see this, but if you can confirm when you get back to me, I would really appreciate it. Also, if there is more that would need done, please tell me that, too. Not only is it not objective, but also, is the problem that there are no reliable secondary sources? So, once the article is re-written, AND once there are other reliable sources which mention this company, then maybe I could try to upload a page for it again?

Thank you for your time,
Kev riker (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your help :-)
Kev riker (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Maude Trout

Dear John

I wonder if it would be possible to restore my page that was recently deleted ( A7 ) I am Maude Trout the artist and while not wishing to use Wikipedia as a hiding place, wish to explain succinctly to the art world who I am. I have established collectors who purchase my work and have never chosen to exhibit before.

I will be exhibiting for the first time in New York at a new gallery Indica on Eleventh. My work is already sold and is on loan to the gallery, so I am not using Wikipedia for a sales promotion! The exhibition and gallery opens with their first show on the 18th of November. Indica's website is at http://indicaon11th.com/about.html They will be launching it fully, shortly.

I wish to stay out of the press and public gaze and merely wish to explain my existence on Wikipedia. Would this be possible?

I am established with an underground following of collectors and certainly don't wish to promote my work via Wikipedia, I only wish to offer a brief explaination of who I am, as I chose not to have a website or give interviews.

I hope you can help

Regards

81.147.86.103 (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a problem, because as an encyclopedia Wikipedia only reports on people and things that are already established, so that what is included is verifiable. Our inclusion criterion, which we call notability, is not a matter of opinion but requires showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Multiple sources are usually required. As you have stayed out of the press and public gaze and have never exhibited, it does not seem that this is possible, so I am afraid Wikipedia cannot be the platform you use to explain to the art world who you are. I should add that, even though self-promotion is not your intention, autobiography in Wikipedia is strongly discouraged for reasons explained here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi John Many thanks for explaining your criteria, I totally understand. Keep up the good work. Is there any way the ' page deleted' message can be removed or the reference to the initial entry? Regards Squirky99 (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid we have no control over Google, but it should drop off their search results within a few days. JohnCD (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi John - I meant the Wiki message ( below )

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

10:43, 30 October 2010 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted "Maude Trout" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

thanks Squirky99 (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no way to suppress the deletion log; but much the most likely way that anyone would come on it is via a Google search, and I have found that there are steps, which I have taken, which may accelerate the name dropping off Google's radar. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hydropolitics in the Nile Basin

Howdy - I recreated this redirect (to Water politics in the Nile Basin) to repair some red links. I noticed afterwards that your deleted an essentially identical redirect 3 months ago. There's no additonal note on your action beyond R3, so I thought it best to ask here if you see any reason to delete what's there now. Cheers. - TB (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am embarrassed to admit that I have no idea why I did that, particularly if it left redlinks. It was "recently created" by an article move but not, I would now think, implausible. So no, I see no reason to delete it. Thanks for checking, JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - TB (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Lethal Lipstick article deleted

Hi John,

My name is Nick Miller (a.k.a. Nick Grind). I posted an article on my former band, Lethal Lipstick, that you subsequently deleted, apparently for copyright violations. However, I am the owner of the Facebook page where you found the same text. I assure you that the text is purely my own writing, composed from personal memory.

As a band, we haven't performed in many years. But I still see a lot of chat rooms, msg boards, etc. looking for information on us. So I created the Facebook page and the Wiki article to provide the real story from the actual source.

I've read the copyright restrictions here on Wiki, but they do seem somewhat complicated to me. In simple terms, what can I do to get the page restored?

Thanks and regards,

Nick

NickGrind (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just asserting authorship is not enough, because (a) we have no way to be sure you are who you say, and (b) release to Wikipedia involves more than just permission to reproduce, and the copyright holder has to understand and agree to the license terms. What you need to do is described at WP:Donating copyrighted materials; the simplest way is to display on the source web-site the form of words given in the paragraph headed "Granting us permission to copy material already online".

But please read the last paragraph I put on your talk page: a Facebook page, unaltered, is not likely to make a satisfactory Wikipedia article, and if you just post that it might well be deleted or heavily edited. The WP:Verifiability policy requires reliable sources for what an article says, and to establish notability (see WP:BAND for the standard for bands) needs some independent sources. WP:Your first article has good advice. JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

ferhamirdawi/shortcuts.com

I spent weeks on my wikipedia page for Shortcuts.com and it was submitted for a speedy deletion for "copyright". I am the Product lead for Shortcuts.com at AOL and would like to update the page - we are the owners of the copyright material so I can address this easily. Can you un-delete so that I can address the issue? Please sympathize:I spent weeks learning how to develop the page and drafting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferhamirdawi (talk • contribs) 17:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just asserting authorship is not enough, because (a) we have no way to be sure you are who you say, and (b) release to Wikipedia involves more than just permission to reproduce, and the copyright holder has to understand and agree to the license terms. What you need to do is described at WP:Donating copyrighted materials; the simplest way is to display on the source web-site the form of words given in the paragraph headed "Granting us permission to copy material already online".

However, it is clear that you are writing about your employer's product, which means that, from our point of view, you have a WP:Conflict of interest. Please read that guideline, and also WP:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion, and is very sensitive to that danger. In summary, you should not post an article yourself, but submit it at WP:Articles for creation, declaring your interest when you do, so that other editors can decide whether it is suitable. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Between Weathers (film)

Hi John I'm looking after press and publicity for the movie between weathers. I added the movie information to wikipedia under the username betweenweathers (which I now realise was potentially misleading), I noticed that you deleted the post because of copyright issues...I have full authority to use all the information and material from the web site on wikipedia. How do I reinforce this? Is there any way I can retrieve the page or is there a better way I can create a wikipedia entry for the movie?

All advice welcome!

Best Regards Jeff Riley Jaffster65 (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your copyright question is given in the thread immediately above this, but I'm afraid I must be even more discouraging to you.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is specifically not for promotion of any kind; and yes, an entry placed by its makers about a film not "due to be filmed" until next year would be promotion. For that reason, and also because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for articles about future events, the inclusion guidelines for films at Wikipedia:Notability (films) say that: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Even after production has commenced, an article would need to meet the notability guideline, which might well not be possible until independent reviews were available.

Wikipedia is very aware of the danger of being used for advertising and promotion, and very resistant to it: please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest to understand the restrictions that you would need to observe in any editing of Wikipedia on behalf of your employers. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like my article undeleted so that later my theory isn't tured into thanks for the tip.

I would like my article "Longevity by Cosmic Acceleration Theory" undeleted so that later my theory isn't tured into thanks for the tip. In other words someone else steeling my theory. Since this theory can be proven thru physics.

If you mean, put it back in the encyclopedia, I won't do that because it is original research. Now it has been deleted, no-one can steal it from here. If you mean you want to make a copy for yourself, I can undelete it temporarily for an hour so you can copy it - is that what you want? JohnCD (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What started out as a theory that turned into disrespect and ended up deleted my an administrator unfairly.

So, will this theory be stolen from me? I gave you a copy. User talk:Edgar181 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

For reasons of respect please allow me to propose that a valid theory should not be deleted because an administrator just doesn't like the theory for there own personal reasons. Please change your decision of deleting Longevity by Cosmic Acceleration Theory. I can prove this theory thru Physics. Mark Williams, Electrical Engineer, Texas A&M University 2002

I started this thread to suggest that some Longevity myths may actually be facts. I really would like to keep credit for my theory instead of a thanks for the tip. This theory also involves Einstein’s Time Dilation by Relativity Theory, Applied Physics and Cosmic Activity. So, Time dilation is responsible for Biblical Longevity as an explanation after Noah’s flood because the earth is still rotating 365 days a year normally given that ancient records were recorded correctly. To clarify, this theory says that a living being can age slower or faster in its solar system since effects from within the galaxy or universe do not affect the earth’s typical orbit. Meaning the earth is still normally rotating 365 days a year however the speed of the galaxy traveling in the universe has changed do to gravitational effect from other bodies such as black holes were Time Dilation has occurred. Furthermore, the measured time of the clock will speed up during deceleration as the earth approaches the speed at creation which should be zero meters per second and in contrast the measured time of the clock will slow down as it approaches the speed of light since it is accelerating. So basically, you could start ageing faster or slower and you wouldn't know by examining your relative time at that instant but over a period of time a difference would be noticed since your time is based on the rotation around the Sun. Krunchlol (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Mark Williams, Electrical Engineer, Texas A&M University 2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krunchlol (talk • contribs)

Sorry but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Maybe wou would like to try Alternative outlets. -- Alexf(talk) 20:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC) How would alternative outlets fix a valid theory? Why would you think that I may like your suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krunchlol (talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Krunchlol (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your theory was not "deleted because an administrator just doesn't like the theory"; it was deleted because it is your own original work, and an encyclopedia is not for publishing original work. Wikipedia's basic policies include:

• WP:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
• WP:No original research: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources."

Alternative outlets was a helpful suggestion, because you want to publish your theory, and there are other sites that would let you do that - for instance, Wikademia, whose Welcome page invites you to: "Share your knowledge and ideas with others... Conduct and publish original research".

JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ben-Bopper

I suspect that Ben-Bopper (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Pricer1980 (talk · contribs). I had this suspicion before, and another editor brought him up independently. I did not follow up on Ben-Bopper before because he did not really target film articles. However, in November so far, he has made edits with false company information such as this with no relationship between that film and "Temple Hill" and "Screen Gems". To tie Ben to the recent IP sockpuppets that made false TriStar-related edits, there is this. Overall, it's a slightly different pattern, but the recent explosion of film-related activity is odd. What do you think is the proper course of action? Checkuser, typical round of content warnings, something else? (Also, I suspect Donald McKinney (talk · contribs) may be a sockpuppet as well; very similar edits to early Pricer1980. Just has not edited enough for me to really follow up.) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to start a SSI report on Pricer1980. We don't actually have one, and it would help to have something on record here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say, I think that's the best thing to do if he has started using sock accounts. With his throwaway IPs there wasn't a lot of point. JohnCD (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pricer1980. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Robertson Bullies EP

Would you care to get Stereo-Types too? Same rationale, same artist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Integrity Watch Afghanistan

Dear JohnCD,

Thank you for having unblocked the Integrity Watch Afghanistan account and put the edited version live. I have taken over the account and put a request to change the username. The point that JamesBWwatson made about promoting the organisation - well as the current version stands, it only talks about the organisation but one of the main reasons why this page was created was to increase people awareness about the methodology of local based monitoring in post conflict countries and how this can empower citizens and include them in good governance.... this bit was originally there but taken away by help desk....do you think there is anyway to add a section about the methodology? Would I be able to add it myself or do I need a neutral party to review it?

Thank you very much for all your help!!! Kind regards, Karolina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrity Watch Afghanistan (talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I will reply to your new talk page, but it will be a day or maybe two. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Lauren Boquette Page

I was curious why the Lauren Boquette page was deleted?

Can you please give me more information on how to finalize the details of the page and make it stay on Wikipedia.com. I am a recording artist which is already linked to some pages already. (For example; Alfunction, Six, Argyle Park and more).

Thank you!

Lauren1605 (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Lauren Boquette

Page restored as a contested PROD; explanation and advice on your user talk page soon. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Eyeless (band)" page

Why did you delete the "eyeless (band)" page? Is not that "Wiki Vandalism?" It appears many parties put hard work into compiling all of that information from them onto that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobVanWinkle (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't, actually; what I deleted was a redirect from "Eyeless" to "Eyeless (band)", which had already been deleted three times by different administrators, for the same reason: it didn't show that the band (yet) meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, which are explained at WP:BAND. I'm sorry if people put a lot of work into it, but if they read WP:Your first article and WP:Notability (music) it will help them avoid wasting effort another time. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You deleted my Wiki Page

Dear JohnCD,

I am just asking why you flagged my wiki page to be taken down and deleted. I am doing this page for a class project that is due on Wednesday and when I went to put up the finishing touches on it with pictures and references, just now, your name popped up with a note saying you have deleted all of my hard work. It took me hours to do this page and I do not appreciate what you have down. I do not believe I will have enough time to complete my project thanks to you.

GradStudent407 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GradStudent407 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web host for class projects. What you wrote was blatantly promotional in tone; Wikipedia does not allow advertisements even in user space. Advice on your talk page soon. JohnCD (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)