User talk:Dcourtneyjohnson

Welcome!

Hello, Dcourtneyjohnson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Dave Johnson (blogger), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -Zeus-^u_c 23:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Dave Johnson (blogger)

A tag has been placed on Dave Johnson (blogger) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -Zeus-^u_c 23:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Commonweal Institute

A tag has been placed on Commonweal Institute requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. §FreeRangeFrog 23:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation notification

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcourtneyjohnson. Thank you. THF (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dave johnson and heads up

I have been working to get Dave Johnson (blogger) saved. I am sorry that editor want to delete your contributions.

You may also be interested in this: Talk:Cool_Hand_Luke#Dcoutneyjohnson Ikip (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you created: Dave Johnson (blogger) may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Johnson (blogger).

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted {{Findsources3}}:

Find sources for Dave Johnson: Find sources: gbooks, a9, msbooks, gscholar, msacademic, gnews recent, gnews old, NYT recent, NYT old ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:

1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.

2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)

3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.

4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.

If your page is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, along with the notes that I am breaking rules if I edit the article, and the "investigations" of others who have edited it. I get it.--Dcourtneyjohnson (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I didn't create the article.Dcourtneyjohnson (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you didn't create the article, I thought it was wierd that an editor was nice enough to give you a warning that the article was to be deleted. Do me a big favor. Don't get blocked because others will turn around and use your block against me, it will be guilt by association, saying I was assisting and helping a disruptive editor, who is now blocked forever. Ikip (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

You have (at least) twice tried to out User:THF, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Johnson (blogger) and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcourtneyjohnson. This is explicitly not allowed on Wikipedia. You may have been unaware of thos policy, so you mayt regard this as a final warning: "Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." Fram (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know. The person in question did so about himself, FYI.--Dcourtneyjohnson (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding you comments on the Afd

I don't know whether I can cut and paste those comments here, because I don't want to be accused of outing too, but if true, I find your comments ironic, sad, and funny.

I once wrote a little essay called the "Elephant in the room" in which politically motivated AfDs are commonplace. Editors will nominate articles about subjects they disagree with politically, and then editors with the same political beliefs will join in, in some cases even editors in the same little cabal.

One example of many, I remember how one editor, lets use the name ICB, would actively delete everything that he perceived as a conspiracy theory, the "conspiracy theory" brush was quite wide, and included leftist articles too. Then an Obama conspiracy theory came up, tarnishing Obama, and he voted to keep.

The sad fact is there is no effective mechanisms to fight such disruption. Passive aggressive behavior is king on wikipedia (and the rules don't apply to everyone --but that is another conversation). A person can tell another person to "fuck off" and get banned immediately, but that same person can delete hundreds of hours of work, targeting a person, telling the victim to "fuck off" by his actions, and there is no way to effectively address such abuse. That is why the Economist said that "self promoted deletionsts" are the reason why edits have dropped on Wikipedia since October 2007. That is why the media is UNIVERSAL negative against wikipedia's deletion policies. You have what are basically Single Purpose Accounts, editors who do nothing but delete articles, disrupting thousands of editors lives, and deleting thousands of hours of editors contributions, and when editors predictably and justifiably fight back against such "bullying", they are told that they are disrupting wikipedia. It is a sad, Orwellian twist on logic and rationality, sadly one of many on Wikipedia.

A crude baramoter of how a person stands in this deletion debate is this tool, with occasional exceptions: http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php (slow werver). Just type in the editors name. You notice that I have one deletion.

Now, again, please remember to be on your best behavior. I am taking a big risk by messaging you publicly, against some very powerful editors who don't like me, and abhor what I am writing right now. If you fuck up, editors will use your fuck up as a guilt by association argument against me, it has happened more than once. Ikip (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)