User talk:JohnCD: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:38, 24 November 2016

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message.

If you have come here about a page I deleted, you will probably find the explanation here; if that does not answer your question, click the link just above to leave me a message. Please mention the name of the page, and sign your post with four "tilde" characters ~~~~ so that I know who you are.

If I have left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I am watching it.

If you leave a message here I will usually reply here, but if my reply contains advice I hope you will find useful, I may place it on your talk page. (Talk page stalkers: you are welcome; if you see no reply here, there is probably one on the other talk page; I have decided to stop making a note here when I reply there).

You may E-mail me via the "E-mail this user" link under "Toolbox" in the left-hand sidebar, but you will get a faster response here; I suggest you do not use e-mail unless you need privacy. I will normally reply on your talk page, not by e-mail.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 13 days may be automatically archived by .

Baron Berkeley

May I add that you keep deleting relevant and true information? I don't personally know the new earl but I know a family friend and I can get the relevant details to prove his succession. Mossley1 (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mossley1:Wikipedia requires reliable, published sources, particularly in a WP:REDFLAG situation like the claim of a re-established earldom which has not appeared in the The London Gazette. If you have such sources, provide them at Talk:Baron Berkeley. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Fitzgerald (ice hockey)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Fitzgerald (ice hockey) This page was deleted in July as a result of failing WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG, however I was looking and realized that he does indeed meet the requirements as justified by: "Achieved preeminent honors in a lower minor or major junior league (all-time top ten career scorer or First Team All-Star), or in an NCAA Division I collegiate hockey league (all-time top ten career scorer or First or Second Team All-American)." Fitzgerald was named to the 2nd All-American Team in 2015-16. (See List of Division I AHCA All-American Teams). Mushh94 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushh94: it will be a few days (no more than a week) before I have time to look into this. If you don't want to wait, you are welcome to apply at WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks.Mushh94 (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushh94: I have restored the article as it was pre-AfD, having confirmed with the WikiProject that he meets WP:NHOCKEY #4. I have added a note on the talk page; will you update the actual article with the proper reference? I'm not sure I understand the subject enough to do it right. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will, thank you! Mushh94 (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - passwords changed and two-factor authorisation set up on WP and linked email account. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Parteeism

I have a complaint regarding the deletion of my article. It was stated that the article was deleted by it was "obviously invented by the creator of the article" but aren't all religions invented by someone? The apes dont climb down from the trees knowing about religion. Someone had to set down the beliefs of every religion created on this planet. What makes mine any different?Nianiad (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nianiad: yes, they probably are all invented by someone, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about their own inventions. That's not an encyclopedia's job. What we do is summarise what has already been published about a subject in reliable sources. One of our fundamental policies is Wikipedia:No original research, which includes:

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery."

Read Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, which I linked from your talk page; that explains the reasons and the background. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you literally nothing better to do than quote wikipedia legislation? Nianiad (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I am quoting are the policies and guidelines worked out by thousands of people over more than ten years, which make Wikipedia a useful encyclopedia rather than just a random chat site. If you want to become a constructive contributor, they would help you; if you just want to tell the world about your invented "religion" there are plenty of other places you can do that. Try Facebook, or Twitter, or see WP:Alternative outlets for more ideas. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah excuse me, how can I preach my glorious new religion in 140 characters? Answer me that John. Nianiad (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's your problem; but Rabelais, who had the same idea nearly 500 years before you, managed it in only 22: Fais ce que tu voudras. In English it's even shorter: Do what thou wilt - see François Rabelais#Thélème. JohnCD (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IQ Option official website blacklisted by mistake

Hello, John! First of all, I'd like to thank you for the link you posted on my talk page. The thing is I'm trying to add some links to the article on IQ Option (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_Option) and I can't because it's blacklisted. I searched for the domain (iqoption.com) in all blacklists and managed to find only \biqoption\.com here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist. Could this be the reason all links to the official website are forbidden? What should I do now? Rrusl u (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rrusl u:Yes, that's the entry. That is the master blacklist which covers all the Wikimedia projects. You should make your request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist as explained under "Proposed removals" on that page. JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Macedonian

Okay. I am glad that I did report it at AN if you recognized it as a known pest. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest Macedonian was Alexander the Great, and he, being a pupil of Aristotle, would not have been persuaded by philosophical gobbledy-gook. After all, one of Aristotle's objectives was to expose the rhetorical tricks of the Sophists. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long rants on Jimbo's talk page are a speciality. If you put the name of his subject into the archive search box there, you will find plenty of them. I wasted an hour re-reading them, but was rewarded by finding in the de-wiki discussions the splendid German adjective babelfischverunfallten for a text garbled by machine translation.

Bearing in mind what he did with the Gordian Knot, I don't think Alexander would have had much patience with the wrangles about the name. JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my own assumption is that the whole point to the Gordian Knot is that it was a test of what tool to use, that you won't create an empire by your skill with ropes, because empires were always created with the sword, which is what Alexander used. Exactly. Alexander probably wouldn't have used his own sword on sophists who argued about nomenclature, just found a headsman to do the deed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi JohnCD.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review needs your help

Hi JohnCD,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viscount of Boschet

Hi, I would have appreciated a friendly chat before you deleted my page. I was adding some info following an inheritance and am a new user on wikipedia. Its put me off any further contributions Im afraid. Drstevejones (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drstevejones: I am sorry that Wikipedia does not make it clearer to new users that it is not the sort of social-networking site where people write about themselves. That is strongly discouraged (see Wikipedia is not about YOU and Wikipedia:Autobiography). Also, there is a Wikipedia:Verifiability policy which requires reliable, published sources for what is added - the point of published being that readers should, in principle, be able to check on what they find here.

On other subjects, your contributions will be welcome: the WP:Welcome page and the WP:Introduction are good starting points. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G12

I had thought that an actual unattributed copy-and-paste of an existing article to draft space would qualify for G12. Thank you. I see that an admin agrees. I run into this situation on Articles for Creation occasionally. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a bit of a technical violation, but it's generally not a good idea to have multiple copies floating around, in case they get edited in parallel. I do think it's desirable to explain the reason to the copier, who may well be puzzled by a simple copyvio notice, and I have done that for this one. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating multiple copies happens in several ways. Occasionally enthusiastic inexperienced editors create several copies of the same article with different titles because they don't know how redirects work and don't realize that multiple copies will get out of sync. In that case the answer is of course to replace all of the non-primary pages with redirects and to explain to the enthusiastic inexperienced editor. Creating multiple copies of drafts in draft space is relatively common for at least two reasons. The first is good-faith confusion, in which an editor thinks that, when their draft is declined, they have to enter it all over again to resubmit it. This is well-meaning, but it really mucks up the job of reviewing. The second is gaming the system, in which an author knowingly creates multiple copies, either in draft space or in article space , or sometimes in Wikipedia space because they don't know what Wikipedia space is, or in one case today in portal space. However, none of those are actual rip-offs. In this case, it was an actual copy-and-paste from main space into draft space. That's only copyright infringement because of the highly technical way that we have defined copyright, but it is plagiarism, and that is reason enough. What also happens occasionally is an editor writing and submitting a draft that is already in article space. What also happens occasionally is two (or three) different editors independently creating drafts on the same topic. That gets detected when the reviewer tries to move the draft into draft space with the proper title and it hits the existing draft, and then the reviewer has to ask the two authors if they can coordinate with each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JohnCD. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I've tried to edit the Wiki page of our company, but the whole page was deleted. The name was "Omixon". Can we restore the original page we had before my edits? Something was against your policy, but I'm not sure which part of my edits was wrong and caused the deletion.

Thank you!