If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|JohnCD}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Messages before 1 Feb 08 are in Archive 1

February 2008

deletion

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Rollback

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

Absolutely. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Cliche-29

A tag has been placed on Cliche-29 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

Aerospace engineering

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

Rollback

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

Claire Sproule

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

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

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

deletion

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

Patrolling

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

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

Lava pillars

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

TrimWater

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

Notability of MacMobile

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perepiteia

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

I love it!

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

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

Speedy Tagging

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

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

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

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

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

Stuplid Question

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

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

Blanking

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

Speedy deletion nomination of User_Carerra/Nintendogs

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

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

Speedy Delete

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

Curious...

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion of Alex O'Carroll

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eóin (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Damn Straight

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

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

Respond to JohnCD

Regarding User:Malaka, here are my comments:

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

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

Re: Alex O'Carroll

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

Hockertonite

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

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

Inacronym

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

Alexander William Gaskarth

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

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

"bethany erickson"

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

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

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

DEFCON, Inc.

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

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

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

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

Faculty of Humanities

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

March 2008

The Sound of Reason

Sorry I am new to this and I did read the guidelines, I'm a bit confused about what you meant when you said the contents don't match the subject. The sound of reason is the name of the band I wrote about. --4min4 (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologise, there are an awful lot of guidelines and it is confusing at first (in fact not just at first!) But now I'm confused - I don't think I said "the contents don't match the subject", and I did understand that "The Sound of Reason" was the name of the band. The speedy-deletion tag I put on said: "It is an article about a band... that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject"; that is, the article didn't show that the band was notable as defined in WP:MUSIC, which has a long list of "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" - released two or more albums on a major label, had a charted hit on a national chart, made an international concert tour, subject of multiple non-trivial works from a reliable, independent sources... Read WP:MUSIC again, and if you think the band does meet that standard, then write the article again making clear how it does, and giving references so that your sources can be checked. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

so should I go back and delete the afd tags and replace with {{db-author}} ? Granite07 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, someone has already done that for you, and the pages are gone; I just let you know how to do it, in case it should happen again that you want to get rid of a page you created. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How was my edit to andy mccallin vandalism and the page on damian dillon is all fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledybo (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riaan Manser

I have added some more info to the Riaan Manser page. I think it deserves to be on Wikipedia, it is an interesting historical fact.Christianpunk (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK - when I tagged the page for speedy deletion, there was only a single sentence and no supporting references. Since then, more information has been added, making it clear the subject is notable enough not to qualify for speedy deletion, and another editor has taken off the speedy tag. So you don't need {{hangon}} any more, and I've removed it.

Another time, it is best not to put an article in until there is enough of it to make clear it is a serious article: unfortunately, a lot of people put in articles that are one trivial line or otherwise unsuitable, and as one way of weeding them out, the "New Pages Patrol" looks at them as they come in and tags ones that look unsuitable. You can prepare an article off-line in a word-processor like Notepad, and try it out in the sandbox, until it's ready to go in. Another possibility is to put {{underconstruction}} at the top of a part-finished article, which will protect it for a few days. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

In my Egypt book, Dier el-Bahri is spelled differently, that's y I goofed, sorry about that, and that other Dier el-Bahri Di-something, I didnt make that...someone did, I just made one today, the Dier el-Bahri, the one that I goofed on, IM A NEWBIE, SO IM NOT REAL GOOD AT THIS... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aresurkas (talk • contribs) 19:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of new Baird Jones page

JohnCD -

The proto-article that I created on Baird Jones meets the criteria for notability as I interpret them, and was primarily meant as a starting point for other editors to expand upon. Please "google" Mr. Jones to reaffirm his significance; The New York Times does not write article-length obituaries about unknown persons. As a matter of fact, I was shocked when learning of Mr. Jones' recent untimely death to discover that Wikipedia does not already have an entry for him; I have read entries about numerous lesser-known subjects that happily persist on this forum.

As an example, I deliberately included a link to Mark Kostabi's wiki-page. Front and center is a picture of Mr. Kostabi with . . . Baird Jones. It makes Wikipedia stronger when it is possible to cross-reference individuals, places, and events that are included in the content of other entries. Otherwise, users such as myself must just scratch our heads and wonder about those mentioned with no corresponding entry.

Thank you.

Asingleton-green (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of Wikipedia's problems is that encouraging everyone to contribute means that a steady stream of unsuitable articles pours in, many on an "I'll finish it when I have time" or "Perhaps someone else will improve this" basis. As one way to filter them, the (informal) New Pages Patrol looks at them as they come in and flags unsuitable ones for admin attention. So it is important that a new article is full enough to make clear that it has at least the potential to meet Wikipedia's standards.

I didn't actually delete the article on Baird Jones - I flagged it as not, in my opinion, indicating notability, and then an admin looked at it, agreed, and did the actual deletion. So I can't now see it but, as I recall, it did not provide any references, which are an important way to establish notability. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."

If you want to re-create the article, my advice is: read carefully the guidelines on Notability, Notability (people), Verifiability and Reliable Sources. The guide to writing Your_first_article is helpful, too. Do any necessary googling to find references. Write your article again, and don't actually put it in until it is complete, including references. If it is challenged, put {{hangon}} at the top, and give reasons on its talk page.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JohnCD - I understand that you might not have deleted the Baird Jones page that you flagged for speedy deletion personally, but I never had the chance to {hangon}. Please see the associated link: [[1]], which I had no part in creating. Shouldn't it be incumbent upon you to do even a minor web search before passing judgement on who is notable and who is not? With all due respect, I doubt you or I or several thousand of other Wikipedia entrants will ever achieve the level of notability that Baird Jones achieved. Which administrator deleted his page? I can put it up again, but I am extremely frustrated by what seems to me to be a broken process. I am no vandal (nor hun, nor visigoth), and the instantaneous deletion of a legitimate contribution to your community was, a mon avis, wrong. Please reply and explain why I am misguided. Thanks.

Asingleton-green (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that new articles are created at a rate of more than one a minute, and that Wikipedia editors are unpaid volunteers on just the same footing as yourself (except for a small proportion, also unpaid volunteers, who have extra duties and powers as administrators). I don't see why you should expect other editors to do your research for you. From the link you now present, it seems that references to establish Baird Jones's notability are available, so that an acceptable article about him could be written. Fine - go ahead and write it. Or, as pointed out on the search page, you can put it on a list of requested articles and someone else may pick up on the idea; but you can't demand that they should - an article gets written when someone is interested enough to do the work.

Nor do I think you can really complain of a broken process: the pages you must have gone through on the way to creating your article set out Wikipedia's requirements very clearly - quote:

"You can create this article:

Read Wikipedia:Your first article.
Gather references to the source(s) of your information.
Create the page including your references."

...and "Your first article" starts with 8 tips to consider, of which nos. 3, 6 and 8 concern references again.

The article you put in was deleted, not because we assumed its subject was not notable, but because the article didn't indicate his notability. However, the notification you got told you why, and gave a you a name to complain to; if you now put "Baird Jones" into the search box and click "Go", and on the next screen under "You can create this article" click "Create the page", you will get to a screen which (after again referring you to "Your first article" and to the need for references) shows you which administrator deleted the article, when and why. You can complain to him, but I think you will get much the same answer as this.

You may have a point that the speedy-deletion process is rather too speedy, but in view of the rate at which new articles appear, a regrettably high proportion of which are unsuitable (and a surprising number libellous), some form of input filter is necessary; and speedy deletion is not necessarily the end of an article.

I hope that as a result of all this you will rewrite the article with sources and we will end up with a good article on Baird Jones. Then I think the process will have worked correctly. The alternative would have been for me to flag it "notability doubtful" and "lacks references", when it might well have lingered on in that state, or been nominated for deletion later. There is a "Wikiproject notability" who work to try to improve articles like that, but their current backlog is over 15,000. Better for you, who are the one interested in Baird Jones, to get the article right in the first place. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will try to follow your advice. Asingleton-green (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam warning for Insurepink

Care to elaborate as to how this version constitutes spam? I agree that the original article was promotional material, but I tried my best to rewrite it in a neutral tone. I'm not particularly committed to the article so I don't feel like fighting over it, but it seems like its worth at least getting some debate over before deleting. I'm not sure if it's notable enough to keep, but I think the spam tag here is way off. Fightindaman (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was suspicious of Insurepink because it had been speedied six times already: Lowey100 (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account, kept inserting it, got blocked 24 hrs, carried on, got blocked a week, inserted it again the day that block expired, was indef-blocked at 16:57 today, and within five minutes the article was back again from you - this began to look like an organised campaign and my first thought was that you must be a new sock of Lowey100. However I see that you are an established editor, and that another user has taken the spam tag off: it still looks like an advertisement to me, but I won't edit-war about it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whytegold

Hey,

What is wrong with the Whytegold entry? I'd be grateful if you could put it back up, it's all true information.

It may well be all true but still not suitable for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia not a business directory or advertising service. You should read the Business' FAQ and the guidelines on Conflict of Interest, Advertising and Notability (organizations and companies). JohnCD (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but what if I want to make it an encyclopedia article. The page gives information about Whytegold like all the other company pages. I have no promotional schemes or offers. Could you tell me which parts dont comply the the rules? That'd be really helpful. Thanks

The best advice I can give you is already there in the Business' FAQ. See especially the sections headed:

Remember, too, that one of the ways Wikipedia differs from a business directory is that if your company has an article you don't own it, and cannot prevent other people from editing it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for welcoming me, and also i understood what you said in my talkpage. Dsr2008 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not As Good As Us

I'll do the necessary work to get the page on properly, but is there any way I can get my original text back? It wasn't War And Peace, I admit, but I wanted to save it :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paustin (talk • contribs) 13:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact the admin who actually deleted it, Jmlk17 (talk · contribs), or any admin in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Ask for the article to be restored into your user space for you to work on. But make sure the band meets the criteria in Notability (music), and that your article shows how they do, with references from independent, reliable sources, or it'll just be deleted again. One other thing - when you leave a message on a talk page, it's a good thing to end it with four "tilde" characters ~~~~ - the system automatically turns that into a "signature" with your username plus the time and date - like this: JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fa Real (Artist)

Hello, I would like to ask if I can keep my page for the time being...? Averageguyfromdereksforum (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a ~~meganerd~~ admin; but nobody can give you a "free pass" for an article that doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements. It won't stay unless the subject meets the standards of notability set out in Notability (music), and the article provides references from independent, reliable sources. Also, if it's about you, you need to read the guidelines on Autobiography and Conflict of Interest. The point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or an advertising medium or a social networking site. Sorry, JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh. Thanks anyway Averageguyfromdereksforum (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazil (band)

I changed my vote on an the AFD I started. Felt I should let you know. I still feel it is horribly weak on the sourcing, but they got it in on a technicality. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know - I'll look at it again in the morning. Seems there are more sources than appeared. It looks as if it'll stay anyway, even if I don't bother to change my vote. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling

Can you keep an eye on the Hazrat fatimah article, the creator keeps removing the tags instead of letting due process take place. I tagged it as nonsense because a) one would have though that a daughter of Muhammad would already have an article, and b) it starts off in the present tense and uses the past tense later on. I've left a note on the creators talk page about the process. Mjroots (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - it seems to have gone, but I'll keep an eye in case it comes back. JohnCD (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

I did not block the IP, as the vandalism stopped Diff. You could bring the topic up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or just wait and see what happens next time, your choice. Jeepday (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait and see - they seem to have gone quiet. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Maloney

Hi JohnCD, Didn't intend the entry as a personal attack. The inspiration for the entry is actually in the room right now, and we're editing it together. It's a fairly common, and growing, term among Annapolis locals, particularly in the downtown area, between the ages of 25 and 40 and something that a number of us would categorize as worth entry into Wikipedia...as it is referenced, like any good cultural term, worldwide. I personally can trace it's random usage to folks in California, Hawaii, even Prague in the Czech Republic and troops have used it in Afganistan. So if this doesn't fit the standard of content for Wikipedia, please let me know. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Wes Sims —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaibash09 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some funny friends, Mr Maloney has... I have put on your talk page the more friendly welcome paragraph you would have got if I hadn't thought it was an attack. Read the guidelines it points to, particularly about verification from independent, reliable sources; also about how Wikipedia is not that keen on neologisms and is particularly not for things you made up one day. One other thing - when you leave a note on a talk page, it's considered polite to end it with four tilde characters ~~~~ which the system automatically turns into a timed and dated signature - like this: regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

page deleted

can you tell me why you deleted the page i was trying to put on wikipedia? i placed it yesterday, but left a link and it was deleted. As i found out, the link might have been a problem, so I didn't put it this time. And its not an advertising! There are general information about the products and how they work and it is only for further knowledge and as an example for readers that I mentioned a specific product. Can you tell me what should I do? Thx Harshy (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Harshy[reply]

Even without the link, it was still promotional. You will find advice on contributing when you or your company have an interest at the Business' FAQ. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to put it again. Do you know how to unblock the title for the future? I try to work on it. Thx. Harshy (talk)Harshy —Preceding comment was added at 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title isn't blocked: if you enter it in the search box and click "Go" you will get to a screen on which you can click "Create the page". But read the advice on those screens, especially the Guide to creating your first article, and read the Business' FAQ carefully, or the article will just be deleted again. If any part of your motive is to promote your company or its products, even indirectly, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the Help

JohnCD, Thanks for your help last week, I really appreciate it. I know from your talk page that you aren't looking for Wikipedia to take over your life, but I was wondering if you'd be interested in writing and submitting the article that I was tying to post. I've read the guidelines and believe that my article conforms to the standards, yet I know I have little hope of successfully posting this article. The link to the article is User:David.a.gelman/Mobivox Draft.

The reasons why I believe this article belongs on Wikipedia can be found on the talk page of this link, but essentially they boil down to the fact that this company utilizes several “hot” telephony technologies and is unique in the combination of these technologies. If you disagree I would greatly appreciate hearing your reasons why. If you simply do not want to write it, would you mind suggesting someone who might. As a note, I've posted on the talk pages' of several relevant articles asking if anyone would be willing to write this article but have yet to see anything come of it. David.a.gelman (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to write the article or put it in myself (and it would have no special protection if I did), but I would like to help because you are going the right way about it. I'll do some looking around and try to advise you, but it may take a few days, so don't stop your other efforts. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyesore

You PROD'd this article. An IP removed it and I thus listed it for deletion. Just thought I'd notify you. Take care! Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 23:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look at it. JohnCD (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Brian Heaton page

How does this meet the criteria for speedy deletion? It may not have been long, but Heaton is a GOD in the goalie equipment world and deserves an article -- it certainly could've been expanded on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beijing goalie (talk • contribs) 15:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was WP:CSD#A7 "An article about a real person... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." You know he's "a god", but the article didn't say that - it just said he designs goalie equipment, and some goalies use it. Write the article again, giving more detail of why he's significant, and references, and you'll have no trouble; but don't put it in till it's complete enough to make it clear the subject is notable. You may feel it should have been left to see whether it would be expanded on later, but an awful lot of two-line articles get put in that won't - see a discussion further up this talk page headed "Speedy deletion of new Baird Jones page" here for just this same discussion. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, I will try the article again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beijing goalie (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Martin Watts page

This page is of a real player who plays for Plymouth Argyle. Maybe you should do some research before just assuming! —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3wbaca2 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why complain to me? I haven't done anything to that page. Click the "history" tab at the top of it, or look at the message about it on your talk page, to see who tagged it. JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intereffectuality

Hi, JohnCD! I've userfied User:JohnCD/Intereffectuality. Feel free to do as you will with that. Since it's not spam, you're not likely to get any flack if it lies around. Hope that helps - and happy editing! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There ya go :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say db-u1 it. As "vandalism and/or hoax", it's not likely to be missed. Unless you feel there's something in the history of the article that might prove useful some day? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did you want to check about my article on intereffectuality? Can I get a copy of the page and the talk page somehow for my own archives? When I am not working like crazy I may repost with more references to show that it is not a hoax. Right now as you might understand given the accusations that have been made, I am a bit dispirited. Thanks so much. --Chakira (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't expected the article to disappear so quickly, I wanted to read it once more; and after spending the afternoon speed-reading Reimagining Textuality to confirm that it made no mention of "intereffectuality", I was interested to check the page history to see which editor had put the book on the reference list (you, in fact). I see you have already got the article disinterred into your user space. By all means submit it again, if you can produce real references that will stand checking. Also, on a point of Wikipedia style, read the guideline Avoid weasel words: unsupported statements like "Some scholars point to... ", "some critics have said... " and "Famously, one proponent said... " are frowned on. Which scholars, what critics, which proponent? Where? When? The verifiability policy means that is the sort of thing references should be able to confirm. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New policy proposal that may be of interest

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll take a look. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

matt schroeder

Hello,

I am trying to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool for my 5th graders who are just starting to learn to use the Internet for research & my page keeps getting deleted, please advise.