User talk:JohnCD

Messages before 1 Mar 08 are in Archive 1
Messages for March - July 08 are in Archive 2
Messages for August 08 - January 09 are in Archive 3
Messages for February - June 09 are in Archive 4
Messages from June 09 are in Archive 5

October 2009

7 Guys

i will hope that you will stop deleting the 7 guys page that i just created. We are a group at UMASS Dartmouth, that was created to Britten up everyone's days around the school due to a series of negative events. we are no differant than a band, or any other organization that it on this site, i dont understand why ours cant be noted on this site just as other organizations can be noted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asinkus (talk • contribs) 19:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a notice-board or a social-networking site where anyone can write about themselves and their friends and their groups. To have an article, a club or group has to be notable, meaning that they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Not many University clubs qualify, even old and well-established ones; I don't think a newly-formed group of seven students who "all set around eating pizza and watching NASCAR" makes the grade. More details in Notability (organizations and companies). Also, if you are writing about your own group, see the guideline on Conflict of Interest. JohnCD (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

It looks like you've never had an RfA, which is surprising. Have you considered giving it a go? You have thorough experience, and are very good with communication and judging whether articles should be deleted or improved. Although I'm not totally familiar with your work, I've seen you around many times and I think I'd be willing to nominate. Let me know (reply here is fine). Best, JamieS93 22:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I have taken a day to think about it, because I have recently turned down two approaches (1, 2) but they made me consider further. The problem I see is that, looking at the requirements in WP:GRFA, I fail the very first one: "Strong edit history with plenty of material contributions to Wikipedia articles." I have never been much interested in article writing, I think my total of articles actually started amounts to two stubs and even when I have improved something like a wrongly-flagged hoax or deletion candidate I have seldom gone beyond the "acceptably sourced stub" stage. I read with interest in this RfA Newyorkbrad's eloquent plea that if you trust someone with the tools you should be able to trust him not to use them where he doesn't have expertise; but the RfA still failed convincingly, and my feeling is that the RfA community still regards article writing experience as essential, and that a candidate who can't point to DYKs and GAs will fail. So my response is: cautious interest, but in the light of the above do you think I have a chance? JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello John. Of course you have a chance. In my opinion you are one of our best new page patrollers and I highly value your clear and straightforward comments also at AfD. It would be absolutely beneficial for Wikipedia. You have my full support. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've taken some time to think about it. I've already given that issue some thought, too, but IMO it's not a roadblock. I tend to hang around WP:RFA; article-writing is something that the community would like to see, but from my experience, it's not a deal-breaker. A few WikiGnomes who share your same sentiment of "not much of a new-content contributor" have been promoted lately. As long as the candidate is otherwise very keen on experience in particular areas (such as you are with NPP/deletion), RfA participants don't seem to mind it much. This is evident in some of the recent successful RfAs, e.g: 1, 2, 3. In my opinion, you have a strong chance of succeeding. Most RfAs get a couple of opposes, and you'll probably have a few users concerned with the lack of article writing or a few little concerns. But people tend to really appreciate candidates who patrol NewPages with a careful eye; replacing an attack page "G3" with G10, or adding sources to an article that was tagged as a hoax or A7. You're also great with communication. For those reasons, you're a strong candidate for adminship, and I'm confident that you would pass.

And as far as I know, there's no problems in your contribs, either. But if you decide to run, don't be surprised if you receive a few opposes/neutrals for random issues, which is common at RFA. I'm not gonna push the RFA idea on you; but do keep considering it. :) Best, JamieS93 13:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will now take several days, probably a week, to think more about it, look at some past RfAs and decide what my case would be and whether I want to run. I will come back to you. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! I'm very glad to hear that. :) I'll create the RfA page on Sunday or so, and the co-noms can add themselves (no more than ~3 noms in total is good). From there you can answer the questions, and then accept the nomination on Monday or whenever you're ready to take the plunge. JamieS93 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've started the page. No rush, answer the questions whenever you have time (one or two co-nominations are welcome). I might tweak the nom statement, but the essence of it is there. Regards, JamieS93 15:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will ask Mentifisto and Tikiwont whether they would like to co-nom. If you would like another example of finding potential in unpromising new articles, there is Tinkus Wistus which I found as six lines of unreferenced Spanish and rescued from an (erroneous) db-a2 tag. I will probably transclude some time tomorrow; I want to make my user page a little less austere first. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I would have liked to nominate you as well, I think you'd make a good admin. Don't worry about the article writing, I never wrote a single real article before my RFA and I still only had a few opposes because of that. By saving articles from SD and fixing stuff you have demonstrated imho that you know the value of content writing even if it's not your chosen field on Wikipedia. So good luck with your RFA :-) Regards SoWhy 13:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your hint here also helped to encourage me. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hint? What hint? I have never seen no hint! SoWhy 15:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a co-nomination. Feel free to do a have a look and point out anything misleading or unhelpful. Otherwise good luck.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

...and mine too. I'm sure you'll do well. :-) -- Mentifisto 18:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks. @ SoWhy: would it be fair enough if you just left a tl;dr support as a substitute for co-nomination? ;-) Nobody reads that blather at the top of the page, anyway... JamieS93 18:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, don't you worry, I'm just as happy to support instead (although I would have loved to add John as a member to SWAT ;-)) Regards SoWhy 19:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have transcluded: please (a) check that I have done it right (b) add the edit stats on the talk page - I haven't worked out how to do that. Thank you all again. JohnCD (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Everything looks good. I've posted your editing stats to the talkpage (either the nominator or some outsider adds those to the talkpage, usually). Best of luck, hope everything runs well. :) My quick advice would be, don't reply to opposers much unless you're clarifying something for their sake, and give the optional Qs some thought before answering them. Regards, JamieS93 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks - excellent advice. JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

sir james kimbell

i am writing this article as a stubb of the book the thirteen treasures so dont delete it as your articles are stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanword (talk • contribs) 10:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• (answered on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

adesilfe

it a description of a website. y should it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondmzn (talk • contribs) 20:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• (answered on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Antiques rogue show'

I was just wondering why my page, 'Antiques rogue show', was deleted. The reason i created this page, is because i ama relative of the group, and i thought, with them being a charity group, that it would bring some publicity in their favour. I would be extremely greatful if you were to undelete my page. :) Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjmarshuk (talk • contribs) 18:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• (answered on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Moffat hills

Hi JohnCD - brilliant and so quickly done thank you. I am a bit at sea with the whole process - it takes a bit of learning but I believe in learning by doing - so please tolerate a beginner it is all new to me.

Thanks again Scothill (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Learning by doing is the only way on Wikipedia - if you read all the guidelines first, you would never get started! JohnCD (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

New Wave (album)

I have deleted the page just to make another one New Wave (The Auteurs album), to avoid ambiguities. I think it's quite better, the page New Wave (album) I've blanked can be deleted.

• Your message crossed with mine. A page shouldn't be deleted in these circumstance, because that loses the edit history of all the previous contributions. Better to edit it to improve it and, if you want to change the title, use the "move" button at the top. I have made the old page into a redirect to the new one. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

delete tag

dear John, I'm a professional concert player (xavier diaz-latorre). I've received a delete tag. A lot of my collegueas (like Jordi Savall or others) are in the wiki. My question is: why may I not be there? Thanks xavier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laberintosingeniosos (talk • contribs) 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• (answered on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

deletion article

Dear John, thank you for your explanations. Anyway, I consider, comparing my article to other colleagues which are already in wiki, that is correct enough. I can change the subjective areas, but I find other subjecitve areas in other biographies. The question is, that I'm member of Hesperion XXI (one of the most important early music group for spanish music in the world) which is leaded by Jordi Savall (in the wiki). I'm in the group since 1997. I was pupil of Hopkinson Smith (also in the wiki) and I'm professor myself in Esmuc (also in wiki) the University for music in Barcelona. I'm just mentioning a couple of my colleagues (the important ones), but there is a lot more which are not more releveant than myself. All those things are easily to find on the net. How should I give references? thank you Greetings

xavier∼∼∼∼ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laberintosingeniosos (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote

That is a great quote. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Pues

Hi John,

"Pues" is the past participle of the French verb "pouvoir" when the subject is feminine plural. I do not believe that redirecting Pues to the section of French conjugation about the verb it refers to contradicts Wikipedia's guideline stating that the project is not a dictionary, however I will gladly discuss the matter with you further if you disagree.

Neelix (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll think about it, and decide whether I want to raise a serious objection. One issue is - if you start down that track, where do you stop? Do we have articles/redirects for every French irregular verb form? And what about other languages - shouldn't we disambiguate Spanish pues? Even if an English-language encyclopedia should have these entries, they seem to me Wiktionary material, articles about words rather than about the things those words denote. JohnCD (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi John,

I understand what you're saying. I would not want to see disambiguation pages with entries which are simply verb forms in other languages. What do you think of turning the current internal redirects into soft redirects to Wiktionary?

Neelix (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Century of humiliation

G'day John, you may find this page relevant to your activities as a new page patroller. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 03:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! You did a brilliant job of deception - I was aware of the experiment and interested in it, but I never for a moment suspected that your article was part of it. I will comment on the relevant page. JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Lowther Hills page

I have put up a page called Lowther Hills and it seems to work fine in many respects. However when I sent a link to a friend it would not open the page and if you put "Lowther Hills Wikipedia" into Google, Google can't find the page - so there would seem to be something weird going on. Can you help please? Scothill (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just put "Lowther Hills Wikipedia" into Google and your page came up top. The link to send your friend is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowther_Hills - that also works for me. Not sure why you are having problems? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi John sorry about that must be getting neurotic in my auld age - thanks again Scothill (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

GAcopyPaste

Thanks for that move - Guess I was a little brain dead. I've updated my links. --Teancum (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for saying hello, I will try and follow your advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Organismluvva (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar

I'm sorry, but I would not consider this a good academic guide. If I was studying at a good university and came up with that, I would be laughed at (rightly). Same goes for wikipedia, sadly. Surely the best guide would be to get hold of a lichen expert and ask them. The fact that the article author was a new editor "MacTroll" was hardly a point in their favour.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that the immediate problem is: here we have a new article, from a user with no track record and a dodgy username, that says "Andreaea regularis is a species of antarctic moss"; we very reasonably suspect a hoax; is it one? - a Google Scholar search, which turns up several papers about an antarctic moss of that name, is a good quick way to settle it. Granted the article is a very basic stub and might need a lichen expert to expand it, but at least we now know that it shouldn't be deleted. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New College Glasgow Article

John, Thanks for your extremely swift and welcome editing of my article. I am new to this and I have to say your changes make it read much better.

--86.165.63.206 (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New College Glasgow Article

I'm just showing how much of a newbie I am. I tried to sign without being logged in. thanks again for you improvements to my article.

--Wastededucation (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• (answered on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

WJ Souza

Good idea, the article incubator was a useful creation :) Thanks for moving it!-- fetchcomms☛ 23:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Persistent subtle vandalism

Hello John, You are on my watch list from long ago, and I know you to regularly counter vandalism. User 82.23.187.195[1] appears to make frequent subtle unsourced changes to data, height, birth date, etc. Are you in a position to do anything about him? or what should I do? regards Autodidactyl (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)