User talk:JohnCD

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).

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It might be time to review the Bitcoin article deletion

Hi JohnCD,

I think it may be time to consider undeleting the Bitcoin article.

The bitcoin economy has grown to over a million dollars, and the number of businesses using it has continued to grow. Indeed, the Electronic Frontier Foundation accepts Bitcoin donations - how ironic that the EFF uses a currency that is not able to be explained by a Wikipedia article.

Is there a way by which we can formally reopen the discussion about the Bitcoin article?

Eiffel (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The right forum to request re-introduction of Bitcoin to the main encyclopedia is WP:Deletion review, where it has already been twice, on August 4 and September 26. There is a draft article for improvement at User:Message From Xenu/Bitcoin, and that is what should be presented for consideration, but nobody seems to have done much to it since the last deletion review. Read the DRVs first, particularly Robert Horning's comment half way down the Sept 26 one; you'll see that what is missing is the "substantial coverage in reliable independent sources" needed to establish notability. No references seem to have been added to the draft article since the last DRV; your EFF link is something, but I doubt if it is enough.

There has been some concern over the number of single-purpose accounts which seem to have been created only to push Bitcoin: but I see from your user page that you are the author of the oldest surviving Wikipedia edit, so you are, almost literally, the last person who could be accused of that!

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. I'll see what new references have become available since the previous review.

Regards, Eiffel (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

A cookie by way of thanks for the prompt action on my requested deletion.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks - no problem, those are the easy ones! Now for some coffee to go with it... JohnCD (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Courtney John Reggae Singer

Could you please undelete this article? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored and I'll be sure to let them know that they need to promptly address the promotional and notability aspects or it is likely to be deleted again. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's awful, though: "that enigmatic, rare artist who comes along every once in a while, with uniqueness that simply radiates... " It'll need to be completely rewritten. That's a problem with copyvio tags, they think that's the only problem; but I did warn the author that even if the copyright were fixed the promotional tone tone would be unsuitable. JohnCD (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I personally try to use {{db-multiple}} in cases where it's clearly a problem like that, and if they don't clean it up fairly quickly I may very well put it up for deletion myself. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You can see at the bottom of User talk:Dee2u2 the boiler-plate section I usually add to the bottom of copyvio notices. I'm not sure it wouldn't be a good idea to build something like that into the standard notice. JohnCD (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw that and it looks decent. Of course if the article's hopeless and A7/G11 apply too and are mentioned in the deletion log then they can learn that way that there's more than just permissions that need resolving. Maybe there just needs to be a push for {{Db-notice-multiple}} to include details about all of the multiple reasons an article's been tagged for speedy. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I don't like db-multiple precisely because the notice for the author doesn't explain the reasons - it says, "look at the page or if it has gone ask me... " but that's not really good enough. I see someone else has zapped our enigmatic, rare artist. JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Page Request - T. Markus Funk

Hi. I am trying to get a page put together on T. Markus Funk in anticipation of Chicago ABC 7 Reporter Chuck Goudie's profile of Funk this evening at 10:00 p.m. Apparently some other page on Funk was removed on a prior occasion, and it appears that my contribution was also shut down/deleted. Could you please consider un-deleting my contribution? Thanks, Peterjones1234 (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is already a page at T. Markus Funk and you are welcome to chip in there. It's not a very good one - have a look at WP:Your first article and WP:Writing better articles to get an idea of what article structure should look like. Also, and first of all since I see you are editing other articles about living persons, read the extremely important policy on WP:Biographies of living persons.

You mention deleted contributions, but I see none from this account. Do you have more than one account? If so, choose one and stick to it, to avoid suspicions of WP:Sockpuppetry. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, John. I tried following your advice about modifying/editing/supplementing the entry, but was unable to save my changes, receiving the below deletion information (which is why I contacted you and mentioned that it appeared the entry had been deleted). Any advice you can give would be much appreciated.

11:15, 23 March 2010 Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs) deleted "T. Markus Funk" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

20:11, 21 March 2010 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted "T. Markus Funk" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete"

Yours, Peterjones1234 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you also Columbia1234 (talk · contribs)? I repeat my warning about using only one account.

Of those two deleted versions, the second said only "T. Markus Funk is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law and a federal prosecutor in Chicago." You could usefully base on that a somewhat extended lead paragraph for the new article.

The earlier one that I deleted was not a biographical article: it was a bookseller's advertisement, giving brief "product details" of Funk's book like ISBN and number of pages, and then a string of reviews. That is not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia and I am not going to restore it. If you need a copy of the text, I will restore it into a user-page for an hour so that you can copy it.

If you want to help develop an article on Funk, edit the new one - it needs it. I see that another editor has added a string of "maintenance templates" which indicate necessary work, with the edit summary "a mess, but under the junk may be a notable person". You could help dig out that notable person. Don't worry about offending the first author - it is a principle here that nobody owns any article, see WP:OWN.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I will take a look at the new article and see what I can do (on a limited schedule). Don't know anything about Columbia1234 or a prior entry discussing ISBN numbers, etc. BTW, how do I make sure I am editing the "new" version, rather than the deleted one? I though I was working on the new version when I saw the various notes indicating the deficiencies in what was already written, but when I tried to save changes I received the notice that the version I was working on had been deleted in the interim between when I typed in the changes/edits and when I hit "Save Page." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjones1234 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, the precise message I get is: "Warning: An administrator deleted this page since you started editing it. Please check the deletion log to see the reasoning." The deletion log, in turn, lists deletions from March 2010.....

Peterjones1234 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)