User talk:JohnCD

• Portal:Carnatic Music/box-header
• Portal:Carnatic Music/box-footer
• Portal:Carnatic Music/Categories

to

• Portal:Carnatic music
• Portal:Carnatic music/Introduction
• Portal:Carnatic music/box-header
• Portal:Carnatic music/box-footer
• Portal:Carnatic music/Categories

respectively! Music should start with lowercase 'm'. Refer Carnatic music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selvasivagurunathan m (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi John,

Good Day!

Thank you for the guidance. I was unaware of this practice (rule to be followed during 'copy within Wikipedia'). I will implement this across all the sub pages. Regards Selvasivagurunathan m (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You only need it for pages which have content copied from other pages. JohnCD (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Beetle deletions

FYI, I reversed two of your speedy deletions, Altica bicarinata and Altica aenescens. Mishae put them up for deletion (and he wasn't really sole editor, so G7 probably shouldn't have applied, but whatever), and then re-created them under the belief that this would save space on the server somehow. See [1] and [2] for discussion. I ran across these while dealing with yet another speedy nomination from him (which I declined) and I apologize for not discussing with you first. Best, Mackensen (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

John, can you reverse them back? Don't listen to Mackensen is just a rogue admin who shouldn't have been one in the first place. He will probably block me and then do the same to you!:(--Mishae (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Mishae: no, Mackensen is right, and whoever told you about saving space on the servers is quite wrong. Nothing is actually removed from the servers (that is why admins can see and restore deleted articles), so deleting and re-creating an article simply takes up more space, as well as losing the history. @Mackensen: I am jealous, I have been called many things but never achieved promotion to rouge admin! JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not the first time nor I suspect the last ;). Usually it's because I deleted something, not because I restored it! Mackensen (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

John, if he is right then why you deleted them in the first place?--Mishae (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I deleted them because you asked, and because there were only trivial edits by others (though actually I was wrong on one, where someone had added an image). I thought you had probably made an error in the title, or something like that. If I had realised you wanted to delete simply in order to re-create in the mistaken belief that it would save space, I would have declined. JohnCD (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

According to G7, I, as an author had a right to delete them, no matter what. I am shocked to find out that people are like cattle here. It sounds like that no one can be an individual and everyone need to dance to tune, and those that wont will get either criticized or blocked at the discretion of (sorry to say that) evil admins. If I would have been an admin, I would have deleted those articles and recreated them. I personally don't see anything bad in doing so, however some folks think its against their rules, which are many, and probably were designed so that the admins have more leeway to block users for whatever reason they want. Wondering if any of them are being paid by Jimbo himself? By the way, what's wrong in recreation of an article?--Mishae (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You do not have a "right" to delete them, and you certainly don't have a right to delete them no matter what. G7 is an author's request for deletion. It's not that "some folks think" it's against the rules; it is against the rules. Wikipedia's content is released under a license that requires attribution to all the authors of an article, not just the main author. This rule applies even to copying within Wikipedia. Deletion and recreation breaks this by removing the attribution; if you reuse the exact same content in a new article, you are reusing it without acknowledging that others may have worked on it, too. This is against the copyright rules. Not to mention the fact (and it really cannot be stressed enough) that there is no point to doing this, because it doesn't save space on the servers; it actually costs space on the servers.

Mishae, nobody wants to block you over this, and nobody will if you are willing to learn from this and move forward. This was an understandable mistake to make, and that's fine. But it's important that you acknowledge that it was a mistake, or at the very least agree not to do it any more. To be honest, I'm not really sure why you feel disrespected, but I'm sorry that you feel so: this is no kind of reflection on your abilities as an editor, none whatsoever. You just have to work with us a little bit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Still confused. On one hand you say that I have no right to delete them but at the same time, as an author I can ask for deletion, (since request is the same thing as asking)? If people are worrying that I am reusing their content without their consent, then maybe as an honest editor I will ask their permission first (I think its O.K. to do)? See, Ryan told me (and so did many other admins) is that I can combine my minor edits into bigger one, that's why I decided to delete and recreate it. Or its not a valid reason either, in your opinion?--Mishae (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What I mean by saying you don't have the right to delete them is this: you are allowed to ask for deletion, but that doesn't mean that admins are obligated to actually delete it just because you asked. You're allowed to make the request, but admins are also allowed to decline that request.

I think you misunderstood what Ryan was trying to tell you. What I'm pretty sure that Ryan meant was this: If you were planning on making many small changes to an article, you could make them all at once and then save the page only once, as opposed to making a small change, saving, making another small change, saving, and so on for each change. In essence, he's saying that you could make one edit that incorporates all of your changes, rather than a separate edit for each change. He meant to combine your edits as you're making them, not after you've already made them. After the changes are already made, it's too late to worry about server storage: there is nothing you can do to actually reduce the amount of space Wikipedia uses. Nothing. Combining edits the way Ryan suggests minimizes the additional storage that the new edits will incur, but nothing can reduce the amount of storage that existing edits already incur.

Even if there was, there's really no point in worrying about it: storage space is abundantly cheap, and there is no shortage of it at all. For reference: the full wikitext of the page Altica bicarinata is 994 bytes. This is nearly a kilobyte (1024 bytes), so let's round up and say it's a kilobyte. The page has 23 revisions, so let's say each revision is the same size. So, the total storage space for this article, with all its history, is 23 kilobytes. I can buy a 3 terabyte hard drive for $200. This $200 hard drive can store well over 140 million copies of this article with its entire history; put another way, the space required to store this article and all its history would cost me .000142802 of a cent (that is, $.00000142802). I appreciate that you're trying to help, but the scale of the storage savings you're trying for are, to be frank, completely insignificant. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if JohnCD is an admin and he made a decision to delete, then that's his decision. This thing sounds like you and many other admins (my guess), undermined John's credibility as an admin, and probably told him via IRC channel or any other electronic device that he will get blocked if he will do it his way, the admin way, because Wikipedia is not a place for individual thinking or what not. That's just my assumption, if it sounds like I am assuming bad faith, I am sorry, but that's how it is played out in Russian Wikipedia, so I assume it from there. If I am wrong let me know, but I have a feeling that overtime Wikipedia lost its credibility of being a site where people can freely edit. Like, in Russian Wikipedia for example, you make a stupid mistake, if a tiny one, you don't get a second chance. I don't know if its the same case here though. I will however, try to abide by every rule necessary, but as I mentioned earlier, Wikipedia have too many rules and some of them contradict with each other, not to mention that every Wikipedia language section have its own rules and traditions which a user need to abide by as well as the main rules.

That lets me to another question, if Wikipedia have too many rules (and some of them are confusing), maybe the consensus should vote on removing G7 rule, because since the admins wont delete the article per G7, because majority of articles are written in co-authorship with another user?--Mishae (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Your assumption is entirely wrong, and en:wp is nothing like you imagine. I do not use IRC, and it is absurd to imagine that an admin would be threatened with blocking over an unimportant incident like this. I deleted those pages because I did not know that your reason for deletion was the mistaken idea that deleting and re-creating them would save space. If I had known that, I would not have deleted them. Nothing is actually deleted from the servers, so deleting and re-creating uses more space, and arguing about it uses still more; but space is very, very cheap, so that is not serious. If you were advised to make a few large edits instead of many small ones, that was not primarily to save space but to avoid cluttering page histories. Yes most articles are edited by many people and so G7 does not apply to them, but it is still useful for cases where a sole author realises he has made a mistake.

Now, this has been a very trivial incident, and you have learned something from it; time to let it drop. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there was another reason to delete them. You said something about an error, what kind of error will give an excuse on deletion? Next time, I wont even say a reason why, because you did a good job by deleting them, and yet I think, you have been warned by others not to delete them even though that its your right to do it.--Mishae (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh?

Hi John, but huh... are you serious about this? Did I miss something? - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, we edit-conflicted, I put it right as soon as I realised! Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK then :-) - DVdm (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter on 16 October 2013

VisualEditor is still being updated every Thursday. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week. If you haven't done so already, you can turn on VisualEditor by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable".

The reference dialog for all Wikipedias, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Please offer suggestions and opinions at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (Use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) You can also drag and drop references (select the reference, then hover over the selected item until your cursor turns into the drag-and-drop tool). This also works for some templates, images, and other page elements (but not yet for text or floated items). References are now editable when they appear inside a media item's caption (bug 50459).

There were a number of miscellaneous fixes made: Firstly, there was a bug that meant that it was impossible to move the cursor using the keyboard away from a selected node (like a reference or template) once it had been selected (bug 54443). Several improvements have been made to scrollable windows, panels, and menus when they don't fit on the screen or when the selected item moves off-screen. Editing in the "slug" at the start of a page no longer shows up a chess pawn character ("♙") in some circumstances (bug 54791). Another bug meant that links with a final punctuation character in them broke extending them in some circumstances (bug 54332). The "page settings" dialog once again allows you to remove categories (bug 54727). There have been some problems with deployment scripts, including one that resulted in VisualEditor being broken for an hour or two at all Wikipedias (bug 54935). Finally, snowmen characters ("☃") no longer appear near newly added references, templates and other nodes (bug 54712).

Looking ahead: Development work right now is on rich copy-and-paste abilities, quicker addition of citation templates in references, setting media items' options (such as being able to put images on the left), switching into wikitext mode, and simplifying the toolbar. A significant amount of work is being done on other languages during this month. If you speak a language other than English, you can help with translating the documentation.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 20:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you! I have not been watching the total, so I am quite surprised. That number is less impressive than it looks, because they are nearly all low-value routine mop-type admin edits, but still, somebody has to sweep the floors and take out the rubbish: they also serve who only stand and mop! JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Page deletion

why did you delete my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritvik vasava (talk • contribs) 19:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I explained on your talk page: Wikipedia is not a place to write about your friends. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Sangai Karisalankanni Hair Oil spam page

That was fast... literally a minute or two after I tagged it. Thanks! :-) Ubcule (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello JohnCD, I recently opened a page called 'iBassline'. I should have read the rules before ranting on about my company in the 'about me' section.

I can only apologise and have opened an account in my own name now. I really didn't mean to break any rules and will do my best to be a good wikipedia user in the future.

Best Regards, PJ Phillips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJ Phillips (talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bhramachari (1972 film)

Your bold renaming is reverted. Please discuss first, while we wait for someone else to close the RM. --George Ho (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's wait for other views, but is it seriously suggested that "Bhramachari" isn't a spelling error? I looked at Google before making the move, and found "Brahmachari" well over ten times as common. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Viney Pushkarna

Why you deleted this page from wikipedia. Dr. Viney Pushkarna is the great social worker and founder of PRANA in District. except this he is one and only naturopath in whole majha area who arrange 20+ free health programs. I think you people going mad about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.88.68 (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The article didn't explain why he was important or significant enough to be in an encyclopedia. It just said he was a naturopath and was chairman of an association, and gave no references. Wikipedia needs references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For deleting another of my empty pages (content now in article space, but I like to keep the horribly messy editin history of my pages a secret) I'm sure wieldinf the Wikimop is a pretty thankless task, so here is a thank-you. (shame about the beer, I'm sure you'd prefer a pint of bitter) TheLongTone (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Real ale preferred, but all contributions gratefully received! JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why delete?

john

why do you delete stuff is it like your life, just leave us alone!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazzdog1 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

another wikilive

so on wikipedia's deletion response page you left a link about the other wikilive and not mine? isn't that a little bit of advertising right there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.113.249 (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please help me

Hai John,

Hope you are doing fine. I am Jimmy Wendells , I wrote an article about V Star Creations Pvt Ltd. But it is deleted now by the speedy deletion method by one user loveoffood007 , I didn't understand what is the actual reason for deletion. Article content is completely defines about V Star Creations Company ,founders and the products .V Star Creations is very much popular in South India and its business spread over India and Middle East, also it is the sister concern of V Guard Industries.I felt article related to this much reputed organisation in wikipedia is very much necessary.The contents in the article taken from its own website and other 2 article sites that I have mentioned in the reference section of the article. I hope deletion happened as of misread, I kindly request you to please recheck the article and please help me to approve.And I request you to please guide me if the article is not fine. If I get a chance to re edit my article then its my plessure to do it. For your kind information this is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_Star_Creations_Pvt_Ltd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmywendells12 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That was a blatant advertisement, written to "sell" the company and say how wonderful it is. Wikipedia is for information, not puffery, and requires a neutral point of view; anything like your article is speedily deleted. To make an acceptable article, you would have to tear that up and start completely afresh. I will provide some advice on your talk page in a day or two; meanwhile you could read User:JohnCD/Advice. JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

V Star Creations Pvt Ltd

Is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/V Star Creations Pvt Ltd close enough to the now-deleted article V Star Creations Pvt Ltd that a speedy-deletion is warranted, or should it go through the normal AFC process? I'm asking because you declined deletion review of the latter at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#V Star Creations Pvt Ltd. If it is not speedy-deletion-eligible (specifically, if it is not a near- or exact-copy of the deleted article), it will be handled through the normal AFC process. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

@Davidwr: let it go through the normal AfC process. It's toned down a lot from the version I declined at REFUND. I promised the author some advice, which I will give him later today. JohnCD (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone has since created V Star Creations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

So they have. Well, it's very much better than the first attempts, not bad enough to be speediable, and I see people are working on it. It may end up at AfD as non-notable, but let's see how it goes. JohnCD (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanked...

I see that you recently thanked me for an edit. I confess that I had to restrain myself from using a much more sarcastic edit summary, but I reminded myself to comment on contributions, not on the competence of contributors. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't let anyone call you a pedant - the word is precisian. I am normally of the "language is what people actually say" school rather than "language is what the books say", but the remnants of a classical education give a twinge at things like that. JohnCD (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

changes made to October 25 page

John,

Thanks for your message. I was unaware before of the edit summary feature - I will use it every time now!

The edit in question that you messaged me about (the removal of Jean Titelouze from the Oct.25th deaths) was bonafide - the Wikipedia page for Titelouze shows the death as October 24, not 25, and I double checked the death date in Oxford Music Online, an authoritative musicology reference source. I went ahead and removed Titelouze again from the October 25 page (including an edit summary) and will move the reference to the October 24 page. Thank you for your input! Abbeyth (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@Abbeyth: excellent! Learning by making mistakes is much the best way. Cheers! JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheshire railing

FYI, you suggested that we cover this topic. Since I was a child in Cheshire, I have long wondered about these railings and, as it fits well with another larger topic, I have just made a start. Andrew Davidson (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: splendid! Long ago I read an old magazine article, maybe in Country Life, which explained that they had been developed in the 1920s with the rise of the motor car, I think by a Chshire County Surveyor, who had them installed to replace hedges at corners in order to improve visibility; but I have never been able to track it down, or find any other source. You have revived my interest, and I will start digging again. They are pretty well confined to Cheshire afaik, though I passed an example a few miles into Staffordshire yesterday. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Pan Pantziarka

Thanks for letting me know; now at AFD. GiantSnowman 11:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Napoleão Bezerra

Reportedly you deleted the page about Major Napoleão Bezerra, but not the reasons that led him to do this. Can you tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.232.19.183 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it as a result of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major Napoleão Bezerra. Wikipedia is quite selective about subjects for articles: the inclusion criterion is called WP:Notability (em Português: pt:Wikipédia:Critérios de notoriedade) and requires references to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (cobertura significativa de fontes reputadas e independentes do assunto tratado.)" Also, the article seemed to be written as a memorial from his family, but that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia - see WP:NOTMEMORIAL #4.

I see that an article on the Portuguese Wikipedia was deleted for similar reasons: "Biografia sem fontes fiáveis independentes e providas por terceiros que corroborem as informações fornecidas e atestem relevância."

If independent sources can be found to establish notability, it might be best to start by writing an article on the Portuguese Wikipedia, whose editors would be better placed to assess them; if accepted there, translation to the English Wikipedia could be considered. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Article submission Dragons: Real Myths and Unreal Creatures

Thanks for the message on my article submission Dragons: Real Myths and Unreal Creatures. I was trying to recreate this article from one I previously submitted under another account. That could be why it was looked at as a copyrighted piece since I did copy and paste from the original document which was blocked because I created it under my business name rather than as a personal user. I have rectified that situation, but cannot revise the original article. I did not merely copy and paste from another source to my knowledge. Most of the information is contained within the film. I did use IMDB and other sources, and did reference other books and articles that have been written on the film and dragon-related topics. If I need to be more specific about just the film, please let me know and I would be happy to revise the article to better suit Wikipedia's standards. It's my first article, and I tried to follow all guidelines closely. I would appreciate any specific feedback you may have. Perhaps I need to create something more specifically and succinctly about the film and its unique docu-fictional approach and have other contributors add the additional dragon information. Any help would be welcome. Thank you for your time and consideration. RichSwietek (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Article on Dragons: Real Myths and Unreal Creatures

Understood. Got it. Will focus on the film more specifically and reference sections of the website if necessary to augment my own thoughts. Appreciate the feedback. RichSwietek (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Could use your assistance

I was reviewing Abolfazl Ramezani Moghaddam and I did a google search to find that much of the page didn't make sense. The man according to the search was a UK national, the companies owned by other people (note one of the companies has just changed name)..I could be wrong. But I put a CSD on it hoping someone else could comment. The references are all links to the page itself which could be a coding mistake. But the owner has repeatedly removed the tag although I asked him not to. I have put it back a couple of times but I won't keep doing it because I won't go to war. But I could use a sensible third person to take a look at the page and check it. I will back off in the meantime and leave it alone. Will you have a peak? I ask because you seemed to be online - I also asked Salvidrim! to take a look but may have missed him being online. -- 🍺 Antiqueight <sup>confer</sup> 14:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Zapped. Quite right. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Good to be able to get another opinion and it helps when that opinion can take immediate action!-- 🍺 Antiqueight <sup>confer</sup> 15:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

He's back Abolfazl Ramezani Moghaddam. :-)-- 🍺 Antiqueight <sup>confer</sup> 16:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Zapped again, and {{uw-create3}}. Reaching for the salt-cellar, to have it handy... JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL - I think he's on my watchlist still so I'll keep an eye anyway..-- 🍺 Antiqueight <sup>confer</sup> 17:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)