User talk:JohnCD

Welcome to my talk page!

• If you post a message on this page, I will usually reply on this page.
• If I've left a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there.
• Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
• To leave me a new message, click HERE.

_{Talk page box adapted from one at User talk:Pairadox, who got it from User talk:Danelo, who got it from User talk:Adambro (and modified it a bit)}

Messages before 1 Jan 08 are in Archive 1

January 2008

Removing reports at AIV

Hi. Thanks for your tidying up at WP:AIV. May I ask you that you include the board status in your edit summary when removing reports? Ending your summary with "EMPTY" or "NOT EMPTY" will allow other contributors who watchlist the page to know if there is anything that needs looking at. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll certainly do that in future - I didn't know it would be useful. Normally I only add things to WP:AIV - this time I added a report and then removed it when I saw that ClueBot had made the same report just before. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

tagging A land without people for a people without land

I put up a one phrase page A land without people for a people without land to redirect people to a page with an explanatory article on the standard version of the phrase A land without a people for a people without a land

This is a useful feature to help people find the phrase they are looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by American Clio (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you also put up another page with exactly the same title, but in quotes: that was the one I proposed for deletion as an unnecessary redirect.

A small piece of advice: when you post on a talk page, it is polite to sign your edit by adding four tilde characters ~~~~ at the end, so that the recipient knows who the message has come from. The system converts them into a username and date and time, like this. JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Gelare

Thanks for the messages about the delete tag - I noticed when I published, the it worked when I refreshed - I guess we were editing at the same time. I'll take more care with tags next time. I did add a message on the user's talk page. I noticed that there was already one you'd put there and suspected that they'd either deleted your original tag or recreated the page.

Again, thanks for the messages. After using Wikipedia for years I've decided it's time I put something back in, and it's good to know that I'm not over-stepping the mark. Cheers Gaffertape (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciaran Shaman

In this AfD, you forgot to give a reason. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't forget, but something went wrong with the process and it got lost. I've added it now. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Souljah Boy

that article is about a whole different person not that dumb fuck that did crank that souljah boy shit, and it was only started yestarday, as i had to leave, and theres more to that artist rather than just hes from mo thugs.Lil'Layzie-One

If there's really a person called Souljah boy who's different from the one called Soulja Boy, you could edit the page and make an article about him: but first be sure that he is notable as described in Notability (music), otherwise the article will just be deleted again. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Zinc finger chimera

The best way to protect your article (for a short time) while you work on it is to put an {{underconstruction}} tag at the top of it. I've done that for you. JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not so concerned about it getting deleted but rather people correcting things while I'm still editing (the construction template actually encourages people to "help"!) -> edit conflicts which I then have to see if they need resolving. Is there a template that actually asks people not edit? Probably unlikely to be a problem anyway, but I wondered. ----Seans Potato Business 21:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem with {{underconstruction}}. The one you want is {{inuse}}. But in the longer term, read WP:OWN - other people probably will edit the article in due course. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Polished Gemstones

Hi there: I've removed the speedy tag from the above-captioned article -- although I can certainly understand why you would want to get rid of it, the article is about a song, which isn't covered by the (db-band) tag, and there is some small assertion of notability ("97 on the Irish charts", whatever that means). However, I would definitely encourage you to either add a PROD tag or take this to Articles for deletion, whichever you think is more appropriate. If you need any help, let me know, and my apologies for substituting the tag. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, and frankly I wish A7 DID cover songs, it's a perpetual problem for me when I do new page patrol. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing "Sea Truck". I was just trying to fix it myself! Dirkbb (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot (CSI)

Hello, I have determined that the referenced AFD was closed out-of-process, and I encourage you to create a new nomination. Although the nominator changed his mind and withdrew the nomination, this is not suitable grounds to close the debate, as another editor (you) had already !voted delete, and provided valid rationale to back your !vote. My personal opinion of the remaining !votes there was that they were very weak, and the only policy they cited which had relevance was WP:IAR, which does not often trump clear policy and guidelines for notability. If you decide to renominate these articles but require assistance to do so, please do not hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. I am here to help! JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Universalutils

Hello John,

Can you please advise why this content is perceived as ‘advertising?’ The narrative is descriptive of our organisation.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Universalutils (talk • contribs) 12:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sort of business directory where anyone can list their business. To get in, something needs to be notable, meaning of enough general interest to appear in an encyclopedia - see Notability and for businesses Notability (organizations and companies), and the entry needs to be backed by verifiable references from independent sources. Also, articles must be written from a neutral point of view: if you are connected with the business, you should be very careful about putting in entries about it - that is a conflict of interest, see WP:COI and WP:ADVERT and the notes above. Basically, unless your business is important/interesting enough for someone outside, not you or your PR or advertising agents, to want to write an entry about it, it probably doesn't qualify. JohnCD (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wood Street, Cardiff

What about Wood Street, Cardiff. The user has removed the prod tag. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Online freelance

it's fine if you would rather add a prod then have it speedy deleted. i agree totally with reasons you gave when you added the prod and, it may interest you to know, the author of this page has been blocked so doubt the page will give us any trouble after the five-day limit. cheers- Ryan shell (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, it was intended as a joke between myself and a very close friend, and was going to be removed when it had been seen by her. Doe123 (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Doe123

A bit to trivial

Hiyas John,

I just reverted your edit on the Noor Jehan article. I can certainly see that this is not vandalism, but the wording is somewhat non encyclopedic(Example: * Sour and oily food is death to a good throat - who doesn't know that). Could you have a look into that little text? Thanks in advance :-) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the history of Noor Jehan, I was undoing a deletion by vandal Stuti16 (contributions) who had been busily blanking sections of the article. So I didn't write the section you don't like - it was in there before. I've re-reverted to put the article back to how it was, but you may like to do some rewriting. JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your spelling corrections on the equipment page, I will be more diligent with spell checking my work next time.128.12.168.7 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

January 20, 2008

Well, not everyone can live in Southern California, sorry. :)

FYI, I didn't deliberately set out to create a goof article, I was just copying a reference from one article to use in another article, and updating the "accessdate=" tag for my usage. Once saved, it created a red-link in my article, which was like waving a red shirt in front of me, i couldn't help it.

I will go back to the first article and fix its reference, too.

Hope ur weather takes a turn for the better, or perhaps u like rain? cheers, doncram (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now i am puzzled, i had not myself created a link to January 20, 2008, that was generated by my using "accessdate =January 20, 2008" in a footnote using a standard format. This is in List of National Historic Landmarks in Oklahoma. That seems like a bug, if it generates a red link to January 20, 2008. I presume u r an administrator, perhaps u can direct me where the bug should be reported, if anywhere? doncram (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for following up again. Your sharp eye to note the other treatment, when the input to the accessdate= field is different, was helpful to me just now in more clearly posing the problem at Wikipedia talk: Citing sources#Glitch in Citation accessdate= treatment. Thanks, doncram (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

MiniManager

Dear John, I'm relatively new to Wiki and have just tried adding an article about miniManager which was speedily deleted. I do have an association with the product in that I co-designed and developed it, but the reasons I want to wiki it are that we have a different way of displaying project information and replicating the data. In itself it is an interesting piece of research in the data visualisation area. I tried keeping the article as unbiased as possible and it is genuinely not an attempt to spam or self-promote as I'm keen to have feedback and discussion on the subject. I would be most grateful if you could advise how I might restructure the submission? Kind regards --Issenquiries (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Crazy Jay and the Partytimers

John, I'm going to need more time on this article. Thanks Antien (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ovamed

Hi, thanks for the tips. I am not connected to Ovamed, I am interested in Helminthic therapy. I read the guidelines and intend to follow them. I estimate it will take up to two weeks to write a good draft. Should I do this offline, or just keep editing what I have started with?

thanks for your help.

FQ1513 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

hello mr john cd..

i would just like to say that what i made wansn't an attack page, it was me, ok.. i want my page to be funny thanks =D

Comment

JohnCD, I would like to say thank you for leaving the warning to 24.222.70.32 for the unconstructive edit he or she made to Senate of Canada because I reverted his or her bad edit to its good version. I was about to leave a warning at the talk page. But I forget to, but thanks anyway! --Healthykid (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Monkeygirl3493

That was a history merge: I deleted the userpage, moved the article to the now redlinked userpage, then restored the previous userpage revisions on top of the newly merged article content. It's a bit of a hassle and you need an admin to do it, but copying the content over, as you did, works just as well for userfying. Thanks for taking the initiative and informing Monkeygirl3493 about userspace. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC

Abusive Citing of "Original Research"

copied and pasted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Original_research#Abusive_Misuse

The admin should add a section along the following line:

There have been many occasions where users use "original research" as excuse to immediately and silently delete entries that they personally dislike. While there has been no known announcement for Wikipedia's official stance on this abuse, this behavior frequently lights the fuse for flame wars and trolling behaviors, so it is recommended that users reframe from immediate removal of any entry unless particularly harmful (such as personal attack or other obviously abusive editting). Even then, an administrator and/or at least the original poster of the entry should be notified for advice/discussion on proper treatment to the entry in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssh83 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why have you sent me this (unsigned) message? I am not an admin; the only article of yours I am aware of was Cooper Lawrence which I tagged for speedy deletion as an attack page, nothing to do with original research. And speedy tagging doesn't "immediately and silently" remove an article - deletion is done by an admin who looks at it and agrees. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I thought you were an admin. The only Admin i know of is on personal leave, and since i witnessed 3 flame wars started from little things like this over the course of 2 days that I've been actively involved editting stuff, i thought an admin might want to know, since the root of this problem they can easily be avoided. Would you mind forwarding this concern to an admin instead? Thanks. Ssh83 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)ssh83

• You can find a list of admins here; or you could post your comment at the admins' noticeboard here. But the answer you will get will be something like this:

1. No Original Research is one of the three key content policies which make Wikipedia an encyclopedia rather than a sort of notice-board where anyone can post anything they have written (the other two key policies are Neutral Point of View and Verifiability).
2. There is no way that an ordinary user can use OR as an excuse to "immediately and silently" delete articles they don't like. Even Speedy Deletion takes a user to tag the article and an admin to look at it and agree, and OR is not a reason for speedy deletion. The other two methods are Proposed Deletion, where a tag sits on the article for five days but can be removed by any user who disagrees with deletion; and Articles for deletion, which again takes five days and is decided on a consensus of users who comment in the deletion debate. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Preston Black

Thanks for the notice and giving me about 30 seconds to have a chance to improve the article. Yeh, right. However, on reflection, that should probably be a redirect to John "Jack" White, film producer and brother of Jules White, who produced and directed many of the Three Stooges films, and who sometimes brought John White ("Preston Black") into the productions. You might not like the Stooges, but their notability is well-established. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got nothing against the Stooges, but being their producer's brother didn't seem to me an adequate claim to notability. JohnCD (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He directed several of their films, and a bunch more. It is not fair to zap an article that was created a few minutes earlier and not give its author any chance to expand upon it. In any case, I wrote a new article that hopefully will meet your approval. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is, floods of articles come in that are very short and really un-notable, and "Recent Changes Patrol", looking at them as they come in, is one of the more effective ways to filter them out. You can avoid premature zapping by waiting to put the article in until there is enough of it to make it clear it's a serious article, or by putting an {{underconstruction}} tag at the top, which protects it unless it's left un-edited for a week or so. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And how was I supposed to know that? It used to be that you guys would mark them with "stubs" and the like, encouraging further editing. That's the positive approach. This, that you did today, is the negative approach. The fact that I put it in a category and attached a connection to the Stooges should have given you a hint that something was brewing there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

re reverting blanking

Thanks. I was paying attention to diff only, showing the deletion tag being removed, and completely oblivious to the author. Sorry about that. Triona (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy Delete

So, are you saying that my speedy delete request was wrong? Dusti^talk 18:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I'll be sure to do that next time. Dusti^talk 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Rollback

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

• Absolutely. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Rollback

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perepiteia

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • "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)

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)

Stuplid Question

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

• 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)
  • 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)

Blanking

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

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)

• 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)

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)

Vandalism

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

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

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hockertonite

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

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

Don't muck me about they are true facts!!Hockertonman (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hockertonite

If you don't believe me then you are a freak of nature with no life. In the politest sense