User talk:JohnWilsone

Welcome![edit]

Hello, JohnWilsone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Richard The Raker, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard The Raker[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Richard The Raker 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 important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content requires sources[edit]

Please stop reinserting unsourced content into the article List of unusual deaths. At a minimum, you need to provide a reliably published source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy that calls the death "unusual" (or a similar term). It cannot be your opinion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits[edit]

Hi! Please avoid marking edits where you add/remove substantial content as "minor". It seems all your contributions are marked as minor edits. This is almost the exact opposite of what it should be. Minor edits are very small things like adding a punctuation mark or correcting an obvious typo. Thanks!--cyclopia ^speak! 16:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual deaths[edit]

Hi John. I was wondering what had drawn you, as such a very new editor, to wanting to add so many new items into this article. Are you aware of the Wikipedia policy for good sources? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

..and for removing all the "murders" as you construed them, with a edit summary saying: "Deleting all the suicide and murder and execution since they aren't unusual Please do not reverse this , this is UNUSUAL deaths not Common death." I have opened a thread on the Talk Page here, if you'd like to discuss. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to List of unusual deaths, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at the article talk page. As a neutral admin, I read over the RfC on the inclusion criteria, and found a very clear consensus in favor of not invoking WP:IAR to allow unsourced entries. Please do not re-add any person to that list that is not compatible with that RfC decision. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be more clear: if you keep adding in people to that list that clearly do not meet the RfC criteria, you're edit warring, and it's going to result in your account being blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, the edit summary is not there for you to throw insults at other users such as this, "if u actually had some brains", it is so unnecessary and rude. Please stop.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

Hi, I had restored that content because no reason was given for its removal. Please try to avoid calling people who make edits you don't agree with brainless, as you did in the edit symmary of this edit. Consider having a look at our policy about wp:CIVILITY some time. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your edit summary[edit]

re your edit summary [1] adding crappy content that grossly misrepresents the sources and requires other editors to clean up after you is not something you should be bragging about. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]