User talk:JohnCD: Difference between revisions

Template:Archive box collapsible

I would like to know why did you deleted my draft for my father in law Victor Martinez Parada ? which right do you think you have to do that ? or at least can you explain me how to create a page that can be accepted and not deleted, with regards.

Yogi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amayota (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete this: User:Br'er Rabbit/Editnotice? Thanks. 71.80.213.81 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think not. This is a prolific socker, there are other copies around, and I think it better to ignore this than to start on a deletion chase which might provoke more socks and more copies. Do nothing --> less drama. JohnCD (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that the proponents of the Gibraltarpedia moratorium also wish to ban articles about Spain and Morocco? Do you support that? You might wish to consider this in relation to your vote to support a moratorium. Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wants to ban articles, only main-page DYK hooks; but I think that possibility of extension is confusing the issue, and I have commented accordingly. JohnCD (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may have already noticed, but I'll point it out in case you haven't: This article has been created several times now and you might want to protect both Mike carvello and Mike Carvello against further creation. v/r AutomaticStrikeout 19:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure salting would be useful yet, there are so many possible variations of the name - we have had Mike carvelo once (with one "l") and Mike carvello twice, one being moved to Mike Carvello before being deleted. I have watchlisted all three. If they come back again, it could be worth an SPI to see whether the authors Mcarvello (talk · contribs) and Markbecker101 (talk · contribs) are the same. The latest article was mainly copied from Dustin Penner. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay and thanks for the reply. AutomaticStrikeout 19:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you deleted the Javiera Márquez article I created, I understand some articles have to be deleted because of irrelevance or unclear relevance, but I believe this was not the case. The sole fact that Javiera Márquez has been the subject (or mentioned) in newspapers El Ciudadano, Cambio 21 and La Tercera (and also in La Nación [1] a reportage in The Clinic [2] which I hand't time to inclde) indicates relevance. These newspapers are all of nationwide distribution and to be found in every city's kiosk (not sure how Im going to proof this to you). Being runner-up in elections of universoty with 18,000 undergraduates is not a minor thing, least during a time of student unrest. To add additional relevance Javiera Márquez is likely Chile's most media-exposed Trotskyist. I hope this has gived you a better idea on the relevance of this topic, and I hope you will restore this article. Dentren | ^Talk 20:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article said only that she is a student, a member of a Trotskyist party, and fought but lost (by a convincing margin) an election for a student federation. That did not seem to me to show enough significance to pass WP:CSD#A7, but I have userfied it for you to User:Dentren/Javiera Márquez. If it is not to be deleted again, before returning it to the main space you need to expand it to say more clearly why she is more than just "a left-wing student who lost a student election" - for instance, if this student federation has some national significance, explain that. I have to say that, after reading the references, which amount to a couple of interviews before the election, I doubt whether there is notability enough to pass an AfD (see WP:BLP1E), but you are welcome to see what you can do to expand it. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you restoring the article as a user subpage. I will do some more research and expand it beyond "a left-wing student who lost a student election". I agree with you that as it looks now it will likely not survive a AfD process. Dentren | ^Talk 22:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just wanted to thank you for the blocking of that IP user. I was going to put it on the relevant Admin board but your diligence was outstanding :) MisterShiney (Come say hi) 16:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP made the same edit again, Cluebot NG reverted it and, as you had already given a final warning, Cluebot reported it to WP:AIV where I picked it up. Humans and bots working well together! JohnCD (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I figured that saying that being a homosexual was a mental illness was grounds for an immediate final warning. Thats pretty cool though...what's next...Skynet? MisterShiney (Come say hi) 17:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously my page was deleted because I violated terms of use. But you also have my user name permanently blocked? (Level561) Can you unblock my user name so I can change the content.

--User:Level561) (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Lee (bassist) (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that account will not be unblocked, because we do not allow accounts whose names are names of organizations or groups. Accounts must be for individuals only, who are personally responsible for them. I see you have set up an individual account for yourself, and that's fine, but Wikipedia is not a place for you to write about yourself or your band - see Wikipedia is not about YOU and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. JohnCD (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JohnCD, Recently two articles were deleted Until The Sun Comes Out Again and Open Sky (Discography) for the reason 'Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article'. The Artist is Notable and I tried to do this with very little time, with which I didn't list the references. The band had a wikipedia article which was also removed for not sourcing. As the band has been nominated for three Covenant awards by GMA Canada I felt the pages were needed to be put up. Would it be possible to have those two pages plus Open Sky (Band) userfied (Or un-deleted) so I can finish editing them? Thanks. Shrike88 (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Shrike88[reply]

I have userfied the band article for you to User:Shrike88/Open Sky (band). I would concentrate first on seeing whether you can establish that the band are notable enough to have an article before worrying about album or discography articles. Just being nominated for awards doesn't mean all that much: WP:Notability requires references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see WP:42, and the standard for bands is explained at WP:BAND. Read WP:NALBUMS as well - even where a band are notable enough for an article, it doesn't follow that their albums are; unless there is substantial independent coverage about the album it's better covered in the band article.

Before restoring the band article to the main encyclopedia, check with user Ronhjones (talk), the admin who deleted it. JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thanks for the help. I will get it properly sourced and confirm the notability. Cheers Shrike88 (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Shrike88[reply]

you deleted the article Martin Bunzl in may 2012, and it came back in august 2012. i tried some talk page info, but they didn't answer. looks like it is martin or a family member doing it. i think the page is not worthy or notable. please check. thanks. Soosim (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a much more substantial article than the one I deleted in May, which just said he was a member of the Philosophy Dept and had one sentence about his work. This one is good enough to pass the low bar of WP:CSD#A7, though I am not sure it would pass WP:Notability (academics). You could consider AfD, if you like, or I might consider it when I have time to do a bit of checking. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JohnCD - Are you ok with restoring this user talk page you just deleted as G11? I had already removed the advertisement and placed a block notice on their page, but seem to have edit conflicted with your deletion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, already noted and done I see - you're not only super-speedy, but super efficient as well! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-conflicted again - yes, I saw what had happened. JohnCD (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JohnCD!

I was working on this webpage, but noticed it got deleted. I now see why it was deleted, but I was hoping I could get it back in this sandbox format that you mentioned in your talk page so that I can keep working on it for now. Though the band hasn't made it big yet, they're on their way, so I was hoping that I could keep the page, and then when I have more information to add to it (possibly a record deal!) I could run it past you once again to see if it could become an actual wikipedia page.

Thanks! CMShanny (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)CMShanny[reply]

Replied on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you felt the notice for speedy deletion of the page MusicBlvd was invalid. I would like to just give you the quick reason I personally, believed it was fit for speedy deletion:

The article claimed and I quote MusicBlvd is partnered with Billboard.com, Musixmatch, and YouTube which you have quoted no sources for whatsoever. Just because you have accounts on Twitter, Youtube and billboard.com does not mean you are partnered. The accounts on Twitter (Has 2 followers correct as of 11:30, 31/10/2012 GMT) and Youtube (Has 2 Subscribers correct as of 11:30, 31/10/2012) which both indicate lack of notability. MusicBlvd has little indication of why it is culturally significant. I view this article to be in violation of WP:SOAP . Section 6. of that clearly states that All topics must be verifiable with independent, third party sources. This article also violates the section External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. This organisation I don't really consider, myself as a major organisation. WP:COMPANY is a guideline that highlights the various different ways an article can be notable. The article also only appears to list Pro's for this organisation therefore does not seem to demonstrate a WP:NPOV. I'd also like to point out that the article Gracenote makes no references to MusicBlvd and that the following Source appears to indicate a company by the name of Music Boulevard and not as the article indicates MusicBlvd. Overall I have quoted the problems with this article and if there is anyway in which you could improve it to a point in which could be seen to compliment the WP:POLICIES it would satisfy me personally however, this AfD debate is to gain overall consensus and I cannot speak on behalf of other people so I will look forward to what other editors have to say. --Olowe2011(talk) 12:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again my sorry for making what you saw as a incorrect nomination and I will try to read the policy you quoted more next time. PLEASE NOTE The quote above is from my nomination for deletion under AfD. (If you could respond to this on my Talk page it would be much appreciated.) --Olowe2011 (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this user knows completely about 3RR. I reverted three vandalism edits on a page and he put this on my talk page. I asked him why on his talk page and he responded with this. Could you please tell him about what is not considered 3RR violations? Thanks. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on his and your talk pages. JohnCD (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today I posted a page regarding a theory of immortality. This theory was valid in both definition and evidence, and yet the theory was taken down almost immediately, the reason being that it was an apparent "blatant hoax". This theory is not a hoax, as hoax implies deception, which a theory by definition cannot do (theories are suppositions, not facts. A theory cannot deceive any more than the claim "I personally like cheese" can). There was no reason for this page to be taken down, and I would appreciate it if you would stop tearing down valid Wikipedia pages. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitolcity (talk • contribs) 14:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if your articles are not jokes or intended to deceive, your theories are still not suitable material for an encyclopedia. For some of the reasons, see:

• Wikipedia:No original research: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery."
• WP:REDFLAG: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"
• Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.

JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The first two reasons seem invalid to me, but "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day" gave me some input as to why I can't post these pages. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitolcity (talk • contribs) 14:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a page on November 1, 2012 at around 2:00 in the afternoon, I wanted to ask why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don'tletthepigeonfan (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had to delete it because it was a copyright violation - explanation on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to reply to your last message, I wanted to ask if I can just change the plot into my own words and keep the same as the rest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don'tletthepigeonfan (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out at User talk:Morgan Katarn, new sock at User:Lord Dionysos. He was called out on it and responded "So what, I'm back!". Some guy (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, thank you, I'll update the SPI presently. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I saw that you are active at WP:REFUND. Long ago I tried to defend an article on Till Tantau at AfD here. In 2012 the article was recreated, but if I remember right, the previous version was a lot more concise, and a lot longer.

Is there still a way to assess the previously deleted version of the article? Would you mind offering an opinion as to the notability of Till Tantau? After all, if it goes to AfD again, then why bother?

Thanks in advance, cheers, Pgallert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a history merge, so that you can now see the previous (May 2010) version in the history here. It looks much the same, actually, and I have to say that it seems to me a WP:CSD#G4 repost of deleted material speedy deletion candidate, as the new version does nothing to overcome the principal objection (lack of independent coverage) raised at the AfD. I wouldn't zap it myself, I would tag it so as to get another pair of eyes, and I'm happy for you to see if you can find sources to add, but unless they are spectacularly good it shuld probably go back to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot--I had actually hoped that it contained more information. That the sources are thin has not changed, unfortunately. I found the AfD quite vitriolic, and its closure more of a head count that an evaluation of arguments. Anyway, I have reinserted the only reliable source and hope for the best. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John CD for the welcome message and help inks you provided - will be sure to contacting you in the future to help review our 1st article before it is published.Ifeanyidjr (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JohnCD,

I am the author of a study, and everything I have written about the study I have provided under creative commons license. Even the ESDS page that publishes my study cites that the copyright for their version is under my name. My wikipage about the study has been rejected for violating copyright, however since I am the owner of the copyright and I give permission for it to be used I don't understand what the problem is.

Can you help?

Thanks

Kristi Winters (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Drkmwinters Dr. Kristi Winters[reply]

Replied on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, I created a new page at Pizza Lucé describing a pizzeria chain in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. However, it was deleted because there was "no indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." I'm really confused by this. I used the article Ray's Pizza about a pizzeria chain in New York City as an example for my article and it seems to me that that article has all of the same elements as the article I created (such as a description of their locations and their founding and development). Could you please let me know what articles like Ray's Pizza have that mine was lacking and restore the page so that I can make the necessary changes? -Thunderforge (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: independent references. More on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John!

I'm just wondering if you could take a look at this conversation I'm having with user Zepppep. It's regarding this report that was made to AIV. When I've looked at the IPs contributions I found only one edit for today, the earliest one before that was in July 2011 so I've refused any block and I posted a message on Zepppep's talk page about making a bad report to AIV because there is no way that should have been reported to AIV given the length of time between the edits.

What was worrying me most though, is looking at the IP talk page, Zepppep has issued a level 3 warning for the vandalism the IP did today. However he has then issued two level 4 warnings, one for vandalism carried out in June 2011, the last one for vandalism carried out in April 2011! Wouldn't that be classed as bad faith? I'm sure it certainly breaks everything assuming good faith stands for! It's a shared IP, it's likely that it wasn't the same person that made the edits that occurred over a year ago and by issuing not one but two final warnings they may well have scared off a genuine editor.

Zepppep also seems to think that by blocking the editor for 31 hours it would encourage them to become a faithful editor. However that's not how the blocking policy or AIV work. Zepppep has been editing the encyclopedia since 2009, I would expect them to know that by now and I'm slightly concerned that they don't!

Personally I would've started the warning process off from scratch again - with a level 1 warning for vandalism. Can you please have a look and see if there's anything that should be added to my conversation with the editor? --5 albert square (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are absolutely right, I would have responded to that AIV report with Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block or User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. After over a year, with an IP, one should certainly restart the warning cycle, though I would have started with level 2 here, as that does not look like a good-faith edit. I have removed the quite inappropriate #4 warnings from the IP talk page - for policy on why they are inappropriate, WP:VAND: "A new warning generally should not escalate from a previous warning unless a user received the previous warning and failed to heed it." It looks from Zepppep's talk page as though s/he has got the message, and I don't think it would help for me to weigh in there now.

I'm slightly surprised to see that WP:VAND doesn't give any explicit guidance about how to treat IPs, and I might think whether I can compose some, though it would be complicated - is it a school? does continuity of pages attacked indicate the same person? is it malicious or just silly? etc. JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just letting you know I removed your prod from the above article as it has previously been proposed for deletion. Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 01:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There wasn't an {{oldprod}} on the talkpage, but it was careless of me not to see the previous PROD in the history. JohnCD (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Help me making these pages acceptable in wikipedia. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenille_Bentley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialite_Media

Regards

Hi, How is you? I really want to sort out the matter with my pages. In your whydeleted page you said one ned to provide references. What kind of references are acceptable? Press releases? Blog posts? Personal blog of author? blog, where author guest posts? a random blog praising or appreciating the author. Any kind of guidance help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Here are the two pages URL that you have deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialite_Media http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenille_Bentley

Regards

Talha Awan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikia118 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no, not blogs, not press releases, see WP:42. More advice on your talk page soon, maybe not till tomorrow. JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find to create an article. Can you tell me how to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don'tletthepigeonfan (talk • contribs) 00:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Your first article, then consider using the WP:Article wizard to help you through the process. JohnCD (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. i REALLY APPRECIATE IT. That is my profile on elance, but she is not my client, to be honest. Never got hired on elance :( Thanks again