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).

Re User:Artegemini

I checked their other contribution, Ireneusz Krosny — blatant copyvio (already deleted once before for copyvio and advertising). I've removed the copyvio and rewritten as a longish stub. This is another notable artist with an extremely clueless PR company. Sigh! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Now we watch for new SPAs trying to re-peacock the articles. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Crawford (Management Consultant)

Good point, John, something I missed when I created the AFD. My bad. Guess I just forget that not everybody is going to understand this. As far as the welcome message...well, guess he shouldn't've overwritten the darn thing. =) By the way, any chance we can cut it back to 24 hours for his ban? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a fairly blatant disregard of warning notices, and I have given him plenty to read in the meantime... but in view of the point I raised with you, OK, I'll cut it back to 24 hours. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello.

Is there any way I can find out who wrote this attack article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.34.38 (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to ask, which attack article? because the answer is: sorry, no, there isn't. JohnCD (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Callum James Rivett article

hello, i'm talking to you know because you deleted my page about the above, and i would love it if you re-published it, as he is a good football and has real potential on this scene, and he would also like to be a football manager when he is older, and his friends (like me) like readingthis article about him, as it gives them information about why he plays football and who he plays for, so i ask you will you pretty please with sugar on top with an extra cherry and vanilla icing, return the page and un-delete it please (:

___cjr___ (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's not what Wikipedia is for, it's an encyclopedia, not a social-networking site. Why not start a Myspace or Facebook page for him? Then his friends can read about him there. JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing redlinks

Correct my ignorance, re the recent edits to "Hillside Festival".

I reversed an edit (in the list of performers at the festival), which seemed only to add a superfluous mark of parenthesis resulting in "Cowboy Junkies (2008))". But then you reversed my reversal.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "redlink", and why does it involve parentheses like "(2008))".

I feel I'm missing something here. Thanks.

Willondon (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As well as removing a surplus parenthesis, your edit reinserted a link to a band called "The Canned Goods" whose article has been deleted as non-notable. If there is no corresponding article, a "Wikilink" shows red, and is referred to as a redlink, in contrast to a bluelink to an existing article. I reverted your edit because I thought you were trying to re-insert "The Canned Goods". I didn't notice the extra parenthesis, but I have fixed it now. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dominique Cottrez

Yeah, except you didn't wait for me to post that she's mention on the front page of 4 news organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruguiea (talk • contribs) 18:10 29 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:109PAPERS and WP:NOT#NEWS; but maybe I was too hasty. I have restored the article and will let someone else consider it. On past form what will happen is an AfD with a long wrangling argument between those who say Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a tabloid newspaper, and those who say this case is deeply significant for some reason or other, and I wouldn't care to bet on the result; but my own views are too much on the NOTNEWS side for me to use my admin tools here. But please read WP:BLP very carefully - you must have a reliable source for everything in the article. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

good morning John CD

Good morning JohnCD.

My name is Cameron Watson - I am from Canada.

I trust all is well and am pleased you took a second to contact me. I had heard from Mdd yesterday and he had let me know that he was on a bit of a break.

As you can probably tell, I am new to all of this and trying to get a better understanding of wikipedia and how I can make a contribution. I am hoping I will be able to translate my 25 years of Information Technology experience into something beneficial to the readership.

That said, I recognize there is much to learn in the wikipedia world. I have recently made some edits to the "software development methodology" article and have also composed a new article called "integrated IT methodology". My intent was to understand and apply the wikipedia rules as to the best of my understanding and believe both of these articles provide the users with more information.

I was hoping you might get a second to take a look at either of these articles and would appreciate any comments/suggestions you would care to make. I am still not certain what the protocol is to make the articles available for review (will try and do more research) so that I can make them available for others to contribute/critique.

Hoping you will have an opportunity to get back to me - have a safe/good weekend.

Thanks. Cameron.

Qaiassist (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC) qaiassist

Deletion of James Umar McConnell

Could you provide an explanation for your decision to delete the above article? McConnell is one of a handful of people in America attending Abu Nour University, helped establish the Baltimore branch, one of the top authorities/author on Hijama (cupping) and received advanced training from what many regard as the leading Sufi teacher of this generation Sheikh Nazim, with 2000 hours of additional training from another well known Sufi teacher Sheikh Adnan. Compared to the many other "Scholars" listed in the wiki pages, McConnell was trained in the traditional Sufi method, as verifiable through these living teachers. His notoriety is well established. The University training is easily verified, so how did you arrive at the decision to delete, and why was the deletion process even initiated before discussion, consideration for a new author, and a "needs more citation notice" applied? I once again point to Bilal Phillips as just one example of someone far less qualified and making much less a contribution as McConnell. There are several articles about McConnell. one from a leading reporter who was held hostage in Iran and has become rather famous as a result and ABC Foreign correspondence, a national news program in Australia. Please advise. Thank you. BeNothing (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

FROM BENOTHING TALK PAGE: Thanks for the good words. I do believe this article is recipient of bias and ignorance. I am concerned about people entering and judging foreign or unfamiliar topics that if reviewing something more familiar or common, they would not think twice about the subject and just take it as fact – not needing a reference for each small claim. Other articles more familiar to people are not met with such judgment, that is certain. Aside from all that, there are many references such as the news articles and McConnell’s invitation to study at Abu Nour (one of a few American candidates selected for such an honor). An honor bestowed to someone already proven to be a leader in their field. So the article has merit and should be consolidated at best, not deleted. There are perhaps two people in America proficient in Hijama, not cupping a practiced by acupuncturists. So we have removed the opportunity of some 6 to 9 million Muslims (depending on who you believe) from benefiting from accessing hijama services or knowing someone who is expert in this field. I find that remarkably ignorant to say McConnell is not noteworthy. I will copy this to the admin who opted to delete the article and see if we can get it reinstated. Thanks again, but no thanks BeNothing (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I closed the debate as delete because, as I explained in my closing statement, there was a clear consensus - unanimous apart from yourself - that the article should be deleted as not meeting Wikipedia's requirement of notability, which is not a matter of opinion but needs to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The point of this is that Wikipedia editors do not themselves need to make value judgements about whether a subject is significant; we simply ask, is there evidence that other people, independent of the subject have thought it significant and important enough to write about?

You expressed the view that these decisions should be made by people with expert knowledge of the subject. That is a point of view, but it is not the way Wikipedia works. There are other on-line encyclopedias such as Citizendium which use different approaches such as "gentle expert oversight", but by any measure such as number of contributors or number of readers, it is apparent that Wikipedia's approach is more successful.

You have referred several times to the Bilal Phillips page. We are well aware that many of Wikipedia's 3 million articles are not of the standard we would like, and for that reason "What about article x?" is not an accepted argument. A deletion discussion is only about the particular article and whether it meets requirements.

A final point; one of Wikipedia's principles is that though we may disagree we should assume good faith - assume that others are also here with the aim of improving the encyclopedia, even if we disagree with them. We adopt the principle of no personal attacks - comment on content, not on contributors. It does not help Wikipedia, or help your case, to accuse others of bigotry or ignorance, or of being shills.

If you wish to challenge the close of an AfD, the first thing to do is to discuss it with the closing administrator, and invite him to change his decision. You have done that, but I stand by my decision. You may now, if you wish, take the case to WP:Deletion review, but please read carefully the section at the top of that page headed "What is this page for?": Deletion review is not for continuing the same discussion, but for arguing either that the debate was wrongly decided against consensus, or that there is new information which was not considered during the debate. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I will respect your decission. I do wish to know if a living person is considered a source acceptable by Wikipedia. If President Obama acknowldged me as an expert in a particular field, would that meet wiki standards for notarirty? I am interested in your honest answer and I believe that answer is yes, it would constitute notarity. Sheikh Nazim in many circels is way above President Obmama. I am only asking because I wish to do more research, find more refrences and see if I can submit this later after reading up on Wiki requirements. Thanks for the lengthy response. 97.123.59.100 (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

An endorsement from President Obama would certainly be significant, but it would need to have been published somewhere that could be checked, to comply with the policy on Verifiability, which includes: "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." Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When Christ parts the clouds and comes down on the wings of angels, I guess it won't hit Wiki unless the New York Times was there. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.59.100 (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post would do... but yes, your general point is correct. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Inteva Products, LLC

Hi John,

Just wondering if we might be able to work together regarding the deletion of the Inteva Products, LLC page. I have been doing some research on behalf of Inteva, which is a major automotive supplier. They've been having trouble with their page and I see that the material was flagged as copyright infringement since it was pulled from their LinkedIn Group. As a neutral third-party member, would you be willing to let me take a stab at recreating the page so that it better fits Wikipedia's standards? Given that several of Inteva's competitors have operating pages, we were just hoping we could find a solution that ensures Wikipedia's standards are met while also allowing Inteva to have a fair presence in sharing their encyclopedia-worthy information with the public. Thanks for your time. I look forward to your response.

AngelaHernandez (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. Matthew Buckley

Hi. You closed the discussion as a keep after one week. However, I feel it should have been relisted as no good reasons were given for keeping it (e.g. "truly unique individual"). There were only three participants, two of which were SPAs involved in editing the article, the other gave a "weak" keep and comment "There seems to be a lot of sources" probably without having a close look at these sources. Are you able to relist it now or does it have to go to DRV? Christopher Connor (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree this was marginal, but my feeling was that the article was improving, and I didn't think consensus to delete was likely to emerge. The non-SPA "weak keep", an experienced editor, commented mainly on the tone and said "If someone could start cleaning it up this whole deletion discussion would be unnecessary." I don't intend to relist it myself, but I shall not be at all offended if you take it to DRV to ask for a relist. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Essex Police Special Constabulary

Hi John, sorry this was the first time I had used that template and it seemed to go wrong, please feel free to move it where its meant to be. thanks Pandaplodder (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Which process are you wanting to use, PROD or AfD? If PROD, once you have added the PROD template to the top of the article you're done, though you should copy the "Author notification template" from the bottom of the PROD notice to the article author's talk page - in this case the author has been inactive for over a year, but its still a good thing to do. If you want to do an AfD, you need to follow the instructions at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion, which are a bit mind-boggling at first but OK if you put an icepack on your head and take it slowly. JohnCD (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it PROD would seem adaquate Pandaplodder (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. JohnCD (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JohnCD. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why my article is reported "Speedy Deletion"

My article about my biz-"quickcatchup.com" is reported "speedy deletion", I try to understand that other similar biz post their articles about their company as well. Why I can not do this? I've avoid using the tempting words and phrases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoTanQCU (talk • contribs) 21:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi JohnCD,

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and had created an article on the Master of Business and Science. After creating this page, I was away from home for about a month and came back to find my entry removed from the site. I was just wondering for what exact reason the page was removed. Any help would be appreciated!

Thanks --Enotita (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

New pages

Thanks for the tip .. -- ♥♥♥Sweet xx^{Talk Contribs} 01:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of pages

Thanks! Ocean Shores Formerly TEK (talk • e-mail) 14:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Db-u1 are the easy ones! JohnCD (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wilbur Curtis Co. under Requested Articles

Hi JohnCD,

A while back I posted The Wilbur Curtis Co. under requested articles hoping for someone to pick it up and write a page on (As I cannot due to conflict of interest, which I completely understnad the rules and guidelines now.) What can I do to see a Wikipedia page created for the company? I do not know exactly how the request for an article page works but would like to know if there is anything else I can do to expedite the creation of a wiki page. Thanks for your help.

MrCurtis (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

When I started out I was set to vandalize, but now I am trying to be part of the wikipedia team and help out