This is an archive of past discussions with User:JohnCD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hey, JohnCD,
I just came across another couple of anomalies. Draft:Carolina Theatre (Charlotte, North Carolina), which I deleted and you restored, appears in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions as eligible for deletion. But, the G13 category doesn't appear on the draft article and, looking at the content, there is no db tag either. The only clue I can find to determine why it is showing up as G13 eligible is the AFC notice which has a date of 20150424192846 which, I'm guessing is April 24, 2015 at 19:28:46. So, maybe the date triggered the placement in the G13 category.
Also, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James Bond and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/History of Sohi appear in the G13 category as well without the G13 category appearing on the drafts. What is interesting is that the Hasteur bot HAD put db tags on the James Bond and History of Sohi drafts and both drafts were deleted but restored. The db tags no longer appear on the drafts but maybe the Hasteur bot leaves some sort of code behind that marks them as G13 eligibe? As for the Carolina Theatre, I can't see that Hasteur bot (or anyone) ever db tagged that article, it just shows up in the G13 category. Confusing, no? LizRead!Talk!11:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The plot thickens! Looking at Special:Contributions/HasteurBot, it shows that last night, it notified an interested editor (DGG) that James Bond and Sohi were G13 eligible but it doesn't appear that it (or anyone else) actually re-tagged the articles (the previous tags can be seen in the article history or as a deleted edit). So, what edit caused them to appear in the G13 category? LizRead!Talk!12:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: I think the system works like this (but will ping Hasteur as the expert): The AfC submission template is quite complex and intelligent. It puts pages into daily categories like Category:AfC submissions by date/20 April 2015. When six months are up, it adds them to Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and displays the "This draft has not been edited in over six months and qualifies to be deleted per CSD G13" message. Any edit, except certain prescribed bot edits, restarts the six-month clock. None of that adds any tags or shows in the page history.
HasteurBot works through the articles in the G13-eligible category, sends a warning to the article author, and notifies interested "watchers" like DGG. After a prescribed waiting period, to allow time for the author to object or the watchers to check and maybe G13-postpone the article, HasteurBot adds a db-g13 tag. Human editors also add db-g13 tags, but I don't know why they don't just leave it to HasteurBot - it seems just the sort of task for a bot.
That's why I'm not sure it's right to delete articles straight out of the G13-eligible category, which may be in their waiting period. Best to let the bot tag them in due course, and deal with them when they appear in CAT:CSD.
Just a couple of comments, JohnCD. There does exist Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions which has over 2,000 drafts that I believe are in this "limbo" stage before they are placed in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. Second, I've checked some of the articles that are in the latter, G13 category and they don't have a db tag on them and there is also no evidence that the HasteurBot edited the draft (and most of HasteurBot's edits are to user talk pages). Somehow, drafts move into the G13 category without being tagged.
If that is not enough of a puzzle, then we have the 3 articles mentioned above along with Draft:Waterstart which do not have the message that "it's been six months and no edit have been made" AND they have no db tag AND the G13 category doesn't appear among their categories (like it does for most drafts in the G13 category) and yet they DO appear in the G13 eligible category.
Now here is an example of the majority of articles in G13 eligible category, one that I chose at random: see Draft:Ian Meinertzhagen. It does have a six month notice and it does have the G13 category among its categories. But it has no db tags and no HasteurBot edits. This is the typical situation I have been encountering except for the 4 exceptions already mentioned. Additionally, the G13 eligible category is a child category for Category:Speedy deletion so I'm not sure what you mean by "deal with them when they appear in CAT:CSD: since G13 eligible category does appear there already. LizRead!Talk!15:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The bot crawls the list of submissions by going through the Category:AfC submissions by date hierarchy and grabbing every page that is in the old AFC prefix (Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/) or in the Drafts namespace. It considers the absolute last revision and calculated 6 months back to see if the page has become eligible for G13. The bot makes a null edit to force the template to re-evaluate parameters (such as the last revision timestamp) and apply (or remove) the eligible category. It notifies the page creator and those that are on User:HasteurBot/G13 OptIn Notifications who have ever touched the page.
This means that it looks through all the categories that are at minimum eligibility and grabs submissions to evaluate. This is important in case someone spends a few weeks on working a draft and then grows tierd of it as drafts become eligible every day.
If a page gets restored from G13 purgatory without having a edit made against it, the template is still going to register the page as eligible because the template hasn't been re-evaulated.
Though the "bot actions do not reset the clock" neither my bot, nor the templates support that logic, and I have opposed that change and haven't taken to implementing it myself. I take the much more conservative view of "any" action which causes a new revision resets the 6 month clock.
The eligible soon category was added to the templates so that users could start evaluating the pages that were becoming (5 months unedited) stale without the threat of activist deletionists jumping on a page as soon as it qualifies for G13. I put together a solution to start notifiying on the 5th month, but I got boerd with it I believe.
In the normal case the bot has 3 (or 4) edits with respect to a single draft:
A warning to the page creator that their draft is eligible for G13 right now and could be nominated for deletion. (Typically at the 6 months unedited mark)
A notice to the page creator that their draft has been nominated under the CSD rule
In this case, when the draft is deleted, the edit that was to the draft no longer gets counted because it's no longer publically accessable. Ergo, the bot spends an extraordinary amount of it's time in the User talk space, just like New Page patrollers/AFC volunteers/CSD nominators will show up a bunch in the user talk space for notifications.
In short, the bot is doing exactly what it's supposed to do, even if it's ludacriously complicated. Hasteur (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: Also, I've been slacking for a while and didn't enable the January - May 2015 categories for scanning. I've added it to the scan sections. Hasteur (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, Hasteur, I, and I'm sure John, appreciate your thorough answer to our puzzled questions. It really helps. But I have a few remarks:
It was my understanding that the G13 tag was automagically applied after 6 months with no edits but you also say that the bot makes An edit to the draft nominating it for {{db-g13}} which is what I understand John's view was. But most of the G13 eligible drafts I see haven't been db-tagged and when I look at the contributions of the bot, they are almost entirely notices to page creators (and interested parties), not edits to AFC articles or drafts. In fact, when I look at G13 eligible drafts, they usually have no bot edits in their edit history.
It looks like the message has to get to the admins who frequent WP:REFUND that they need to make a null edit to a restored draft because I see restored drafts right back in the G13 eligible category. I don't think this always needs to happen because usually the editor who requests the restoration goes to work on the article. But if they don't, it goes right back into the eligible pile and any admin who comes across it is likely to delete it again.
Looking at the kind message that the bot leaves on the article creator's talk page, it does leave the impression that the draft can be deleted at any time unless the creator continues to work on it and not that there is an undefined period of time for them to respond to the bot that will stop it from being deleted. I think it's great that in the notice to the creator, you also include information on how to get the draft restored if it is deleted. LizRead!Talk!20:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: Again, if you had read the bot's implementations (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 2 and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot) you would see that there are 2 processes. The first being notifying users that their page is eligible right now for Deletion under CSD:G13 and starting (at minimum) a 30 day timeout to give the aothor an opportunity to make a registered edit to the page so that it disqualifies it from G13. The second process is to look at pages that were notified on at least 30 days ago and start nominating under CSD:G13 up to a certain limit so that the CSD patrolling admins aren't overflowed.
the {{db-g13}} tag is not (and should not) be automatically applied as soon as it becomes eligible via the bot.
Because the only edits that the bot will typically make to a non user talk page (i.e. Draft page) are to nominate for deletion, and they no longer show up in edit counts once the page is deleted, the bot doesn't get the credit for the edit. The caviat to that is pages that the bot has nominated for deletion and either got turned down or were WP:REFUNDED and the restoring admin took the G13 nomination tag off.
Yes the page could be deleted at any time as long as the criteria for G13 still hold (The page hasn't been edited in 6 months prior to the nomination) Hasteur (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Hasteur, I appreciate your indulgence in answering our questions but your reply touches on exactly where John and I differed in our discussion above. I thought that any drafts that were tagged G13 (which is a speedy deletion category) could be deleted while John argued that G13 was a warning that involved a timeout for the creator to work on the draft. Then you say, The first being notifying users that their page is eligible right now for Deletion under CSD:G13 and starting (at minimum) a 30 day timeout to give the aothor an opportunity to make a registered edit to the page... which seems to say both positions are true which is impossible. If there is, at minimum, a 30 day timeout, then the drafts shouldn't be eligible for deletion right now. There should be some sort of "holding category" where drafts can be placed for 30 days and then moved to G13 category when this timeout is over and where they can then be deleted.
I hope this makes sense because there does seem to be a difference of opinion on deletion practices and if I am in error, I'm sure others might be, too. And since I haven't said so yet, thanks for all of the work you and your bots do! LizRead!Talk!16:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: For the last time, there is a difference between what the bot is authorized to do, and what editors can do. As soon as a page is eligible for G13 (by the raw date check), a editor (like yourself) could go in and nominate the page for G13. The bot is not authorized to do that per the BRFAs. The bot is required to wait at least 30 days before checking the page again to see if it still qualifies for CSD:G13. To use an analogy: The bot's notice is the friend warning you "Hey your car registration is expired, you should do something about that before you get ticketed". The deletion hawks are like the police officer sitting on the side of the road waiting to catch you driving with an expired registration. Hasteur (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Hasteur: thanks. HasteurBot is an impressive achievement. In passing, one reason why I am less alarmed than some at the imminent appearance of driverless cars is the impressive performance of the bots here - for instance, at AIV I have much more confidence that a report by ClueBot NG or Mr.Z-bot will be accurate and actionable than I have in the reports by humans. To sum up the situation:
before six months, there are some preparatory actions
at six months, pages go into the "G-13 eligible" category
after that point
a) human patrollers may tag them with G13
b) human admins may delete them directly, without tagging
c) HasteurBot, however, waits a further 30 days before G13-tagging any that remain
The problem that started all this discussion is the recent appearance at REFUND of requests to restore pages of type 3b, which require at least a dummy edit to remove them from "G13-eligible" so that they are not rapidly re-deleted.
I don't, myself, see why anyone bothers with 3a or 3b; it seems unnecessary work for humans, and I would advise just leaving it to the bot. The extra 30 days might reduce the load at REFUND, if during that time page authors respond to the warning and edit their pages - REFUND requests quite often follow only a day or two behind deletion. But I don't think we need to make rules about it. JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Request for advice
An editor is adding cateogries which do not exist, and not creating them, which does not match our desired processes. Two other editors have brought this to the editor's attention without success. I left a note here:
User_talk:Lewisthejayhawk#Categories
with some detail on the chance that the earlier messages were not understood. Another example occurred after leaving that message.
I reviewed the editors talk page and note that the editor very rarely edits there. I see one example but only one ever, so it occurs to me the editor doesn't make a habit of checking their talk page. This doesn't make it acceptable but may explain why they aren't changing their process.
I don't block very often, because I view blocks as big deals and I'm very hesitant to use it simply to catch the editor's attention. I had hoped the editor might have email enabled so I could get their attention that way but they do not. I'm writing to you on the chance that there are other arrows in our quiver.--S Philbrick(Talk)22:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: no, I'm afraid I have no "tactical nuke" to offer. You could try a final warning prefaced with the sign, but if he isn't reading his talk page an attention-getting block is really the only option. (I still regret the Orange Bar of Doom, which was much harder to ignore than the little notification blobs). He edits prolifically enough that, if you catch him in full flow, even 3 hours should be enough. Then explain about BRD and the need for discussion.
I suspect that, quite often, unwillingness to talk indicates that a user is not fluent in English, so it would be worth trying to phrase your message as simply as possible. JohnCD (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
John, I'm the editor who brought this matter to SP's attention. One other thing- This editor is probably a sockpuppet of banned Dereks1x (talk·contribs) Lewis does make a lot of contributions, but he's also breaking his site ban.
FWIW, I think this user knows what he is doing is wrong, and is ignoring the talk page messages. Mostly he is just readding the category without doing undos in hope of not being caught. He is also editing when not signed in....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?23:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Systematic creation of accounts with essays on userpage
Hi, John. User:Calton has written to me with a long list of accounts created by the individual you advised here and here — I don't know if you were aware of them all? Thanks for trying to reach the writer — of course the trouble is they probably never see those talkpages. Not sure what can be done. Raise awareness of the problem at WP:AN, perhaps? Do you know if it might be possible to keep an eye out for the name, "Abbas Nurrollahi Diba, PhD", which is always signed at the bottom of the essays? A filter, possibly? Bishonen | talk11:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
@Bishonen, Calton, and RHaworth: I think I have got them all, by searching for his name on user pages. It has been going on for some time: the earliest was in May 2014, though speeding up recently - four in September and six in October. I left advice on User talk:Neuropseudology which I thought was the latest (30 Oct), but I now see User talk:Karbakh Neuropolitics was later, 3 Nov, so I have repeated it there in the hope that he will see it next time he edits: otherwise, what I expect to happen is that he will turn up indignantly on my talk page or RHaworth's, having seen our name as deleter of one of his essays.
I thought about AN, but I'm not sure there's much point unless he fails to respond and carries on the same way; nor do I think there is much point blocking all the accounts unless he starts to re-use them. I will scan for his name from time to time; do you think we should do any more? JohnCD (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, John. He's had a long time to turn up indignantly on the deleting admin's page, though, and hasn't yet, so maybe he won't. The user pages are mostly kind of opinion pieces, indeed, which is not for Wikipedia. I wasn't sure how to scan for the name, but if you'll do that, I don't see what else we need. Let's hope he keeps signing the pages with his name! Bishonen | talk13:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
No, none of them were deleted before today - at least none of this lot, there may have been other U5 deletions in the past. In regard to scanning, if you click "Search" while the box is empty, you get a search page which offers an "Advanced" facility that allows you to specify which namespaces to search, so for this guy you can select "User". I just tried "Wikipedia" in case any of his pages had been taken to MfD, but no. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@DmitryPopovRU: sorry, I did not get to look at that until after it had closed, but (without having read it all) my feeling is that it was right not to restore - a case of WP:BLP1E for rediscovering his parents, the rest of his career, though well-documented, not being notable. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Uhm, you are right, this time I was too hasty, and I had to assume good fait, pardon. So, I changed wn from level 4 to level 2. Maybe user really confused WP with a space for (cryptic) private messages to to people who understand what he's talking about. Anyway, I'll watch for eventual further contribs. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg18:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@DerBorg:No worries! I too will be interested to see whether we hear from him again and what he thought he was up to. We certainly get all sorts here - look at the item above this, about someone who thought the thing to do here was start a new account for every subject and then write an essay about it on the user page. JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Feeling guilty :) for being too hurry (even in case of a future ban) I removed my L2 warn, adding an L1 with a brief explaination of what's wrong with that edits. Anyway, now he took all necessary explainations, and eventual further edits could determine good faith or else... Curiously, despite article's name, this is not a case of self-promo, but a sort of "I.O.U.". Let's wait the 24th :-D . Regards and good work. --Dэя-Бøяg19:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Anonymous Troll
Thanks for catching these socks. Since I'm no expert on the admin tools, is there any way to selectively salt certain words or phrases in a title? That would prove handy. In any event, I appreciate your efforts to stop this guy's persistent disruption. GABHello!20:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, for extreme cases there is the WP:Edit filter, but it imposes quite an overhead because it checks every single edit. If this goes on long we may need to ask for a filter, but I hope he will get bored soon - his target is aged 15, so probably he is, too. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Right. Well, I'll stay on the look-out. That's what new-page patrol is for, I guess, although I've never seen this kind of persistence. GABHello!20:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@Norlanbrequillo101: don't worry about it, not your fault - Wikipedia isn't as good as it should be at explaining to new users what it is not for. There are so many rules and customs that the only way to make progress is to make mistakes and learn from them. JohnCD (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I just saw that you deleted my user page because of "(G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)" You said that the offensive material was added by an IP. What does "added by an IP" mean? Do you know whether the bad material was added recently (like within the past few days)? I changed my password in case my password was compromised since I hadn't edited the user page myself for months. Thanks for your time helping me understand what went wrong! (oh wow! I just noticed that today's xkcd.com [1] comic talks about "sesquiannual" which is the same as my user name. Is there a way for me to lock my user page so that no one can edit it? I really, really don't want to be blocked from editing.)
SesquiZed (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@Sesquiannual: "Added by an IP" means that whoever made the edits was not logged in, so that the history shows the IP address from which they were editing. It was all some time ago: in June 2008 you wrote there "conniption fit is a... "; then on three dates in 2010 and one in February 2012 offensive material was added by different IPs, all geolocating to Ireland. It has come up now because someone complained about it to OTRS, the email contact line for anyone who has a problem with Wikipedia content.
I will email you the content if you like, which may give you a clue as to who was responsible; but on the whole my advice would be to forget it - it was a long time ago. I have semi-protected your user page, so that it cannot be edited by IPs or very new users.
I had actually read today's XKCD before I saw the report about your user page, and thought it an odd coincidence; on reflection, maybe not, perhaps someone reading XKCD googled the word, was led to look at your user page, and made the OTRS complaint. Anyway, it's gone now. JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
My AIV report
Thanks John, If you look back in the user page history, it actually seems the user self made the comments, although they later were modified through an I-address. I mailed you the OTRS report. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I am a new Wikipedia user (obviously) and am trying to publish an article about Dirk Palmer Bach, who is a prominent artist and teacher with whom I am working professionally. I am wondering why my article was deleted, and how to go about publishing one. I started writing the article, but wasn't finished with it. Is there somewhere I can write it over time without "posting" it, that way it would be completed beforehand? I would appreciate any help.
Hi. I saw that you removed the G13 tag from this draft. Just wanted to make sure I had not incorrectly tagged it for speedy delete. Thanks. Onel5969TT me17:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Onel5969: no, your G13 tag on 10 Nov was quite correct, and the page was deleted the same day; but on 16 Nov undeletion was requested at WP:REFUND, so I restored it and then removed the tag so that it should not be immediately re-deleted. JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
He did, and I would normally do a history-merge, but in this case I don't think it necessary because he was the only contributor to the page he copied, so there is no attribution problem. JohnCD (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for allowing me to work on this. I've added numerous reliable sources and moved it to the mainspace looks like they are even attempting to tax this in Germany. Let me know if you see any issues. Valoemtalkcontrib11:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It was only one edit, and they didn't do any more when it was reverted. That's not enough to revoke talk page access, but I'll watch the page for a day or two. JohnCD (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
So was it worth my making the SPI for that, or would there have been a more appropriate course of action? This situation has come of a few times for me, and with all of the typical SPI administrative work required I wonder if I should have done it differently. --| Uncle Milty | talk |15:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Uncle Milty: I can't actually suggest a better course of action. You could have reported Midas hyd to WP:UAA and mentioned the other account, but I don't know that that would have been any less hassle. Dealing with the SPI was not a lot of hassle: all I had to do was write my comment and add "close", next a clerk will archive it. The report will serve as a base if they continue.
I don't know if you are aware of the meta:2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey. I only found out about it recently, and I have submitted a proposal "Tell prospective users what Wikipedia is not for" - currently 8.19 in the table - which might help fend off this kind of user. The rules are that, in order to be considered in the voting phase, a proposal needs at least one endorsement before the proposal phase finishes tomorrow. May I canvass you to endorse the proposal, so that it survives into the voting phase? Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. I'd still like to see User pages automatically noindexed, but I think that's already been heavily discussed previously. --| Uncle Milty | talk |16:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
So I am wondering if i can remake the page about my friend i have my friends permission so now i am wondering if i can creat another page please get back to me Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicdaduck (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know my way around all this back end stuff but when I search for information about the newscaster in question, Lori Harfenist, I discovered the page was coming up amongst the top results on the first page of Google.
It still is, and as Barfenist. I suspect the animation is bad faith too.
She may well be due a formal page. Perhaps an option would be to move it to being one?
@Wordfunk: I have moved it to Draft:Lori Harfenist. Draft pages are NOINDEXed, so it should drop off Google in a few days. (I don't know why user subpages like that aren't NOINDEXed automatically - I believe there was a deliberate decision about it a few years back, but I think it needs revisiting). She may be notable enough for an article, but it would need better, independent references (they are all to her site or her Youtube channel) to show that she isn't just a "Youtube celebrity", and I don't have time right now to fix it up. I might see if I can find a WikiProject that would be interested - or might you be? The original author is long gone - last edited 2008.
John CD
Hi from the Prof at JHU, Michael Miller. Happy Xgiving!
Someone questioned by sandbox and asked me if I was doing it to ultimately make a Wiki on Computational Anatomy, the field I pioneered with about 5 others.
I said yes, but I was working in the backround to get it organized and then let me friends put in their references etc... Also I hope I can add figures and some videos.
I haven't yet written it in the passive voice but I have put in many references.
The comment left implied it was not appropriate or something, i.e. the format of my sandbox to them appeared as though I think it could not take shape to be a Wiki section on
the field. Can you look at it and let me know. It isn't yet done but if I am so far off that it is impossible to become public and not get removed I would like to know, or helpful hints.
Thanks 12:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mim.cis (talk • contribs)
I so appreciate your message that I just read.
I suppose I was too arrogant in saying "I" did something, rather I mean our group, Computational Anatomy group created it.
All of it is well referenced.
Thank-you for your time. I don't know if this will be successful or not.
Even just the platform of being able to now lecture and have students anywhere just be able to
log into my sandbox and see everything. Also it seems like you will be improving the latex and typesetting in the future, or
upgrading it.
Can I keep the sandbox for my own "Computational Anatomy Project", i.e. colleagues whom will build their
energy into it so we have a complete record and is available to them and me for sharing?
Even if it doesn't pass the muster as a Wikipedia article or series of published articles?
Again thanks. I have been having so much fun over the past 2 weeks since I started.
Abubakarism (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
you deleted my article and blocked my account Sadicology
with no reason but one thing you must know is that i will be continue creating accounts as a reserve the moment you block it or another pathalogical fool good for-nothing, destitute of sense son of bastard and cad admin like you the moment i will change my ip and log in another account and this will never end untill to my death as iam man who is in need of wasting time aimlessly for nothing to achieve i have profound desire to be involve in many aspects on the internet iam using mobile phone in all my work with low cost of money and battery rather a much of thinking
please continue blocking my new accounts but remember if you are alive and any admin like you i will never let wikipedia to handle its work easily =Special:NewPages =Special:NewChanges and =********* are on my hand i will make you and your type to remain considering deletion tag for any article you have created your self and even for any new unless you protected them from editing
your man Sadicology
still now i have registered 9 account withing this night waiting for your rubbish and fucking blocks
@Abubakarism: if you seriously want to edit here, and join the people who are helping to build the encyclopedia, you are going quite the wrong way about it. I left advice for you at User talk:MorisBd that explains what you should do if you are serious; otherwise, if you just go on creating sockpuppet accounts, we will just go on blocking them until you get bored and find something more constructive to do. That's a waste of everyone's time, but we are quite used to it. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Note to talk page stalkers: yes, it's offensive, but please do not remove the message above, which is linked to from elsewhere. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
There is, but unless there is some reason for haste I prefer to wait the full 7 x 24 hours before closing a discussion. No point giving people something to complain about at DRV. JohnCD (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I never agreed to accept userfication of this project space talk page. Please remove it. People might get it into their heads to post messages for me there. The might try to interfere with my right to blank my user talk pages. If this automatically comes with the essay, which I do not believe, you will have to delete the whole thing. I am not happy for editors to create new pages in my user talk space. Suppose I wanted to move the essay, perhaps sandbox it, or delete it altogether. Am I going to have a permanent talk subpage, with a highly descriptive name, that editors can link to with the object of ridiculing me? If that is the case, I reject userfication of the whole thing. I had no idea you were going to do this. James500 (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
On second thoughts, since I never agreed to accept userfication of that talk page, I reject userfication of the whole thing. Please take both of them out of my user space and get rid of them. James500 (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thank you. it is my intention formalize Computational Anatomy as a wikipedia encyclopedia article. We were inspired by Chomsky's Computational Linguistics and so I am trying to end up with something that can reachout to subarticles as it does. Please dont worry about my other comment. I am trying to fit into this new world, and I am a dinosaur. Since I publish so prolifically I dont need extra resources to have friends to interact with etc....
I almost have all the content I need to know work on restructuring. My wife is going to help who is herself a scholar. I hope I dont fail my assignment. `Mim.cis (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Needing enlightment
Abubakar180 (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sir, I recently register my account with my email unfortunately i tried to log in to complete the email verification but all was not avail as a result of forgotten password Sir i want to know can i add another email for verification to complete
thank you
@Scstarcraft: The page Blake Coppelson was not an article, only a redirect to a page about a Youtube channel called "Proximity". That page was deleted because the Youtube channel was not though to be notable (in Wikipedia's sense), and the author of the Coppelson redirect asked that it should be deleted too. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Am I able to create a page about the author of the channel? He qualifies for a page as he has had many interviews in the past that are publically available on the internet, spoke at music industry conferences in Australia and Las Vegas and is speaking at Harvard Business School in February. His channel, Proximity, is one of the largest curation outlets in the world for electronic dance music and has over 2.5 million subscribers and 40 million video views a month as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scstarcraft (talk • contribs) 01:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@JMHamo: Done - blocked for 72 hours. I'll add some advice on his talk page later. Keep an eye open for the same fluff appearing from socks. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
I, Golden Eye Clicks, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under A7. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Golden Eye Clicks -Golden Eye Clicks (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
John it is Michael Miller again at Johns Hopkins.
I am still in my SANDBOX.
I have now added a good bit of history and introduction. So the connections to classical contributions and other fields are now more apparent.
Perhaps you can give me some feedback. I can continue to try to move some Math to back pages if you suggest. I can certainly add more
to each section in terms of the history and connections.
@Mim.cis: I am really not competent to advise here, and I think it will be best to ask the Mathematics WikiProject if someone there will look at it. I will do that tomorrow. JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
@Jared Preston: Thanks. I see the id-wp article is already tagged for deletion, but I have reported it to Crisco 1492 who is on the local-embassy list for Indonesian WP. As for his article here, the book exists, but it's by somebody else; the author exists, but he didn't write that book. You never know what JR will think of next - for a while he took time off from being a great singer to be a great ethologist. I don't think it's worth starting up a CU for this one instance: it's very likely him, but he doesn't often stay with the same account for long. I'll make a note of the name, watch to see if it does any more, and put it in next time I have some others to report. Wikidata is a useful way to track him - I hadn't thought of that. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, John. You know what it's like at this time of the year! You really made me laugh, thank you very much – I will cherish that Scania goose diff forever. If you care to look at the deletion log at the Alsatian Wikipedia of his most recent autobiography, you can see he's even earned himself a doctorate! He never tires, you have to give him credit for that! Have yourself a very merry christmas! Jared Preston (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Your article has been deleted on the SVWiki. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It seems that your page sv: Europeiska organisationen för utnyttjande av meteorologiska satelliteron sv-wiki has been deleted as a machine translation; and a page sv:EUMETSAT was also deleted yesterday because it was not in Swedish. If you make a page in Swedish at the title "EUMETSAT", it will be automatically linked by Wikidata, and a link will appear in the list under "Languages" at the foot of the left-hand side-bar of the English article EUMETSAT, where you can see many inter-language links already.
This was your message. I made a page on the sv site--you deleted it because it supposedly was a machine translation. It was not. I tried to create a new page sv:EUMETSAT but it was also deleted because it was not in Swedish. This is not true. It is in Swedish. I have followed your instructions (If you make a page in Swedish...it will be automatically linked...) This does not work. I get this message..
Item Q22056337 already has label "Europeiska organisationen för utnyttjande av meteorologiska satelliter" associated with language code sv, using the same description text.
If it exists, where is it? When I try to add the page via wikidata--I get the message The specified article could not be found on the corresponding site.
Please send some usable instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeyerRK (talk • contribs) 13:06, 13 January 2016
Talking to Michael Miller at Johns Hopkins University - we first met in November.
John, I hope you had a good New Year and all is well for you.
One of my famous colleagues told me to look at the Evolution and Comp. Bio pages and I have tried to write the Computational Anatomy page
following as many of the cues I can take from those pages. I have moved significant amounts of detail to backstories, and I have added lots of discussion
throughout and links to Wiki page topics. I am sure it is not perfect, but anyway.
I am basically ready to bring my sandbox out. Can you take another look and see if there is any other advice you can give me so that it all doesn't get
instantly deleted. I am trying to keep a sense of humour about this. I believe there would others who would modify and introduce new conentl
Best Michael I. Miller Mim.cis (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mim.cs: I will read it and comment over the next day or two. You do not need to worry about instant deletion if, rather than move it directly into the encyclopedia article "mainspace", when you are ready you click the blue "Submit" button. That will send it for review, and the worst that will happen is that it may be declined, with reasons and advice on how to improve it. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Unlocking the Rickey Layman page
How can we unlock the Rickey Layman page? The Onyx Tavern page is being created at submitted soon and at very least we need to have the Rickey Layman page unlocked so that a redirect can be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 January 2016
It would not be accepted in its present form, because the references are all local. Wikipedia's inclusion test is called Wikipedia:Notability and looks for references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Youtube, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about? See also Wikipedia:Notability (summary). JohnCD (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Kapodistrias' birth date
I am willing to accept all corrections and advice on editing an article.
Besides, I am still a rookie in Wikipedia.
But, I think there is still disagreement
between the dates of birth in the English and the Greek version of Ioannis Kapodistrias...
Who is going to decide on the correct date?
Regards
Essaouira311 (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi John, thanks for letting me know - I'm discovering that can be a problem using Twinkle for db of spam talk pages as it automatically notifies the person who created the talk page (i.e. gave the first warning) rather than the spam user. Cheers Melcous (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Melcous:No worries, it's not a thing that happens very often, at least it hasn't happened often to me. Spammers usually put spam on their user pages, so if you want to be cautious, when you find a talk page full of spam you could look at the history; but, as I say, it's not a common problem. JohnCD (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The reason the account was blocked is explained at User talk:MurderUK - Wikipedia accounts are for individuals only, who are personally responsible for them, so we do not allow. accounts whose names are the names of organizations or websites.
As the notice on that talk page says, you are welcome to set up a new account which will represent only you as an individual. Your username may be based on your real name, or not, as you choose (see WP:REALNAME for some considerations), but it should not be the name of any other living person. A username of the form "James at MurderUK" would be acceptable, and would serve to declare your affiliation.
I was suggested that i should contribute my findings to Lovey Professional University instead to creating LovelyProfessionalUniversty 1st and foremost that"Lovey Professional University" page is no more relevant this page consist of facts which were of 2009 as it was last updated . University has included many New Courses and upgraded them self. I am Not copy writing any article this is solely my findings by visiting the place. and yes i suggest you to please be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFCDigi (talk • contribs) 04:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@JohnCD:Ohkk i was expecting same reply from you, I tried updating that but every time i update there is some one who revert the same. And yes i tried to My best to prove the facts. Check out.
Thanks for your consideration. The article on Bernard Motorcar Company was not intended to be spam, commercial fodder for the business. The fact that this entity has chosen to buck a very long practice in the industry of charging excessive documentary fees (and in fact not charging any at all), makes it very unconventional and unique in our country and our world. The South Carolina courts recently ruled against the dealers charging these fees and have made it illegal to charge them in excess now also. This was cited in the article.
Again, thanks for the consideration, and let me know if it can be reconsidered with a rewrite. I had also considered and article on documentary fees and the controversy surrounding them also.
Hi JohnCD ! Don Derington here (aka Jimmbaker) for some more questions about my request to have a page for "Jim M. Baker" included in Wiki.
That was obviously not a good idea on my part to use the subjects name as my userid. So I'm going to request a new userid, which if I understand correctly will not require a new submission for my subject page.
You described Jim M. Baker's record as one that "seem to me to show that he was a reasonably successful college athlete, but not at the standard required for notability in that field". OK that IMO understates his level of performance and contribution to the
sport, but I'm not entirely objective since he was my favorite athlete growing up way back in my childhood. Now John please don't find me argumentitive, because I'm just trying to make a case my "my guy". I looked at some of the examples of notability standards for track athletes, but I'd be the first to admit no way Baker was "world class", and nor did he win an Olympic medal.
What he did do was make the NCAA (National Collegite Athletic Association) finals in the 440 yard dash in his junior and senior years at Missouri University, 1961 and 1962, this was after successfully going thru preliminary and semifinal races. In his last year, 1962, he was the runner-up in the final race in the 440, and as the second-place finisher he automatically was awarded the title of "Track All-American".
When in high school Baker broke the 440 yard dash for Missouri school boys as a junior in 1957 and repeated as the state champion his senior year. So in other words Baker was the most prominent 440 yard sprinter in the state of Missouri during his era.
There's considerable documentation on Bakers times/performances, but much of it requires a fee subscription: even the Kansas City Star, the paper of record of Baker's hometown where lots of coverage for Baker is available, but it's accessible to only fee subscribers and not found in their limited online history to non fee users.
once again John thanks for the time and consideration you'e made for requests. And thanks for your assisstance. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmbaker (talk • contribs) 19:32, 1 February 2016
I have replied on your talk page, and I suggest we continue the conversation there, so as to keep it in one place. JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Account creation information
Hello JohnCD. I saw that your proposal "Tell prospective users what Wikipedia is not for" was withdrawn from the 2015 Wikimedia Wishlist, and hope that will not be the end of the matter. As many have pointed out over the years, it isn't really very "welcoming" to invite newbies to come and edit "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" without any hint that there are limits on what edits are accepted, then knocking them back when they try.
The present system for conveying information at signup is somewhat hit-or-miss. The account creation screen itself just gives the user three large numbers, saying nothing about what they're signing up for. When they have input a username & password and are returned to the article they were looking at before, there is now a little red box with a '1' in it up at the top. Now as they've never had an account they won't be aware of Notifications; but if they spot this red box and in an experimental spirit they click on it, then click again on the central portion ("W Welcome to Wikipedia") of the larger Notifications box that results, they are then presented with this Welcome message with its three desktop screensful of information.
Historically, what goes on the account creation screen seems to have been regarded as the province of the WMF. Something called Extension:CustomUserSignup was removed from English Wikipedia in Aug 2012; and about the same time a post-signup welcome message which used to look like this was blanked. I haven't pinpointed any discussion leading to these removals. Both you (here) and Harry (here) have in the past considered approaching WMF for a rethink.
However, an interchange here (under "Earlier discussion") suggests that the content of the account creation screen may be within our control on EN-WP. Could we establish if this is so, and if it is so, could we draft an RfC to make it more informative? Obviously wording would need a lot of thought - you may remember I favoured a more positive message, "what Wikipedia is for"; but with the ever-increasing flood of "my page" and "our page" creations, not to mention youths from India and elsewhere trying to immortalise their name, birthplace and college IT accomplishments all over Wikipedia, continued inactivity seems a poor strategy.
Whatever words we put on these screens, no-one will pretend that they can offer a large part of the solution to what is a much broader issue of public understanding. However, I feel strongly that the attempt should be made to better inform our prospective editors when they come to create an account. I'd welcome your thoughts: Noyster (talk),22:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I withdrew it because I was told that MediaWiki:Signupstart would enable us to do it locally, so it didn't need to be in the development queue. Yes, I would like to follow it up, but we need to think carefully how to marshal support so it doesn't get slapped down. Whenever any actual words get proposed, people start saying "that's too negative" and you end up with something too wishy-washy to be useful. To avoid the usual endless discussion leading nowhere, I think we probably need two RFCs: one on the principle: should there be some explanatory message on the sign-up screen? and, if that's agreed, a discussion to choose between alternative suggestions.
I suspect that, even if we (en-wp) are able to do it ourselves, the WMF would have a view. A few years back, they were violently against any sort of impediment to editing (e.g. ACTRIAL), but there have been a lot of changes at the top, and I don't think the emphasis is quite so strongly on increasing editor numbers at all costs as it was under the last ED.
I'd like to think about it a little more, and consult one or two people; but thanks for prodding me. Any ideas on actual words that could get the message across without being considered "negative" or "hostile" would help. JohnCD (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reply John. Yes, a two-stage consultation may well be the way to proceed, so the whole idea doesn't risk getting knocked back because of a problem with the wording. If so, we don't have to agonise yet about exact wording. But maybe the first stage RfC could include a few alternative suggestions, from different people, as a basis for discussion ("Don't ask if, ask which!") Here's one suggestion, which I'm happy for anyone to hack about at any stage:
User clicks on "Create an account". Screen clears to be replaced by:
We are glad you are interested enough in Wikipedia to want to have your own account. Please select one of these two options:
I want to help Wikipedia by improving articles on topics of wide significance, or adding new ones. I will add true information that can be verified, and I will edit in an impartial way (tick box)
I want to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote something I am personally involved with, or to share information about myself, my achievements or my thoughts (tick box)
If the first box is ticked, screen clears to "WELCOME! Please select a username and password" (as now)
If the second box is ticked, message appears indicating that Wikipedia may not be the place for them, and suggesting what else they could do instead (no, not the obvious: Alternative outlets has source material for this page)
To avoid being laughed out of court, we should stress at the outset that we don't hope to deter vandals or Orangemoody-type operators this way, but to get across a more timely message to ordinary joes: the many who honestly think Wikipedia must be just another website where you put up "your page", or type in whatever you feel like: Noyster (talk),12:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Your second option reads a bit like "Do you intend to overthrow the government of the United States by force?" Perhaps "I want to write about something that I am personally involved in... " JohnCD (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Point taken John, though we wouldn't want to draft it too broadly - no problem surely if one of the 4 million members of the RSPB, say, wants to add some referenced fact about that body. My contention is that the world public aren't familiar with the principles of Wikipedia - why should they be? - and so won't read "I want to do advertising and promotion on WP" as tantamount to "I am a baddy", until we tell them it is: Noyster (talk),21:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"Jim M. Baker"/ user Dondwiki440
Hi John,
Still waiting to hear from the folks who specialize with new pages re athletes ?
If I've no heard a response, I suppose that means my request is hopeless ? My guy is back in the early days of Elvis, so maybe they need something more contemporay for a valid subject sine it's rally difficult to find documentaion from way back then ?
just noticed on your bio you are an x programmer / I worked on the IBM 360 for years and years - yep COBOL but also a
language called "Natural/Adabas".
Anyway I'm still somewhat puzzled by the meaning of "Substantial coment". That seems so subjective ? For example when my guy Jim Baker had broken the Missouri state 440 record as a junior, he was sidelined most of his senior year as result of an injury in basbetball before the 1958 track season started, but he made an amazing recovery, worked himself back into shape, and helped his track team to another state championship - now this is documented with praise by his high school coach in the Kansas City Times: would that be an example of "substantial comment" ?
Also - I'm not under a tight time deadline to offer additional entries for getting acceptance of "Jim M. Baker".
Thanks again John, hae a good day !
Sincerly, Don Derington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondwiki440 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Computational Anatomy
John
Thanks for the suggestions.
I think I understand. So the so-called "back pages" I really should make into a separate page that can stand on its own
in some sense. Rather than thinking of it as an "appendix".
I really appreciate your helping me. You have been supportive.
By the way, I have now emailed the sandbox out to 10 great scientists who are giving me great feedback
about the importance of doing this and their interest in adding their stuff as well later.
@Sarojupreti132: Thomas W's advice is good. Also, Wikipedia articles don't belong to their first author, or to anyone (see WP:OWN). It's an important principle that anyone can edit, and content disputes should be settled by discussion on talk pages. Page protection can be requested at WP:RFPP, but they will only be protected, or semi-protected, if there is a lot of vandalism going on. JohnCD (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Walks Like Rihanna", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII16:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Request for Undeletion
Hi I would like to edit some info on this hotel but noted that it has been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crux83 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 10 February 2016
Speedy Deletion of User:Martinjonesdevon/Lux Harmonium (old)
Hello
Although I understood that you considered the information I supplied for Lux Harmonium to be at variance with the goals of Wikipedia - a fact I didn't agree with, but hey, you know what you're doing and I'm no expert - I don't understand why my user account has also been deleted.
On a related note, I wanted to improve the content that I added about Lux Harmonium to address the issues that may have existed, but that information is no longer available. Does it exist somewhere that you can send it to me so I can build on it to add a qualifying article?
@Zzuzz:. Restored, with self-trout - I just deleted it as a redirect to a deleted page, without looking at the title. I see I fell into that trap before. Do you know who looks after that page, if anyone? The header says it is cleared regularly like WP:SB, but that doesn't seem to be the case. JohnCD (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems to be in the twilight outside the scope of any bot. Probably an idea to enlist one huh? I'll drop a note at the current bots' authors. -- zzuuzz(talk)15:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
John, I attempted to create a WiKi page for Steven G. Granger earlier this month. It was deleted. I need this page created for Steve. I have a copyright permission from Steve and notarized. This give me permission to use information on Wikipedia. Please reconsider the his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackBreath (talk • contribs) 22:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry John. I left a message about Steven G. Granger. His page was deleted. I am asking that his page be reconsidered. I do have a copyright permission letter.
The reason you supplied for deleting this page was
(G6: Userspace draft by an inactive user containing only Article Wizard text)
Inactive, my... foot! If you'd bothered to look at Special:Contributions/Thnidu you'd've seen how "inactive" I am! Or maybe you only looked at yesterday, Feb 22; that and the 5th were the only days this month in which I have NOT contributed. On the other 21 days of just this month, my contributions total approximately 290, on at least several dozen pages.
I admit I hadn't touched the page in quite a while, but given that huge error in the reason, how far can I trust "containing only Article Wizard text"? If that's accurate I can start over with no loss. If not, I want my draft back.
@Thnidu: Oh, dear. I accept a large {{Trout}}, and pass half of it on to Legacypac who also should have checked your activity before tagging. There was indeed no text there, only a link to an obituary; I would restore the page for you, but someone else has already started Julia Cunningham, with the same obituary link. It could do with expanding, whenever you have the time. Apologies, JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
So sorry about that. Been working on a large clean up of stale drafts and nearly all are by very very inactive users. The reason is canned, only pages with no actual text get G6'd. Legacypac (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a question on something that puzzled me
As in, something which made me curious and slightly confused.
I got a notification today which told me that "The page Kate Newmann was reviewed by User:Thue Yesterday at 20:54." Which is fine. I was trying to remember if page curation had a (thank) option and went to check so I could say thanks for that. But I could find no reference to the page having been curated. I thought maybe the user had clicked then unclicked the page using the tool so I checked the Special:NewPagesFeed and it was no longer showing as waiting for curation. So I checked the Page curation log and that says the last time Thue acted there was in 2013.
So I'm mostly just curious about what process happened that meant Thue did or did not review the page. I didn't want to ask Thue directly as I have never interacted with Thue. It may have been a while but you and I have interacted a little in the past. 🍺 Antiqueightchat01:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the answer is that it is possible to review new pages and mark them patrolled without using Page Curation. Thue is a real old-timer - here since 2003 - and may prefer the old ways. Their patrol log shows quite a bit of activity yesterday. It doesn't look as if the "Thank" notification system works with patrolling activities. JohnCD (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. I did wonder- I've had various tools turned on for so long I can't remember how things worked before I had them. That's excellent. I can go thank Thue without confusion. You're a rock. 🍺 Antiqueightchat12:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi JohnCD
Dear John,
Thanks a lot to delete the edit by TheScorpion021 because he does not admit the reality to provide the exact information.
@Grimwepa: I don't understand your problem with that diff: as Uncle Milty says, it simply corrects a typo. In any case, if there is a dispute about the content of the article, you should discuss it on the talk page, see WP:BRD. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hi JohnCD, thank you very much for your encouraging words! Thanks, too, for handling my deletion request so quickly. As a first-time user of Wikipedia, I appreciated your kindness, compassion and fairness. Wikipedia is very lucky to have you.RSpirits (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)RSpirits
Yes, I see now, but it's Google doing that, not Wikipedia. That thing on the right is called a "Google snippet" - they take the text from us (as they're allowed to do) but I don't know where they got the photo from - not from us. You'll have to complain to Google. JohnCD (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The user you blocked, FreeAngelsonCam, has been using their talk page to advertise the site some more. Would appreciate if you could revoke TPA. Thank you, GABHello!20:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you so much for taking a look at my article. This is my first experience on Wikipedia... I am in an upper-level English course at my college, and we were assigned a project involving the creation of a Wikipedia page for an underrepresented woman as a part of the Art + Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. I'd really like for my article to stay up because I do believe it's important for Rose-Lynn Fisher to be recognized. I will certainly look for some more worthy sources. That being said, are any of my current sources acceptable? And does the information that I included from the Smithsonian source need to be taken down because of the source? I really appreciate your help--thank you! WeeklySaturday (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@WeeklySaturday: yes, your current sources are acceptable, and there is no need to remove the information they support. Sources serve two purposes: (a) verifying what the article says (see WP:Verifiability, a fundamental content policy) and (b) establishing WP:Notability, Wikipedia's inclusion criterion. The Smithsonian source is fine for verifying your article's account of her work there, my point was that it does not help so much with notability, because it is mainly Fisher talking about herself and her work. References where someone else writes about her would help more there.
Thank you for responding to my 'help' tag. Out of curiosity, I browsed your profile and discovered the world of Wiki Fauna. I think I am a mixed WikiFairie and WikiCreatorElf. I also learned about Wiki Hoaxes, which was very amusing to read about! I would never have learned about the colorful world behind Wikipedia until I started editing. Thanks for the info! Rockenthusiast1979 (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Request to create the Article Ponnambili (TV series)
Hellow sir... I would like you to create the article titled Ponnambili (TV series) which is banned for non-administrators to create it.This article was twice deleted as per the creation of blocked user. The content is all about an IndianTV series which launched on a Malayalam(South-Indian language) channel. Hopefully --Varun Paris (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Varun Paris: no, you didn't go through AfC as I said, you created it directly. Since the title was salted you can't just create it at a new title, it should be reviewed and accepted first. I have moved it to Draft:Ponnambili and added a note for the reviewer about unprotecting the title if it is accepted. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry I did not reply directly to your message you left me. I had also been flagged by a user named Qpalzmmzlapq and thought the issue was resolved. I had been in contact with this user through their talk page. Might you be able to review the communication we had on Qpalzmmzlapq's talk page and let me know if all is okay? Kmackanin (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi John, you replaced a removed Prod on this article. As per the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion policy, you cannot replace a removed Prod. I am nominating the article at AfD but am noting the mistake you may have committed here so that in future you may keep this in mind. Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Xender Lourdes: the rule against replacing a PROD "excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion" (see WP:DEPROD). If a PROD is replaced by a speedy, the dePRODder evidently does not object to deletion, so if the speedy is then declined it is allowable to restore the PROD. I will comment at the AfD. JohnCD (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the inputs here and at the AFD. Has been some learning experience for me. (Is it only me who has committed such a mistake or do you see any other editors bumbling over A11 like this? Am actually embarrassed at having been waylaid by the term "plainly indicates"). Thanks much for the patience you've had while explaining. Xender Lourdes (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
@Xender Lourdes:No worries! There are so many rules and customs that making mistakes and learning from them is the only way to go. A11 is fairly recent, and I remember the arguments when it was set up. There had been regular proposals for a speedy for "Blatantly made up one day", but the objection was that many things that look wildly improbable are actually real. (My favourite example: would you believe an annual festival to celebrate the heritage of people of mixed Croatian-Maori ancestry? Check out Tarara Day!) The compromise wording was designed to allow speedying pages of the form "Sngglebff is a word invented yesterday by Jamie Sniggs in Year 3" from User:JSniggs, while still giving more consideration to others. JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I did not know this background behind A11. I'm impressed by the minute description provided by the community while creating such tags, especially the A11. And the examples you give provide an absolutely new view on the need for A11. Thank you. I'll be back when I need help. Given the hole I dug this time perfectly measured to my body structure, it'll be some time before I make such an erro agin (Why is your name CD at the end; initials?) Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Deletion is always a contentious subject, and you can read long arguments at WT:CSD. "CD" is just to distinguish me from User:John, User:JohnC, User:JohnGH, etc... JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Response to correcting libelous hacking on Byron Cook's wikipedia page. Thanks.
This is very frustrating... I am not saying anything NEGATIVE or incorrect about Mr Cook, only correcting and it appears that on wikipedia it was easier for the hackers to smear Mr Cook's than it is for him to protect his biography and public service reputation... Again, Mr Cook's wikipedia page has been hacked with libelous and false attack information by his political enemies.
I am not attempting an "Edit war" only to correct information.
JohnCD: Why have you not corrected the other areas Byron Cook's Wiki page? Why are you letting those attacking him with FALSE information to use their own websites as documentation for this FALSE attacks? When will this be removed?
RE: Speedy deletion nomination of Tactile perception
Hi. Thanks for alerting me to the deletion of Tactile perception and Tactile perceptions.
I was making a couple of redirects to an article and having multiple tabs open at once I messed up my system and "missed" making redirects from these two and only adding project banners. I have restored the talk pages AFTER making the redirects. Again, thank you for alerting me. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Yan Naing Oo
You deleted Yan Naing Oo. This is Yan Naing Oo who playing in Zeyar Shwe Myay photo.
[2][3][4][5][6]
@DrAcHeNWiNgZz: I agree that it is untidy that, when both large-D and small-d versions of the redirect exist, the search box suggestion shows the small-d version, and I don't know why that should be; but the enquirer will end up in the right place, and we are usually reluctant to delete redirects that have been here for some time, as there is no way to check for incoming external links that might be broken. For that reason WP:CSD#R3 specifies recently created redirects. The small-d version has been here for five years. It could be nominated at WP:Redirects for discussion, but my guess (looking at WP:RFD#HARMFUL) is that it would be kept. JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Jeremy Carr deleted page
Hi there,
It was recently brought to my attention that a page that I had posted was deleted. I read through your page and reasons for deletion and am assuming that the page was deleted because of a lack of sourcing. Jeremy Carr (the artist who's page was deleted) is a recognized recording artist who's music has seen success in Europe and the US over the past 5-10 years. I've attached some articles for you to review..
@Ssmsr: Yes, the page Jeremy Carr was deleted because of a policy that, to ensure we get things right, biographical articles about living people are deleted if unsourced after seven days. You didn't get a warning, because you were not the original author of the article. I have restored it and reset the seven-day clock: you may remove the BLPprod template (the top two lines on the edit screen) when you have added at least one reliable source that confirms what the article says.
Although one source is enough to remove the BLP-prod, the WP:Verifiability policy means that any unsourced content may be removed.
This is an odd case. It screams "block-evading sock", but the Vishwachander account is not new - it actually dates from 2007, though has not edited much. I will comment at the SPI. JohnCD (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Kumbala Praveen Reddy and Mahaveer Group - RSPL
Hi John,
Thanks for understanding, i am a IT analyst from Telangana and i am maintaining the wiki pedia account from many years, i have contributed to many pages, please help me to improve the article of
1) Kumbala Praveen Reddy
2) Mahaveer Group - RSPL
Thanks for getting your bot to take care of those two odd-behavior editors - Hurlz & Tran1. Wasn't sure where to report them, after Tran's user/user-talk page was moved, thought about reporting to SPI... so Cheers! Shearonink (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
That was no bot, that was me! (wipes blood off hands) I don't know what they were up to, but it wasn't helping with an encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
JR, aka the goose, has been quacking again. Could you deal with the title Javad (born 1994), i.e. delete and salt it, because it has now been online for over 24 hours and no other local administrator has bothered with it. I've added the appropriate template to the creator's userpage, Leigh Whannell (talk·contribs), but if you'd block the account as well, that'd be great. Jared Preston (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Page already deleted. I have blocked the sock and will add him to the ever-growing SPI. I won't salt the title, though, because leaving it and watch-listing it helps detect him if he comes back. Thanks! JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Before making claims of your "own" option you should consult with me. You have "no" knowledge of the matter and your doing a huge crime against the whole African American community. A matter in which Moorish Americans would find very offensive. Would you tell an indigenous native American that their tribe or government does not exist. You may feel free to call, email, chat or any other means of contacting me. Sharifshakurbey (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Trackinfo: that was a G13 deletion of a draft, so Draft:Ben Blankenship restored on request. Since the original author is no longer active, I have tweaked the "unsubmitted draft" template so that if you submit it, any comments will come to you. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I had no idea what was already there. Unfortunately that's not much and its obvious why it got deleted. However there is more substance that can get added to justify notability. Trackinfo (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
About a year ago I tried to do a English page about myself and my career, since I 1. Think I should have one in English and 2. think girls should learn to do the wiki as much as all the boys do. I wasn't so successful then, and I think you deleted the page. Now I'm giving it another go, since I recently started working a bit abroad and think the English speaking community deserves to read as well as the Swedish one.
The article I wanted to write then was named Josefin Johansson. My Swedish wiki (which I did't start, honestly!) is here: [[7]]
The article I started writing now was something like: Josefin Gunnel Elisabet Johansson (born 11 March 1982) is a Swedish comedian, writer, singer and actress. She started out as a presenter on Sveriges Radio P3 in 2006 and has since the worked for a number of shows such as Morgonpasset, Musikguiden i P3 and P3Älskar. She was sent as the main correspondent for P3 during the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Participated in Intresseklubben in season C and D in 2014-15. Nominated for Best show and Best female comedian during the Swedish Standup Comedy Awards.
I have replied on your talk page. 15:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Brilliant! Thanx for getting back to me, this time I'm gonna try and learn it for realz. I'm taking all of your advice and gonna go make sensational wikis.
Hello, I'd like to create a wikipedia page for Poison Ivory. She seems to be the biggest name in Slime-Punk, albeit with only 5 songs, but has influenced numerous artists and is of some renown. If I find the proper articles to cite, would you allow a recreation of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickoftheturks (talk • contribs) 14:51, 6 April 2016
@Nickoftheturks: certainly you may create a page. The previous one was deleted because it was rather promotional in tone and mainly because at that time it did not seem that her career had reached the point where she was "notable" in Wikipedia's special sense. The references were all Youtube and Instagram, and it said "Her debut EP, The Filth, is slated for a 2014 release''". But that was more than two years ago, so things should have progressed. I won't undelete the old article, because I think you would do better starting from a clean sheet. Read WP:Your first article and WP:Notability (music), and if you have not created an article before consider using WP:Articles for creation to guide you through the process. JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Restored article 17 March
Thanks for the alert and message to my talk page regarding your restoration of PRODed Gary Carswell stub. As previously, I am unable to find reliable sources to satisfy Notability requirements prior to the death of the individual, only the same type of posthumous news reports used to create the article. In the interests of GF I have messaged (the requesting) new user Ballure's talk page confirming these aspects with further guidance, and confirming that another editor had initially mooted restoration of the article in November 2015 but failed to proceed. rgds, --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rocknrollmancer: once dePRODded, it can't be PRODded again, but you can always nominate it at WP:AFD. Without looking for sources, I think he probably falls short of notability, but it's not easy to predict how an AfD will go. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder - I have been involved in a similar AfD that I PRODed and was initially challenged by an editor removing the notice and replacing the deceased's deadlinked WP:SPS personal blog with a 1-year posthumous online article featuring the surviving family; The AfD closed without consensus, probably due to commenting editors' unfamiliarity with the motorcycle racing scene. I have not re-nominated it, but I did add a FUR image to make it look better. It could not be expanded unless hard-copy sources are found, which would likely be from Australia or New Zealand, and I don't anticipate anyone would be looking, nearly six years after death. Best,--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for bothering you again, but I've had a couple of interactions with the editor who requested restoration, declared as connected at WP:REFUND, being the widow of the deceased motorcycle racer who is the subject of the article. She has now stated that the restored article was not the one she had in mind, and that there was another containing racing results that was deleted before the currect version was created. Is it feasible there was a previous version, and would it be possible for you to search further? I've mentioned basic COI, and as she has no other editor to assist I have suggested I would look towards improving the stub as I've done it on a couple of other articles that were marginal or less. If you find anything could you please userfy the content to me? If not that's fine, as I have already roughed-out Wikitables for the race results, but I am intrigued to know if there was any other content. Many thanks, Steve.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rocknrollmancer: no, there was no previously-deleted version, the whole history is in the restored one. Sometimes an earlier version had a variant title, and one can find a reference by searching talk pages, but this general search doesn't show any sign of an earlier article, though it does show several references in other article. JohnCD (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I dont know if you remember our last dialogue exchange - i have been scanning pages online and still find this link showing with details - is there a way you're able to get all the discussion/personal info on this site removed from being read, especially names and story details? Many thanks 203.109.197.24 (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
<link redacted>
By the way the issue is very much still being looked into by local law enforcement authorities as it has not ceased since we reported! But thank you for whatever you've done as help from your end. Much appreciated.
Yes, I remember, and I am sorry that you are still having trouble. What you found was one of the mirror sites that copy Wikipedia (as they are allowed to do by our free license). All that it shows is the archive of our previous conversation, but that does not give your name or any means of connecting to you. It does give your attacker's Wikipedia username, but anyone looking at his account would find no reference to you, because at the time I "revision-deleted" those parts of its history. Fortunately, the original attack page was deleted within a few hours and does not seem to have been picked up by any of the mirror sites. I just did a Google search on your name and found nothing relevant, so I do not think you need to worry about any traces left over from the attack here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
John, Thank you so very much. You have no idea how much even your prompt responses are reassurance and a security backup, wish there was a way we could get advice from you on tackling the same with other areas of www - can you email me directly through this IP?? Not sure how to get it to be a 1-1.203.109.197.24 (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I can't, but if you choose to register an account, which is easy and free, need not be in your real name, and would not commit you to anything, and if you then enabled email in its user profile, you would when logged-in find an "Email this user" link in the left-hand side bar when looking at this talk page. But I am afraid I am not likely to be of any assistance about other areas of the Internet, as I have no knowledge or experience there. I can only advise going direct to the administration of any site where you are having trouble. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Cecil Jay Roberts
I represent Mr Cecil Jay Roberts and recently took over all his internet profile. When I put a google search in there was an article that was created and deleted. I believe the article was deleted by you. I have gone over some of the information and while some are referenced correctly and most of the information are clearly true, there are some that aren't. This has caused my client a great deal of distress and is asking for such information to be removed from the public domain. I have done my research and if an article is deleted properly, it should no longer appear in a google search. I will be very happy if you could clarify this for me.
Hello John I have left a message on your talk page. I'm only on Wikipedia to try and get to the bottom of an article that was written about my client. Please advise as to the best way to go about this.KatieMarlow (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@KatieMarlow: welcome to Wikipedia. I deleted the article as a result of a deletion discussion. I have now covered that discussion with a "courtesy blank", but in any case it was NOINDEXed so that it did not appear in search engine results, and a Google search on Mr Roberts' name does not return any link to Wikipedia.
The search result you found at http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Cecil_Jay_Roberts is on a "mirror" site which copies Wikipedia articles (as it is allowed to do by the terms of our free license) but does not necessarily delete them when we do - in fact that particular site specialises in keeping copies of deleted articles. I'm afraid we have no influence over them, and you will have to approach them directly. There is a contact name on their main page at http://speedydeletion.wikia.com. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much John. I shall be contacting them.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Joker venom, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: Twinkle only sent this to me because I created a redirect after deleting a previous version. You should really send it to user D3323 who turned it back into an article. I had been thinking of G4-ing it myself, or restoring the redirect, but have not got round to checking whether it is sufficiently close to the previous version. JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, love it when Twinkle sends notification to the wrong people. And I've mentioned at the article talkpage that I think it should just go back to the redirect, although I don't know anything about the original article. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
If nobody else gets to it first, I will check it out tomorrow and probably revert to redirect and protect, unless there is enough new material to warrant another AfD. JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Followup questions and advice regarding Imerir
Hi John;
First of all, thank you for the time you've taken responding to my questions regarding the deletion of the Imerir page.
Then, let me assure you that, as faculty and as a long time Wikipedia user, I perfectly understand and appreciate your safeguarding the raised issue of notability and conflict of interest. Despite my previous understanding, I read the links you shared. Obviously I was too liberal.
I have a question, asking for advice, but let me first give some context. Please, bear with me, I'll try to keep it short.
Someone created a page about our school on the French wikipedia (see fr:Institut_méditerranéen_d'étude_et_recherche_en_informatique_et_robotique). We are an officially accredited government backed education institution similar to a graduate school; which means non-profit and definitely not a business. I noticed we interacted a bit with the French page to correct a few errors (like the name of the current director). I did not do those changes, but the history for that page reveals someone at my school did (I'll share our conversation with them).
Since the page exists in French, we figured that it would be a service to our foreign exchange students (ERASMUS program) and English speakers of the world (how humble!) if we provided something of a page in English. This is probably why before its deletion, the page was more of a "stub" than an actual page. Good riddance, if you ask me (it is poorly written and informative form).
Despite the conflict of interest, but considering we are a non-profit educational government backed institution, I seems legitimate that we appear in the Encyclopoedia. Not for self serving visibility and hubris, but as an information & knowledge source. This is why wonder whether it would be ok if I started a draft (which I did, as a draft is non-commital, - see here) to write a much more encyclopaedic article with original content (meaning no copy-pasting of our website) regarding our institution and its community (alumni, faculty, students) with all the content sourced (and if possible at all times quoting or referring to content other that our own website). Then, have this draft reviewed and edited (if necessary, probably) by people unrelated to Imerir (I am thinking of you, if you have time for such things, as well as a few extra people).
Hence my question: Does this sound reasonable or am I so far gone into my will to provide meaningful information that I try to justify the unjustifiable? Can I work on that draft and get back to you for review?
Fun fact #1 (regarding Imerir): each class has a famous godfather. Just to cite three of them: Richard Stallman (he gave a nice graduation speech), Bruno Maisonnier (father of the Nao (robot)) and Serge Humpich (famous French hacker who broke the credit card system).
Fun fact #2 (regarding editing a page about us): Also, I just checked my alma mater page (see Western Carolina University) and they edited the content too... I bet this is true for any school & university. (And yes, it is not because the neighbour steals that I should too...)
.jpg)
