User talk:JohnCD

Welcome to my talk page. 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). You may E-mail me via the "E-mail this user" link under "Toolbox" in the left-hand sidebar, but you will get a faster response here; I suggest you do not use e-mail unless you need privacy. I will normally reply on your talk page, not by e-mail.

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

why you deleted my articl

Article name was Haneef Shareef,why you deleted,plz restore it,i will work for betterment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochi tamur (talk • contribs) 14:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

See my reply at WP:REFUND#Haneef Shareef. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

James Stacy Adams

Hello. Thanks for closing the AfD for James Stacy (US soldier). Unfortunately, someone moved the article to James Stacy Adams while the discussion was going on, so the article is still there. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed, thank you. I wish people wouldn't do that. JohnCD (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Your closure didn't address a point I made -- that while there isn't enough material to establish individual notability, the material in that article could reasonably be re-used in other articles.

The free licenses contributors release their contributions under oblige us to attribute those contributions. This is I why I suggested a closure of redirection that preserved the contribution history.

If there is a reason why you don't think this is appropriate, and you think some policy or wiki-document would explain your decision, would you please offer me a link to that document?

If there is no wikidocument, could you try to explain your decision?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: yours was a solitary voice for merge and delete: if it had changed the view of earlier participants, there were two days when they could have said so. I do not think that license attribution considerations oblige us to refrain from deleting material in case it might be useful elsewhere. Since the content of the article was entirely contributed by you, and you made the addition to the battalion article, there is no material in the encyclopedia for which you have not been credited. The consensus to delete was clear. If you wish, you may of course challenge it at DRV. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. I was going to offer a couple of counter-points. Instead I will offer just one.

We delete articles where the content violates a policy, like WP:COPYVIO or WP:NOR, and we delete articles based on a consensus the topic doesn't measure up to our notability criteria.

In the first case there is no reason anyone should ever need to review the deleted material -- it can't be re-used, even if new references emerge that clearly establish the notability of the topic. If those new strong references that clearly established notability emerged, a brand new article would have to be written.

In the second case there is no reason why the contribution history of the old article should not be available for any good faith contributor to review. If new references emerge, that clearly establish the topic's notability, there is no reason why good faith contributors who think the wikipedia should have an article on that topic can't start with the old article as a base, incorporating material that uses the new references, agreed?

In the second case, when there are good candidate article(s) where the valid policy compliant material can be merged, and the not sufficiently notable article can then be redirected to the more notable related article, I suggest it is clearly in the best interests of the project for the contribution history of the deleted article to be retained.

Please note: User:United States Man wrote in part "Half of what little is there isn't even about him." I suggest this can be interpreted as a tacit acknowledgment that valid, policy-compliant material in the article should be covered elsewhere.

Please note: User:Bearian wrote "Delete as NN. However ... this could be re-created if he was tied, by a reliable source, to the tortures." I suggest this comment is a tacit recognition that the article contained valid, policy-compliant material -- material that could be re-used elsewhere.

So the comments of participants in the discussion do include comments a closing administrator could reference to explain why a merge and redirect closing was in the best interests of the project.

You wrote above "there were two days" when my counter-argument could have altered the positions of those who had already voiced delete opinions. I think we both know how rarely people who have left an opinion in an afd they view as open and shut go back and re-read it later, just in case a counter-argument might cause them to amend that position. Rather, we count on administrators to be mature, insightful, fair-minded administrators to make a good closure, that takes all valid arguments into account, and who have a willingness to make a closure at odds with a pure vote-counting conclusion, when that is in the best interests of the project.

I recreated James Stacy Adams as a redirect to 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion (United States). Would you please restore its contribution history? Geo Swan (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

By the logic of your first few paragraphs, nothing should ever be deleted for notability reasons. That is not how Wikipedia works. Deleted material and its history can be, and frequently is, recovered when there is good reason, by request to an admin or at WP:REFUND.

What you are asking is that I change my close from "Delete" to "Merge and redirect". No, I will not do that, that was not the consensus of the debate. If you disagree, go to DRV. JohnCD (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My opinion was only mine, and did not seem to be exactly the consensus of "just delete already". Bearian (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Trenck family

Dear John,

I am soliciting your help. I am totally new to wikipedia and I just spent a few hours writing a new article on the Trenck family. I saved it a couple of times. When I logged out and searched for it the article already was marked for speedy deletion by a certain MrScorch6200. What can I do to prevent the page from being deleted?

I have already explained that the Trenck family is very well known in Germany. The most notable member is Friedrich von der Trenck, who secretly married the sister of Frederic the Great. He wrote his memoires before he was beheaded in the French Revolution. To this day there have been many films about him. Friedrich had a famous cousin, Franz von der Trenck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Franz_von_der_Trenck

Could you please help me contest the proposed deletion? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdtrenck (talk • contribs) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nawab Faizunnessa Govt. Girls' High School

Thanks for that, I'm actually leaving for Birmingham Airport in about two hours, so I put up multiple banners and an editbox in readiness. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries! Have a good holiday, if that's what it is. JohnCD (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ruturaj Prajapati (Politics)

Is it time to revoke TP access from him and his socks? He keeps reposting his self-promotion on his TP. Clearly he is not here to build an encyclopedia so any unblock request is unlikely to be successful. Thanks. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I held off because he had an unblock request open; now it has been declined I have revoked his talk p access and told him to use UTRS and/or appeal from his primary account. I will watchlist his other pages. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. He's at it again this morning. It also appears that User:Jewel Boys is one of his socks. 10:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Marked as sock, talk p access revoked. That one has been around since October! JohnCD (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

WARNING!! Don't use our school's name on Wikipedia anymore. Otherwise will will take an action under copyright law against Wikipedia and their editors who is trying to change the information! Thanks!

I agree with your comments to JamesBWatson regarding the inapplicability of G7 — I don't understand what Matthew has to do with it, since the blocked user was the only one to edit the page before it got tagged for deletion, but I don't see any comments by the creator asking/permitting/requesting/etc the deletion. However, since it was a disruptively created fork of an existing AFC page and existing article, I'm willing to give this one over to IAR; it's not as if anyone's going to suffer or anyone's going to make a good-faith complaint. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The history has got terribly tangled by moves and countermoves but basically, the blocked user posted a fluffy and promotional article, Matthew sorted it out and produced this acceptable version, and there ensued a fearful edit war with the OP trying to restore the fluff and eventually adding a G7 tag. I have restored Matthew's version and semi-protected it for a month, as they will probably be back with IP and socks. JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you were talking about the projectspace pages, not the one that's actually in mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

request for protection

Hello, you recently protected Nawab Faizunnesa Government Girls' High School so I am coming to you as someone familiar with the situation.

Could you also protect this redirect under a mis- or alternate spelling Nawab Faizunnessa Government Girls' High School which had been the link from the namesake's article Nawab Faizunnesa and has also been recreated and deleted several times. Thank you!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done - semi-protected for a month, like the target. Maybe the fuss will have died down by then. Maybe. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted revert

Hi. I've recently got a notice that you reverted my edit on a page that doesn't exist. Can you tell me more about that? Cheers, Alex ^{discussion ★} 16:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What was the name of the page, and the time/date of the notice you got? JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is only details I have: ″Your edit on [No page] has been reverted by JohnCD. [No page] 1 day ago″ Alex ^{discussion ★} 20:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Found it. The page was Amtek Industries. You undid some edits by an IP, which had removed a PROD template. I reverted you, because once a PROD has been removed by anyone, for any reason or none, it may not be replaced, the article has to go to AfD. Then I set about doing the research for that, but what I found convinced me to speedy-delete it as a blatant hoax. It was about a Saudi embroidery firm, but references had been falsified and content copied from other articles, so that it claimed that this embroidery company had 455,947 staff and made US$7.33 billion annual profit, and had built, among other things, the Alte Weser (lighthouse), the Copenhagen metro and the Niagara Tunnel Project. JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Emailing "Noa Sheidlower" Text

I have added my email address and would very much appreciate it if you could send me the text written in "Noa Sheidlower"

Maezi (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Maezi

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Feathercoin

Please note that we have already talked to Sandstein (talk) about this, and his response was to turn to the deletion review. But this case is simpler. Sandstein took sides and deleted the page against many keep votes, neglecting the notability sources. These an be listed explicitly, but since several were mentioned in the article itself, with all the keep votes, nobody expected the actual deletion. I'm not very experienced, do you think deletion review should be done before asking for undeletion? Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kokot.kokotisko: yes, WP:Deletion review is your next step for challenging the result of an AfD. WP:Requests for undeletion is intended only for uncontroversial cases like restoring articles deleted after a WP:Proposed deletion tag has not been challenged in seven days. At DRV you need to argue either that the closing adminstrator, Sandstein, did not interpret correctly the consensus of the AfD debate at WP:Articles for deletion/Feathercoin (2nd nomination), or that there is more information which was not available at the AfD. I see that Sandstein has "userfied" the page to User:WSF/Feathercoin, so if you have more information it would be best to add it to that draft article before going to DRV. JohnCD (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Undeletion request for Quark (Cryptocurrency)

Hi John,

I am not sure who is the responsible administrator on deletion. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quark_(cryptocurrency)&action=history, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quark_(Cryptocurrency)&action=edit&redlink=1) So, I copied the same arguments to both of you

CC: Mark Arsten

I would like to request un-delete Quark (Cryptocurrency) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quark_(cryptocurrency)&action=history) and give an opportunity to Quark community (http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/) rewrite the article in diligent way.

I am here because WP:DRV suggests "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review."

Reason for requesting un-deletion is the premise "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" Cryptocurrency is a fast moving technology, so things have been changed a lot after the deletion of the article Quarkcoin on 10 December 2013.

Quark has one of the most vibrant communities in Cryptocurrency domain with tens of thousands of investors, followers and volunteers (http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/). There are more than 50,000 wallet addresses that contain more than 0.1 Quarks (http://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-quarkcoin-addresses.html). It was once 4th largest Cryptocoin, now 9th largest (http://coinmarketcap.com/-- this reference is used by main stream media like Forbes to Wired), which says about its popularity and adoption. There is a new Quark related project in every few days. That being said, there are also plenty of new mainstream media articles and articles from other reliable sources that talk about Quark:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/28/bitcoin-alternatives-future-currency-investments

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/9106132/those-bitcoin-weirdos-might-just-be-right/

http://bitcoinprbuzz.com/bitcoin-alternative-quark-qrk-increases-in-value-50-in-the-last-week-featuring-accessible-cpu-mining/

http://www.heavy.com/tech/2013/12/qkc-vs-mec-wdc-ftc-pts/

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/34947-what-comes-after-the-bitcoin-bubble-bursts.html#

http://www.businessinsider.com/9-alternatives-to-bitcoin-you-probably-havent-heard-of-2013-11

http://www.ibtimes.com/bitcoin-competitors-what-you-should-know-about-6-alternative-cryptocurrencies-1540168

http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/62041-10-Bitcoin-like-Cryptocurrencies-

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/10/are-the-days-of-cash-numbered-these-companies-hope.aspx

http://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/bitcoin-rival-mintchip-pilot-currency.html

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/01/10/are-the-days-of-cash-numbered-these-companies-hope/

http://www.coindesk.com/alternative-cryptocurrencies-thrive-bitcoins-shadow/

http://www.policymic.com/articles/79017/bitcoin-vs-dogecoin-which-one-is-really-worth-more

More articles can be found if time is provided to do the research. What all these articles have in common is that when they refer to a list of notable cryptocurrencies, Quark is always mentioned in such lists! So, people may want to know more about Quark. Wikipedia being a top source for community based knowledge, will serve the purpose in best possible way.

I believe that I have tried made the case on be half of the Quark community that that in all fairness Quark has long earned its position among the notable cryptocurrencies to be an objective Wikipedia article on Cryptocurrency.

Maqayum(talk) 1:32 AM, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Maqayum: sorry to be slow to respond - I have been off for a couple of days. What I deleted was only a redirect. Since you are seeking restoration of the actual article, Mark Arsten who closed the AfD and also deleted the recent re-creation, is the one to approach: I see you have already done that, and he has pointed you to WP:DRV. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You deleted my sandbox!

AHHH!! I cant believe you deleted my sandbox page. It was important to the revitalization process. It's been a work in progress for over 5 years. So important that I forgot about it. Please, PLEASE, put it back so that i may go on living and breathing. I'm hypo-ventilating in distress about it being gone! I need it restored before the show ends!

Seriously though, I don't care about that page in particular. I would have voted for a speedy delete too. If I logged in more than once or twice a month. Have a great day. Long live the Wiki! Zoom. Zoom! EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

...and Zoom! to you, too. Glad to hear from another satisfied customer. JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Dwayne Beckford

"Deleted for no valid reason" was really a good enough reason to restore the article?--Yankees10 18:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted by WP:PROD, so restoration on request is automatic, no reason required - see WP:CONTESTED: "If the article has already been deleted, please go to Requests for undeletion. It will be undeleted automatically on request, though it may then be nominated at WP:Articles for deletion." JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks.--Yankees10 18:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks! for all your tireless work on the undeletions page. Usually such a thankless task, so it is lucky you are willing to do it and able to discharge the duty so conscientiously. Cheers. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ ^{talk ◊ contribs} 21:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! WP:REFUND is actually more interesting than it looks, sometimes, and so much admin work involves deletion that undeleting makes a refreshing change. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Leslie Cornfeld/BLP Noticeboard

Earlier this month you posted a discussion on the BLP Noticeboard regarding Leslie Cornfeld's Wikipedia page and its transition to a draft page. I work for Rubenstein Communications and on behalf of Leslie Cornfeld, I provided a list of references within the Noticeboard discussion, but have not received any feedback in the two weeks since posting. To mitigate conflict of interest issues, I would like to refrain from editing the draft directly unless specifically invited to do so. Your guidance on this would be greatly appreciated. For your convenience, the list of references is pasted below. NinaSpezz (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Career:

• Bloomberg's Interagency Task Force, where Cornfeld was Chair: [1]
• Cornfeld is quoted in this Washington Post editorial from September 2013: [2]
• Cornfeld spoke at Advertising Week social media week 2012: [3]
• Cornfeld is speaking at National Mentoring Summit on January 30, 2014: [4]
• Cornfeld is quoted in this article about New York City schools: [5]
• Cornfeld’s feature in PBS/WNET: [6]

Board memberships:

• Children Defense Fund: [7]
• Hospital for Special Surgery: [8]
• Advisory Board at Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Law, Brain and Behavior: [9]

Robert Saleh

Hello I now have the appropriate sources to support my article for Robert Saleh the Detroit Free Press, Dearborn Press and Guide both wrote stories about him within the past few days. Is this enough to publish this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miray1 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Miray1: edit the draft article to add the references. Read WP:Your first article for advice, and WP:Notability (people) for the standard required. I would advise omitting the "Personal" section, which is too promotional in tone and reads like a gossip mag or fan-site rather than an encyclopedia. When it is ready, click "Resubmit" in the decline box at the top: that will send it back to WP:Articles for creation, where a reviewer will either accept it or give you feedback. JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandip Goswami

Honorable Sir , I am a fan of Poet Sandip Goswami. I am not a relative of Mr. Goswami. Poeat Sandip Goswami lives at a small towm Nabadwip which was ancient capital of undivided Bengal. So he is out of lime light. I created a page about Sandip Goswami in facebook. and distributing his great Bengali poems , articles , Inflaming ( philosophy ). Some great magazines in Facebook are shearing poems of Poet Sandip Goswami. About 5,00,000 Bengali people in the world are reading his creation through Facebook with love and respect. I am trying to do my best. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not understand to the value of Sandip Goswami . Poet Sandip Goswami is a silent person and dislikes every advertisement and believes on every great creation in the world. He got Dipendra memorial award by Dipendra Natya academy at Nabadwip . Please try to understand him with love and respect. Earnestly hope that you will give a chance to the supporters of Poet Sandip Goswami. We want true judgement from Wikipedia. Yours faithfully. Sagnik Goswami, Krishnagar, Nadia, West Bengal, India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagnik Goswami (talk • contribs) 10:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The way that Wikipedia assesses the value of any subject is called WP:Notability and is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If Sandip Goswami is publishing his poems on Facebook and is otherwise "out of the limelight", I am afraid it is not likely that an article about him will be acceptable. See WP:Notability (summary) and WP:AUTHOR for more detail. Have his poems been reviewed in a newspaper? Has anyone written about him in a reliable source - that means somewhere with editorial control, not blogs, Facebook or Twitter? If not, I am afraid you will be wasting your time. If they have, make a draft article by clicking on Help:Userspace draft and filling in the title. Read WP:Your first article for advice. When it is ready, show it to the deleting administrator, RHaworth. If he does not agree, you can go to WP:Deletion review, but you will do better there if you have a draft with good references. JohnCD (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for sorting out the merge! That was thoroughly beyond my capabilities :P LukeSurl t c 16:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Shannen Macleason

Will post this for information only but will not return here, as it not a big matter which is delete or not. In the future please be more awere not all musicians like to have a net career, which requires a further search beyond online sites. Kind regards and wish you the best. Thanks in advance. SM

(I have copied the relevant parts of the material posted here to Talk:Shannen Macleason. JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC))

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.6.142 (talk)

Thank you Sir, Author & Poet Sandip Goswami has four books and these was published by Nandanik, 10/2 A Temar lane, Kolkata - 700009 , Mobile -9831366530 ,908848751 ( Publisher- Mr. Sanjay Bhadro. His books is available on Kolkata international book fair. Many editorials of The Anandabazar Patrika were published on basis of his book " Hundred Inflaming and way " but ignored his name. His assisted and introduced book " Nadiar Natyachacha : sekal- ekal " was published on many news papers like The Anandabazar patrika, The Aajkal , The Sangbad Prtidin , The Ananayudh , The Ganoshakti etc with critics view. I don't understand your advice clearly. Yours Faithfully. Sagnik Goswami --Sagnik Goswami (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Sagnik Goswami