User talk:Dcourtneyjohnson

Hello, Dcourtneyjohnson! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! -- samj _in ^out 16:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I thought this might be useful for you. Happy editing. -- samj _in ^out 16:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Dcourtneyjohnson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Dave Johnson (blogger), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -Zeus-^u_c 23:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Dave Johnson (blogger)[edit]

A tag has been placed on Dave Johnson (blogger) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -Zeus-^u_c 23:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Commonweal Institute[edit]

A tag has been placed on Commonweal Institute requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. §FreeRangeFrog 23:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet investigation notification[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcourtneyjohnson. Thank you. THF (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave johnson and heads up[edit]

I have been working to get Dave Johnson (blogger) saved. I am sorry that editor want to delete your contributions.

You may also be interested in this: Talk:Cool_Hand_Luke#Dcoutneyjohnson Ikip (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you[edit]

The article you created: Dave Johnson (blogger) may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Johnson (blogger).

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted {{Findsources3}}:

Find sources for Dave Johnson: Find sources: gbooks, a9, msbooks, gscholar, msacademic, gnews recent, gnews old, NYT recent, NYT old ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:

1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.

2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)

3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.

4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.

If your page is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, along with the notes that I am breaking rules if I edit the article, and the "investigations" of others who have edited it. I get it.--Dcourtneyjohnson (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I didn't create the article.Dcourtneyjohnson (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't create the article, I thought it was wierd that an editor was nice enough to give you a warning that the article was to be deleted. Do me a big favor. Don't get blocked because others will turn around and use your block against me, it will be guilt by association, saying I was assisting and helping a disruptive editor, who is now blocked forever. Ikip (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING[edit]

You have (at least) twice tried to out User:THF, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Johnson (blogger) and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcourtneyjohnson. This is explicitly not allowed on Wikipedia. You may have been unaware of thos policy, so you mayt regard this as a final warning: "Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." Fram (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't know. The person in question did so about himself, FYI.--Dcourtneyjohnson (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not to repeat myself, but Fram is right, other than offwiki harrassment and socks, this is the fastest way to get booted forever. Please stop for everyones sake. Ikip (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding you comments on the Afd[edit]

I don't know whether I can cut and paste those comments here, because I don't want to be accused of outing too, but if true, I find your comments ironic, sad, and funny.

Caveat to readers: I am in no way stating that any article for deletion here is polictically motivated.

I once wrote a little essay called the "Elephant in the room" in which politically motivated AfDs are commonplace. Editors will nominate articles about subjects they disagree with politically, and then editors with the same political beliefs will join in, in some cases even editors in the same little cabal. Although it is obvious what is happening, it is pointless to bring up such politically motivated page deletions.

Politically motivated page deletions: the elephant in the room
Politically motivated AfDs are the "elephant in the room"--which everyone sees, but no one can mention. Certain editors will go around in groups (some people call them "cabals") and actively push their own narrow POV. What is worse is when these groups of people put articles up for deletion. For example, certain editors will vote to delete pages which are against their political beliefs, yet fervently support to keep similar pages which support their political beliefs. Partisan editors voting record is clear--if an article is against their narrow POV, no matter how well written it is, how well sourced it is, etc, it will be put up for deletion, and this little group will vote against it. I have been an editor for just over a year, and I have been troubled by the amount of articles which have been deleted by partisans of ALL political persuasions, right or left. It is clear that certain editors are doing it because they are biased and slanted, but no wikieditor can actually bring this up. When another wikieditor brings it up, people scream WP:NPA. I support WP:NPA fully, but in some cases, policies are detrimental. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? Policies are tools to help us editors build a better encyclopedia. When a small group of users is actively deleting well referenced material because of political bias, then the policy rule needs to be reevaluated. Why is the word cabal so off limits? Why when anyone brings up the subject of a cabal, they are heckled off the talk page?

I did not include the three examples I had in the original esssay. But one recent example of many, lets use the name ICB, would actively delete everything that he perceived as a conspiracy theory, the "conspiracy theory" brush was quite wide, and included leftist articles too. Then an Obama conspiracy theory came up, tarnishing Obama, and he voted to keep.

The sad fact is there is no effective mechanisms to fight such disruption. Passive aggressive behavior is king on wikipedia (and the rules don't apply to everyone --but that is another conversation). A "bully" can tell another person to "fuck off" and get banned immediately, but that same "bully" can target and delete a victims hundreds of hours of work telling the victim to "fuck off" by his actions, and there is no way to effectively address such abuse. That is why the Economist said that "self promoted deletionsts" are the reason why edits have dropped on Wikipedia since October 2007. That is why the media is UNIVERSALLY negative against wikipedia's deletion policies. You have what are basically Single Purpose Accounts, editors who do nothing but delete articles, disrupting thousands of editors lives, and deleting thousands of hours of editors contributions, and when editors predictably and justifiably fight back against such "bullying", they are told that they are disrupting wikipedia. It is a sad, Orwellian twist on logic and rationality, sadly one of many on Wikipedia.

A crude baramoter of how a person stands in this deletion debate is this tool, with occasional exceptions: http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php (slow server). Just type in the editors name. You notice that I have one deletion.

Now, again, please remember to be on your best behavior. I am taking a big risk by messaging you publicly, against some very powerful editors who don't like me, and abhor what I am writing right now, and will try every dirty trick in the book to silence me. If you fuck up, editors will use your fuck up as a guilt by association argument against me.

Caveat to readers: I am in no way stating that any article for deletion here is polictically motivated.

Ikip (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for your articles which will probably be deleted[edit]

It looks like the blogger page will be deleted. I would suggest not wasting anymore energy on the article. Instead, I would ask to userfy the page:

The article you created was just deleted?

All is not lost. Here is what you can do right now:

Special:Log/delete Enter the name of the article, then click "Go"

First, find out why your article was deleted:
- On this log page, once you enter the name of your page, this will show you who deleted it and why.
- If the reason doesn't make sense, try clicking any links on the reason, or you can ask by typing {{help}} followed by your question on your talk page. Or you can ask any administrator to tell you why it was deleted.^[1]
If you still think your article belongs on Wikipedia, you can try to fix the reasons it was deleted. Many administrators will be happy to give you a copy of your deleted article, either by putting it on a special user page for you (a process called userfication) or by e-mailing you a copy. Once you have the article, you can try to resolve the issues. (Do this before you repost your article back under its name, or it may be deleted again!)
Finally, if you've repaired the article, or you believe the reasons for deleting the article were in error, you can dispute the deletion at Deletion Review. Generally, the burden will be on you to show how the previous deletion(s) were in error, but this is the place to resolve disputes about whether a deletion was wrong.

How to fix reasons for deletion
^ 1.If your article is deleted because of notability, it was deleted because you didn't give us enough information to confirm that people had published articles, books, or other publications to verify the claims your article made. You'll simply need to find some published articles that covered the subject of your article. While this may not be possible for some subjects (your cat, your garage band), you'd be surprised how easy it is, and people are happy to help on the help desk or in projects like the Article Rescue Squadron if you ask politely and tell them as much as you can. 2. If your article was deleted because it was a "copyvio", or copyright violation, an administrator removed it because it violated someone's copyright on their work. Only public domain information can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images. You can rewrite the article so that it is no longer a copyright violation, you can request permission from the copyright holder to republish their work, or if and only if you are the copyright holder you can donate your work to the project or release it under a license compatible with Wikipedia's.

Ikip (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Commonweal Institute[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Commonweal Institute, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article created in support of recently deleted bio; organization does not meet the guidelines for inclusion.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. §FreeRangeFrog 17:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed what I think is the "prod" tag. let me know if this was correct.--Dcourtneyjohnson (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing is to bolster an article with mention from things like national newspapers etc. I added a reference from the LA Times. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Request for deleted article[edit]

I have moved the deleted content to User:Dcourtneyjohnson/Dave Johnson (blogger). I am assuming that you are the author of the copyrighted material that formed part of the basis of the article. As it still seems to contain some information lifted from that site, you need (1) to copy the recreated page and then ask an admin to delete it, or (2) to indicate that you license the original at [1] for reproduction at Wikipedia. The help page Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials explains how to go about doing the latter. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's frustrating when others attempt to delete your work, but the best way to defend against it is always to provide nontrivial discussion in third-party sources such as newspapers about the subject of the article. Best of luck, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Manfred_Mann [edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Manfred_Mann , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Commonweal Institute for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Commonweal Institute is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonweal Institute until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[reasons-1] 1.If your article is deleted because of notability, it was deleted because you didn't give us enough information to confirm that people had published articles, books, or other publications to verify the claims your article made. You'll simply need to find some published articles that covered the subject of your article. While this may not be possible for some subjects (your cat, your garage band), you'd be surprised how easy it is, and people are happy to help on the help desk or in projects like the Article Rescue Squadron if you ask politely and tell them as much as you can.
2. If your article was deleted because it was a "copyvio", or copyright violation, an administrator removed it because it violated someone's copyright on their work. Only public domain information can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images. You can rewrite the article so that it is no longer a copyright violation, you can request permission from the copyright holder to republish their work, or if and only if you are the copyright holder you can donate your work to the project or release it under a license compatible with Wikipedia's.

[1]