User talk:DavidWJohnson

Welcome!

Hello DavidWJohnson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your interest in "The Free Encyclopedia" - I hope you like what you see and decide to stay. To help you get more comfortable with things, here are a few links with helpful information for newcomers:

Also, when communicating with other users on talk pages, please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date, and make conversations much easier to follow. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or feel free to ask me on my talk page. Cheers, and happy wiki-ing! --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 02:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me.

Hi, Dave. Someone else had tagged your work as a speedy deleteable copyright violation. Of course, you're welcome to write the article in your own words. If you're the original author, it needs to read less like an essay. Hope this helps. Yell if you need me; I'm signing off for now but I'll be around and I'll gladly get back to you ASAP. Thanks for being polite about this. You're obviously well-educated and this site can't get enough good editors. You'd be a tremendous asset! - Lucky 6.9 03:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflicted with the above comment, if any of this sounds familiar:) Hello there! Yes, the name was probably not a good choice; the ALL CAPS didn't help either. But that wasn't the reason I deleted the article. I apologize for not providing a more detailed reason; my finger slipped in the middle of typing it out and hit the "enter" key, which is why my reason is so short and jumbled. For starters, the text you submitted it copyrighted, which means it probably isn't allowable under Wikipedia given that all content on the encyclopaedia is licensed using the GFDL. Secondly, Wikipedia doesn't allow original research which it appears your article is. In fact it reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article, which is also something Wikipedia isn't really looking for.

In fact, the text you submitted is already linked from the article, and so any interested readers can find it from there. I hope this clears things up. If you have any other questions or comments, let me know if I can help. Cheers. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 03:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment (here), I think that's an excellent idea. It's not always intuitive where good information should go on Wikipedia, so I recognize that it can be a bit frustrating at first. As Lucky 6.9 said above though, you seem like a very patient and well-informed individual, and Wikipedia is always in dire need of both those qualities. If you need any help feel free to get in touch again. Cheers! --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 05:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Norac

I didn't delete the article itself, I just deleted the AFD. Of course any improvement to the Norac article would be welcomed. Adam Bishop 18:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dual FA and GA nominations

Hi, I've opposed your FA nomination and failed your GA nomination. I'd like you to know that FA and GA nominations are not meant to be sent out at the same time. The good article nomination is meant as more of a stepping stone to the FA nomination. Once and article becomes and featured article, it is removed from the good article list. Therefore, it would very troublesome for users that work on the good article pages, to have to keep adding and removing the same articles constantly. In the future, when you want to nominate an article for FA status. Please either nominate it for GA status and then (after the nomination has been passed) nominate it for FA status. Or you could simply nominate the article for FA and FA alone. The Filmaker 20:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to renominate your article for GA status, that is none of my business. But I assure you that lacking any references what so ever (a direct violation of the good article criteria as well as the featured article criteria), your article will not receive any supports for it's FA candidacy and will soon be failed again for the same reasons I've given. The Filmaker 20:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I have come off blunt. I'm not in a paticularly giddy mood at the moment, not a bad mood, but not playful. My placement of a "Strong Oppose" was not to be condescending towards you, it was for others namely the FA Director Raul654 to be aware of my strong feelings against your nomination. It is rather common among the FA candidates if you look around, you will also see Strong Support just as often.

I'm unsure if you understand how the process of the GA nomination works. What I did was standard procedure for the good article candidates. Good article candidates are not voted upon as FA candidates are. Rather one user, provided that he has not contributed significantly to the article in question, can pass or fail and GA nomination. Whereas, FA nominations are voted upon by various users and in the end, Raul654 decides what the consensus is between the users and is the only user who can pass a FA nomination. If you've felt as though I was simply blowing off your nomination as nothing. I wasn't, I was simply failing the article through a process that the good article candidates page provides.

While perhaps the trivia section is not as serious of a problem as the lack of citations, an article cannot pass FA with a trivia section, maybe GA. The lack of citations is however the plague of Wikipedia, and that is not a personal preference or my own personal logic. Wikipedia is meant to be a realiable source of information. If citations are not provided than there is no point to anything posted in this encyclopedia. An article with no citations is (and I know this blunt, I apologize, but this is the truth) a bad article. I'm aware that there are plenty of articles with no citations what so ever, plenty of unsourced information. But that's what the GA and FA are, above the rest. That's what we're working towards.

I hope I haven't scared you away, but my comments while I agree are blunt, are true. Please read the criteria for GA and FA nominations before you nominate again. Would it help if I smiled? :) The Filmaker 21:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I am not fully aquainted with the GA process either. It looks like you cannot simply renominate and article for GA status. You are going to have to seek a good article review. See the article's talk page to do so. However, I suggest that you do not, because it will not work. No citations are a major violation of FA and GA criteria, and you will not be able to pass an article off as any where near good without them. But because of the GA process, they have removed your nomination from the candidates page and I am going to have to remove the tab from the talk page. Check the failed GA tab to do your review if you wish to in the future. The Filmaker 22:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you want to get ultra technical about it, you can immedietly relist nominations, but generally, unless the editor who failed it made a super bad faith review or something, it might count as disruption. The best place to take a dispute like that would be WP:GA/R if you need to do that in the future. Also, you don't have to have both the GA failed and nominated template on the page at once time, most articles just have one at a time up. Homestarmy 22:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, I have reverted your edit to the talk page, because it would normally amount to vandalism,

I suppose I can understand why you did that, so I am very far from accusing you of any bad faith. That said, you should not be removing anything that itself is not vandalism from a talk page. The tag and review comments are supposed to stay in the talk page (just as the ones related to FA) for the record and to give insight to future reviewers or editors interested in expanding the article to bring it closer to GA/FA standards. So, please do not remove anything. Thanks, Bravada, talk - 11:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've got a lot of words to say very little. Seriously, I got what you meant from the first paragraph on weasel words, and I actually found your Star Wars analogy to be confusing (how is it that we are giving more power to the administrators), and I don't believe that Wikipedia is becoming an Evil Empire (whatever that might represent). I understand that you don't want to renominate the Public-access television article for GA, however this has all become a bit confusing for me. Either I have been misinformed about a few things, or I just need to catch up on my reading with the GA rules. On weasel words, perhaps you are right. That they could be taken in the wrong way, however I am not interested in revitalizing the Wikipedia community. I'm interested in operating within it and changing with the community, hell I might even support a few changes within the community. But I'm not interested in joining a Rebel Alliance, as odd as that may sound. Mostly because I don't believe that this is or is becoming an Evil Empire in anyway.

I think that you should stay around for a while, and get to know the place. I get the feeling you don't tend to read the rules or criteria for certain projects. You seemed very unfamiliar with the criteria for the GAs and the FAs. Join a WikiProject, do some work, read some featured articles, and try to get a featured article again, or atleast a good article. Afterward, if you still feel this way, than go ahead. God bless you, because you see something I don't and might actually be serious problem. But as of right now, you're taking all of this too personally. The GAs and the FAs candidacy is not for feedback. Think of these users as picking up your work and examining it and than turning to an audience, in a room you aren't even in, and explaining the reasons they disagree with your nomination. They aren't paticularly worried about how productive it is for the article, because this is not how good the article could be, it's about how good the article is at the moment. If they're going to support it, then they will leave comments of praise. For feedback, you want a peer review where people will come together to actually help with the article. While they aren't bound to give praise, they will present their advice. I understand what you're thinking, that we should all support eachother along the way. But with most users, save for a few friends you'll meet along the way, the praise is like the cheese at the end of a maze. You'll get none of it till you get there.

I've had significantly contributed to four featured articles, soon to be five. My method for gaining a featured article, is to follow the featured article criteria to the best of my ability. Than to request a peer review. After receiving advice, I implement it into the article. I than ask a few trusted fellows to copyedit the article for me, however since you haven't gotten to know many people here you might want to request one. I follow this with a GA nomination, which always helps with FA candidacy. Than once it's passed, I nominate for FA. Often times, after all of this I have to make changes during the FA candidacy to satisfy users.

It's always nice to receive praise, I've since read people refering to Revenge of the Sith as one of the best film articles on Wikipedia, and formatting their articles based off of it. I was also asked to copyedit another film article based on my work on Revenge of the Sith and the other prequel films. And I can't say I haven't enjoyed it. But I earned it (although I'm sure someone out there disagrees with me), and that's all you have to do, is earn it. I promise you that there is cheese at the end of this maze. The Filmaker 03:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norac article

Hi there David, thanks for the very polite note. I know its not you who removed the afd tag - this was removed by someone else (I checked the edit history previously) who is actually an admin (I was a bit surprised, as the removal does still seem out of process). Anyway, the afd tag should not be removed until the article for deletion discussion is closed (and then, only by the admin who closes the discussion) - this discussion is still very much active and unclosed[1]. To remove the afd tag now disrupts the afd process. Other issues: the cleanup tag is unrelated to the neutrality issue - I thought that there were a number of English language issues with the article, but I think now I was a bit hasty with this tag (there are still a few phrases that need sorting out e.g. "waiter high school" but the issues are not as many as I thought). The weasel words tag is related to the use of the "some say" and "some think" type sentences - this is problematic even if they are used to give the idea of balance - see WP:WEASEL. There were a couple of these lines, but these make major claims about serious issues. I've taken them out of the article now. If they can be referenced properly, more detailed versions could be introduced. Hope this clarifies things, thanks Bwithh 23:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: New Users

Thanks for the message. I'm going to take a moment from my post-accident recuperation and reply today, because I just can't go to sleep until I do. I'm not going to put it at WP:VPR because that's not my style.

I had to go wa-a-a-y-y-y back to August 10 to find out to what you referred. (I have more than 6,000 edits at Wikipedia and I made almost 400 edits on that date alone, so I hope you'll forgive me for not remembering yours right away.) As far as I'm able to determine, it seems to be about this diff, wherein I removed several paragraphs of commentary from public access television. (The surrounding paragraphs should have been removed too, but that wasn't the problem at the time.)

I reverted the edit and left the {{comment2}} message on User talk:68.207.100.174, which is standard operating procedure for edits like that. I'd also like to point out that the edit in question wasn't your first edit, as you claim in your post at WP:VPR. This was your first edit, on the day before and with which I had nothing to do, so let's get that straight before blaming me for ruining "all of (your) very first submissions ever."

I'm not an administrator, and I am sincerely sorry you were offended. Having said that, the edit was inappropriate, and it was reverted in the same manner such edits are reverted every day by dozens of RC patrollers and other editors. {{comment2}} is a template that can be found along with its brothers, sisters, and cousins at Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. They are used thousands of times every day, and they can indeed be harsh to well-intentioned users, which is why I apologize for hurt feelings at the top of my talk page.

The problem is that you didn't come to my talk page to talk about it that day. You didn't leave a message on my talk page about it that day, that week, or even that _month_. I looked several times through my talk history and your contributions history in both IP and registered accounts, just to be sure. Instead, seven weeks after the fact, on a community page, in a section that wasn't even about the templates or newcomers or anything to do with the subject, you write a paragraph that can be summarized like this: "Yes, this is a good idea. Oh, and by the way, BaseballBaby nearly ran me off of Wikipedia."

I'm one of the least adversarial people here, and if you had asked me I would have been happy to help you rephrase or re-edit your content, just as I and others help new users every day. It's better to talk directly to someone about situations like this one, rather than commenting at WP:VPR, because everyone makes errors and there's no reason to pile on publicly – even when it's not a mistake, why call everyone's attention to it in that manner? It doesn't do anything to help the situation and likely makes it worse, plus it embarrasses two people needlessly – you and the person about whom you're commenting.

Again, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt over the template message, but in the future you really should take it up with an editor sooner, rather than later, and on a one-to-one basis instead of on a community page like the VP. Now that you're a registered user, I hope you'll spend some time on Recent changes patrol to help us out and gain a little perspective.

Lastly, I noticed something tonight while researching this issue: If you're editing from both this account and anonymously from an IP address, that's called sock puppetry. If you are doing this, choose one _or_ the other – you shouldn't edit from both, and definitely shouldn't edit the same articles or article talk pages from both. BaseballBaby 05:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public access

Could you please discuss major changes like these before you perform them? Mind you, "Public access" is a culturally neutral name. Community Media/Citizen Media is a Canadian term for it, and now several pages are now back to before you changed them so drastically. Ryūlóng 05:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, do not make empty threats of blocking or appeals to personal authority, and read the WP:Naming conventions. Whatever the most used name by the public is should be the default name of the article. --tjstrf 06:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block =

I have blocked you for 3 hours, please read up on WP:OWN and other related policys before editing. Thanks! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 06:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Access TV

You bet. Thanks for the heads-up and God bless. - Lucky 6.9 19:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and it was basically a WP:OWN and WP:NC(CN) issue. I have never heard of it as "Citizen Media" or "Community Media" and there was not much changed (I had just replaced the History section with the one prior to your handful of edits, one that omitted the Canadian and American flags). I wish you luck in your future Wikipedia ventures. Ryūlóng 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your note about the Public Access TV issue. Bearing in mind that I don't have direct knowledge or experience of the situation, I'm still happy to act as a neutral observer as you requested (although I think the issue has been already resolved?). I'll add the page to my watchlist. I hope you will progress happily in your Wikipedia contributions Bwithh 19:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Again, I think you're taking all of this too personally. This is not about stringing you up naked in front of the town villagers and throwing eggs at you. The reason why I readded the failed FA tag is because it will link the old candidate page where myself and I believe two others expressed why the article was severely under FA criteria. Should another user come along who wishes to nominate the article again or at least improve the article, the page will state the major problems with the article. This is why we have these tags, not to humilate those who make mistakes, but to prevent mistakes from repeating themselves. The Filmaker 15:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Government Access TV

Hi there - I'm afraid that this is getting a bit complicated for me as a disinterested neutral observer. I appreciate you looking to me for advice, but as I'm not an administrator, this is a bit above my paygrade so to speak. YOu should seek out an admin if there's an ongoing dispute that you want neutral judgement on. I suggest you contact Yomangani as an admin who recently helped in a fairminded way to settle down a dispute I was having with another user. (Actually he wasn't an admin yet when he did that, but he seemed ready and adept at dispute resolution as a neutral third party anyway. He became an admin a couple of weeks or something later). Hope that helps! Bwithh 14:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Silly Daddy

The article Silly Daddy has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Snowycats (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]