User talk:John Talbut

Welcome!

Hello, John Talbut, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a fist 17:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

co-counselling

Most CCI co-counsellors have a benevolent view toward RC - I'm curious John, do you feel this includes you? :-) MarkThomas 06:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think it doesn't?John Talbut 06:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering

I noticed you put back the Gathering section in the decision making article and asked for the article to be restored... for what it's worth, proposed deletions are generally overturned upon request since they can be stopped by anyone objecting. I was the one who tagged the page with the proposed deletion, and apologies, I suppose I should have notified you (assuming you were the main contributor to the page).

That said, should the page be restored, I will likely nominate the article for deletion in the normal path. I'm not sure what to say aside from the concern listed on the prod; it's an overlong dictionary definition. The article had a lot of blather about how people meet up and gather and discuss their problems and everything gets worked out sunnily. How does this say anything more beyond "a gathering is people meeting and discussing problems?" That's just a specific type of normal gathering with not a whole lot to say about it; not exactly a topic for an encyclopedia.

If the article's writing could be tightened to make it clear what exactly a "gathering" is beyond the normal sense of the term (if such a meaning exists), who talks about it, and so on, then maybe the article should be kept, but eh. I suppose you'd know more than I; are there sources discussing gatherings in this context? SnowFire 16:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire, "a lot of blather about how people meet up and gather and discuss their problems and everything gets worked out sunnily" does not seem to be very npov. You do not seem to have understood the article, so perhaps you are correct that it needs tightening. Gathering is a formal process for decision making, it is not a gathering of people but a gathering of information. Once the article is restored we can see how it needs to be improved.John Talbut 06:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not getting back to you earlier, John. As SnowFire says, you can restore the article by all means, but it is still open to deletion through our articles for deletion process. This does not mean that it definitely will be nominated for deletion - just say there's a chance. Cheers, Riana ⁂ 15:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Panocracy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Panocracy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panocracy (2nd nomination). Thank you. Anarchia 03:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Independent Practitioners Network

The article Independent Practitioners Network has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Could not establish WP:NOTABILITY.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Independent Practitioners Network for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Independent Practitioners Network 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/Independent Practitioners Network 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latest stage of submission to the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy

Hello there. I thought I would drop you a note as you kindly took part in the first stage of the efforts to crowdsource a submission to the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy. The second stage is now live and can be seen here. It would be great if you could help with putting together the submission on the second theme, which relates to representation. Also, if you have any suggestions on how we can widen participation, that would be very helpful. Thanks again for all of your help. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hello, John Talbut. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Nomination of Co-Counselling International for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Co-Counselling International 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/Co-Counselling International until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Walsh90210 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]