User talk:Johnpdeever

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Ohio News Network. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Please note that the PR Watch post that you copied from admonishes ONN for "failing to add any context or journalistic balance to the material" – which could also be said about your additions. Nevertheless, your original contributions are welcome, and you're free to use other websites, such as PR Watch, as a source for your research when writing Wikipedia articles. For example, rather than removing the ONN article's Controversy section entirely, I summarized it into two or three sentences. (That's all the time I had, but you're welcome to write more in-depth about this issue.) Happy editing! – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 20:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around the PR Watch website, I couldn't find any information on them releasing their work under an open source license; so I suppose it's all copyrighted by default. However, SourceWatch, a project also run by the Center for Media and Democracy, is released under the GNU Free Documentation License, which is what Wikipedia uses. So although we can freely copy from SourceWatch's article on ONN, we're not allowed to copy from PR Watch.

In any event, the reason I noticed your contribution was that the PR Watch's article wasn't written with the neutral tone of an encyclopedia, so it would have required a little rewriting to make it fit into the ONN article here. I agree with your removal "has been accused of"; I hadn't read the Dispatch story yet at the time.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Bonner & Associates 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 a company or corporation, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Persian Warrior----Contact Me! 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Talk:Bonner & Associates 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 a company or corporation, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Apbiologyrocks (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An editor requested a review of your edit summary on the Kerry Killinger article because of the concern that it was derogatory towards subject of the article. Wikipedia English has a policy-Wikipedia:Biographies of living people-that requires editors to approach the subject of articles about living people with sensitivity and dignity irrespective of our personal view about the person. I removed the edit summary from public view. In the future please follow the guidelines for use of edit summaries and refrain from adding in extra commentary. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I did not want to put anything POV in the article but should have showed more self-control when describing my edit. I appreciate your attention and agree w/ this removal.Johnpdeever (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on A Cruel Romance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Fluffernutter, previously known as Chaoticfluffy (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to John Stossel. Your comment about "discredited" is purely your opinion. – S. Rich (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your concerns, frankly. It is not a "controversial" position that what John Stossel does (these days, anyway) is not journalism. Here is a citation for his "reporting" being funded by right-wing donors: [1] Further information as a reference to my fairly obvious description of Stossel as an advocacy pundit or personality, not a journalist, is detailed here: [2] There is nothing in my addition that is "purely my opinion." Stossel is free to spout his right-wing ideology and the left is free to mock him; however, it makes no sense for Wikipedia to allow what he does to be defined as "journalism." In a recent report, he cites his own brother, Dr. Tom Stossel, "a visiting professor for health care studies at the American Enterprise Institute," who happens to share his views on what ought to be done about the Ebola crisis; is asking one's relatives via your television program about policy options really journalism? Yet another of his "investigations" a year ago involved pretending to be homeless in order to "report" that homeless people are doing just fine and do not deserve charity or other attention from policymakers; such shenanigans are far from reporting, and I can continue adding references all day if for some reason someone believes his lack of credibility has not been documented adequately. [3] Johnpdeever (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you post your rationale for changes to the John Stossel article on the article talk page. Doing so allows other interested editors to discuss. As the present article has been extensively reviewed and classed as a WP:Good Article, you will need to garner consensus from other editors to support the changes you propose. – S. Rich (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry Brook (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnpdeever. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]