User talk:Craynor1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created 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   on this 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 Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Vianello (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Over the past 10 days, substantial references have been added to the John Fenzel Wikipedia Page that substantiate notability in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria.
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Writing about fiction
Hi. If you are interested in writing about fiction, you will find the guidelines Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and Plot summaries helpful, as well as Notability (books). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John Fenzel
An article that you have been involved in editing, John Fenzel, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/John Fenzel. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Lazarus Covenant
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Lazarus Covenant, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/The Lazarus Covenant. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of AfD templates
If it is you or your friends who are using anonymous IP addresses to remove the AfD templates from your two articles, please stop. Doing this will not stop the deletion debates; it only means that readers of the articles will not know about them, and so will be unable to contribute. Also, the articles are watch-listed, so that removals will be quickly reverted, as they have already been - four times from The Lazarus Covenant and five times from John Fenzel. You are welcome to give your views at the debate pages, but removing the templates is simply wasting time. JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the barrage of template removal by anonymous IPs continued, both articles have now been semi-protected, which means that anonymous IPs and newly-created users cannot edit them. I see that your account is more than four days old and has more than 10 edits, so you count as an established, or "autoconfirmed" user, and should still be able to edit them; if you find that you cannot, please post a message here on your talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not removing any templates--I'm not sure what you are referring to. Your corrections are inaccurate and subjective, and seem to indicate a personal campaign to remove my pages--it would be helpful if you could take a more objective approach to help a new user.

When adding comments to discussion
When you add your comments to the deletion discussions for The Lazarus Covenant and John Fenzel, please follow convention and add comments to the foot of the page, not at the top. They will be read. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What's happening with your articles and why - reply to your personal note
The "AfD templates" I referred to above are the notices at the head of the article which say "This article is being considered for deletion" and link to the debate. They also say "this notice must not be removed"; but yesterday the one at the head of "John Frenzel" was removed eleven times in a couple of hours by different anonymous IPs (possibly all the same person logging out and in again) until I finally asked an administrator to semi-protect the articles. Those removals achieved nothing except to waste time and to give the impression that some kind of campaign was going on. My message to you was in case you knew who was doing it and could help stop the waste of time.

General reply to your concerns: newcomers to Wikipedia often have a rough time at first, because in our keenness to encourage contributions we don't have any system to guide them through the standards which have to maintained if WP is to be an encyclopedia rather than a general discussion-and-advertisement forum. So they plunge in and bump their heads against, not an uncharted rock, but a rock for which no-one has made them read the chart. I will take some time to try and explain what has happened to your contributions.

As I write, new articles are arriving at a rate of more than three a minute, and amendments to existing articles every second or two. As one might expect when anyone can edit, a high proportion are unsuitable - libellous attacks, blatant advertisements, "Tracey is awesome lol!!!!", made-up "joke" religions, political or racial rants, attempts to insert some schoolboy's name in a list of famous footballers or to insert the word "poop" in as many places as possible, and so on.

Wikipedia survives as a useful encyclopedia only because many editors, all unpaid volunteers, spend time watching what comes in, reverting and warning vandals, and tagging new articles that need deletion or improvement. In the course of doing this "New Page Patrol" yesterday, I saw your article "The Lazarus Covenant" come in. My immediate reaction: far too long plot summary for our standards (fixable), unpublished book (extremely unlikely to meet notability requirements), new contributor (nothing wrong with that, but may not understand WP's requirements, so worth investigating further). That led me to look at your other contributions, to wonder about Mr Frenzel's notability, to check out his references, to realise the connection between him, his publisher and you, and to think that several Wikipedia guidelines were being infringed - there was a serious conflict-of-interest problem and an attempt to use WP for promotion. Something doesn't have to shout "Buy me now!!!" to be promotion.

That was my opinion, but I don't have, no single editor has, the power to delete articles in a case like this. The procedure is to list them on Articles for Deletion explaining the problems, notify the author, and let other editors express their views. The debate does not end in a count of votes: after a few days, normally five, an administrator will review it and decide, on the basis of the arguments put forward, whether there is a consensus to delete. This is not a campaign against you, just the normal working of the process by which Wikipedia maintains its standards. Something like a hundred articles a day go through the AfD process - if you click "Show log" at the end of the second line on your article's debate you will see the whole of yesterday's crop, 94 in all. So you are not being singled out; if you are hearing a lot from me it is because I happened to be one doing New Page Patrol who saw your article come in, and so I feel a responsibility to follow it through. There are plenty of other things I would rather be doing.

Please do not be put off contributing, but read the guidelines linked from the Welcome paragraph, and also the guideline on Conflict of Interest and the FAQ/Organizations which is a useful general guide for people who want to contribute about something they are connected with. One final point you should understand: unlike "listing" type websites, if you contribute an article to Wikipedia about something you have an interest in you will not "own" it - see WP:OWN - other people can and will edit it and you may not like the result, but providing their contributions are properly sourced you will not be able to censor them.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

File:John Fenzel.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Fenzel.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)