User talk:Dr. B. Jones


 * } &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;   &#9743;(talk)  20:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Philip Guarino
Hello Dr. B. Jones,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Philip Guarino for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  18:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Philip Guarino, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  02:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=575944933 your edit] to Philip Guarino may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * sqi=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Alfred%20Zappelli%20%20Philip%20Guarino&f=false

Deletion discussion about Philip Guarino
Hello, Dr. B. Jones,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Philip Guarino should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Philip Guarino.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;   &#9743;(talk)  02:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Philip Guarino


A tag has been placed on Philip Guarino requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.theknightstemplar.org/philip-guarino/. 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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stalwart 111  10:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Philip Guarino
I'm sorry your article got deleted. I really didn't have much of a choice but to tag it for speedy deletion. As the deleting administrator said, the note you added was not sufficient to allay copyright concerns. I imagine the fact that the website itself includes its own specific note - Copyright 2013 TheKnightsTemplar.org | All Rights Reserved - probably doesn't help. A couple of things to consider before trying to create the article again -


 * 1) Really none of the "achievements" you listed would be considered significant enough to meet our notability guidelines. Length of career or the fact that he met important people or even worked with them would not be considered sufficient because people don't general inherit notability from others.
 * 2) The coverage I saw wouldn't have been anywhere near enough to be considered "significant coverage". You need to have a read of WP:SIGCOV and provide sources that give him biographical coverage, in detail. Passing mentions in articles about other people really won't be enough.
 * 3) Creating an article about the founder of an organisation where you currently have a leadership role (that of Grand Prior) would most certainly be considered a conflict of interest. There just isn't any way to get around that. You've been asked to come here and write an article about someone from your organsiation. The best way to go about creating an article would be list it at WP:RA where someone truly independent of your organisation can make a neutral decision about whether he is notable or not.
 * 4) On Wikipedia we generally print those things that can be verified by reliable sources and we don't pick-and-chose which parts of particular sources we use to make someone sound good (which is the other part of editing with a conflict of interest). If you create an article and use sources like the LA Times article, you can use it to verify that he was a priest (as you did) but the fact that he was removed from G. H. W. Bush's campaign for suspected links to fascism will likely also be included because it can be verified with the same reliable source. If you want a positive, rose-coloured-glasses biography of your organisation's founder, Wikipedia is not the place for it. Something to consider before trying again.

I'm not trying to discourage your from contributing to Wikipedia in general (with regard to subjects where you don't have a direct personal interest) but I figure it would be worse not to tell you, only to have you waste your time trying again without first familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's policies. Stalwart 111  14:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Stalwart111, Thanks for your message. I don't blame you for getting my Philip_Guarino article deleted because I had not yet posted my note on top of the page.  But I had made all of those permission changes and added that note on top of www.TheKnightsTempalr.org before Darkwind saw it so there is no excuse for him. That was the decision of Darkwind even though I had given explicit permission for it to be used and posted a note to the Wikipedia Editors on the top of the Article.  It could not have been more obvious to Darkwind that it was my work and he could have given me a chance to follow whatever method of giving permission existed.


 * I only wish I could save a copy of my article as I didn't get a chance to. It took me 6 hours to write.  Please, will you help me get he article sent to my sandbox or find a way to get a copy?
 * Thanks, Dr. B. Jones (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't "blame" anyone. As I said above, your "explicit permission" was nowhere near explicit enough (in the form of a casual note) to override the obvious assertion of copyright on the site itself. Copyright isn't really negotiable. For these reasons, its best not to use a public (and copyrighted) space to "develop" your article. Wikipedia has drafting spaces (user space) for a range of reason, this being among them. You can ask the deleting admin for a copy of your work but he is unlikely to restore content deleted as copyright violation as those provisions apply to user space too. There really isn't any way you're going to be able to simply replicate the biography you've created on that site. They need to be substantially different. That shouldn't be a problem, though, because the biography here would need to be limited to only those things that can be verified in reliable sources which is substantially less content than is currently contained the your draft on your own site. Before any of that, though, you need to work out what he might be notable for - without that, it doesn't matter what the article looks like, it will still be deleted. And you need to address the conflict of interest. Stalwart 111  00:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, I appreciate you explaining those things clearly like that. You're are without a doubt the nicest most considerate Editor on Wikipedia.  This whole process as a first time Editor has been confusing, trying and most Reviewers are not nice people in general.


 * However, it was obvious to all that http://www.theknightstemplar.org/philip-guarino/ was my own work. Darkwind had discretion to educate me on how to give more correct permissions for my work to be used. Instead he chose to be hard nosed about it and used a sledge hammer to kill a gnat.  All I want to do at this point is get a copy of my article in my sandbox so I can copy it and use it at http://www.theknightstemplar.org/philip-guarino/.  I'm giving up on Wikipedia after this experience, I'd rather be fire walking.Dr. B. Jones (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to stop blaming Darkwind who was doing as any administrator would have done faced with obvious cut-paste content from a clearly copyrighted source. Your suggestion at DRV seems to be that Darkwind deleted the article while a copyleft notification was in place. You might have changed the copyright notification after the deletion but a cached version shows it was previously tagged as All Rights Reserved which is exactly what I noted in the AFD discussion. To suggest there "was and still is a copyleft notice" when Darkwind deleted the article would be blatantly dishonest and I'd suggest you go to DRV and reword that right away. Suggesting as much would likely be considered a personal attack for which you could be blocked which would end this conversation very quickly. User:Jimbo Wales edits here and can be contacted via his talk page. Again, though, a very bad idea if you're going to accuse Darkwind of something for which there is evidence to the contrary. Jimbo's talk page swarms with admins, any of whom would quickly block you for making obviously unsubstantiated accusations there. Stalwart 111  01:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Stalwart111, would you please be willing to move that article now to my sandbox? I tried to go to the DRV and change it as you instructed but I don't see how to edit the DRV.  It appears to be closed.  I didn't think Darkwind would re-open the article but he was nice enough to do that and you were correct again.  I have now saved it and at least I can use all these references for my work for the Prior, he will be pleased. Thank you again kind sir, if Wikipedia had more like you, more editors would stick around. Dr. B. Jones (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The article has been restored (and yes, your thank-you to Darkwind was appropriate) so there isn't much point moving it now. That would just create two different versions of the same article (which creates problem for our copyright and attribution later on). Best just to let the AFD run its course. If it is deleted you can always get a copy then, given the same copyright issues no longer exist. I'd suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:N and then participate in that discussion. Cheers, Stalwart 111  03:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Using same citations
If I want to use the same reference twice, how do I refer back to the same one as before instead of posting the whole reference again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. B. Jones (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * See REFNAME. Although a long article see Boeing 747, ref 1-3 are used multiple times. -- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  20:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Olof Palme
This is a fringe conspiracy theory that isn't even high on the list of possible explanations for Palme's murder. We need a reliable source for any connection to the Italians and Guarino, and I don't think Barbara Honegger qualifies. Her views are extremely bizarre, and very few people trust what she says.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)