User talk:Johnbarnes~enwiki

Why?
Why have u put DD Fine Dining article up for deletion, what is wrong with it?


 * While DD Fine Dining may be a fine place to eat, you haven't shown how it is presently of encyclopedic relevance. I have some favorite restaurants which make good food indeed, but they will always remain anonymous except to their faithful patrons. For a restaurant or group of restaurants to be encyclopedic, they have to meet some criteria - for instance, have they ever been recognised by the culinary industry as, say, a five-star restaurant (forgive me, I don't know how or by whom restaurants are rated)? Have they invented a dish which has gone on to acclaim in the food world? Do they have notable patrons, such as royalty or show business? Do they serve a large market (MacDonald's has an article only because of its sheer volume)? Have they been written up in the press outside of London? In other words, is there anything that sets DD Fine Dining apart from the average restaurant? If so, you have some time to add it. I don't delight in putting articles up for deletion, but I want to ensure that all our articles have something important to say about their subjects. Denni  talk 21:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Articles on AfD are typically there for a week, so you should have at least a few days to do someting. If you make changes to the article, please leave a note at the AfD discussion so that those who have already voted to delete have an opportunity to change their vote if they are satisfied with the changes. By the way, when posting to a talk page, please sign your post by typing four tildes ( (~) . That automatically adds your username and a date stamp to your post. Denni  talk 20:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at the article, you will see the AfD notice, and a sentence that reads "You may share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page". This is a link to the discussion. Again I ask you to please sign your posts. It is difficult sometimes to track down who to reply to if a post is not signed, and on a very busy page, it may be next to impossible. Denni  talk 18:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

ok, thanks again. Sorry i forgot to sign on several occasions. Will certainly get in the habbit of doing so in the future. Regards (Johnbarnes 02:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC))


 * Your menu sounds absolutely delightful. It made me hungry just to read it. Unfortunately, it would likely be removed in an edit of this article primarily because it looks like advertising. With such a fine menu and such notable guests, though, you surely must have received reviews of your restaurant in the press. I strongly encourage you to add one or more citations from reviews - these would be the easiest and best way to show that your restaurants are notable. By the way, thanks for signing your post. It made it much easier for me to get back to you. Denni  talk 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can understand how you would be feeling disappointed that your article was not accepted to keep. Those editors who went back to reread the article, though, may still have not been satisfied that the restaurants were notable enough. Verification is a very big part of Wikipedia - it is often the difference between keep and delete when press reviews and other third-party documentation can be found. I encourage you to try again when you get that first Michelin star. Denni talk 18:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Phil Dukes
This article was deleted as a repost of an article deleted by consensus at Articles for deletion/Philip Dukes. Please don't repost it again. If you want a review of the deletion decision, go to Deletion review. NawlinWiki 23:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Johnbarnes. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Johnbarnes~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)