User talk:Dfrench

Welcome!

Hello, Dfrench, 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! Please try and refraing from placing advertising on the Business Continuity Planning article, or any other article. All the best, Proto t c 14:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with the page Dana french on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shell curses

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Shell curses, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Shell curses. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Tim Pierce 04:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Dana french

A tag has been placed on Dana french, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Dana french is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Dana french saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Dori (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Dana L. French. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. Tedickey (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at Dana french. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Korn shell do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for potential impersonation, per WP:REALNAME. You are using the account name User:Dfrench in conjunction with editing the article Dana L. French. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dfrench (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not impersonating Dana French, I am Dana French

Decline reason:

We are not in a position to verify this. Please proceed per WP:REALNAME. Sandstein 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What is your reason for, according to the above, using someone else's real name? I am on the arbitration committee, which you contacted. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user has sent a email to OTRS, who has confirmed this user is Dana French. As such, I have unblocked this account. Please see ticket#2009031010055865. Tiptoety ^talk 20:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography and conflict of interest

Hi Dana, welcome to wikipedia. Now that the identity problems have been sorted, let me direct you to Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. These pages contain information on wikipedia's policies regarding writing articles with which you as an editor have a vested interest. Note that I have deleted the article Dana L. French. This article had already been deleted, under the title Dana French, by legitimate wikipedia deletion procedure. It was deleted by community consensus, as shown at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana French. This was indeed a long time ago and it is possible that the article is viable. However, if you wish to have this article recreated you would do best following the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Deletion review. You might as well be aware though that seeking to create articles about yourself is not likely to be received well, though most editors will consider the case on its own merits. Please do not recreate the material otherwise. Happy editing! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Data center automation

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Data center automation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This appears to be using wikipedia as a forum for publishing an essay with the author's thoughts and opinions on the subject. It would be appropriate for ablog article somewhere, but not for wikipedia. Seems to violate WP:NOTAFORUM ("1. Primary (original) research"; "3. Personal essays") and the point of WP:NOTOPINION ("2. Opinion pieces," albeit not "on current affairs or politics").

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TJRC (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dana L. French. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tikiwont (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also avoid using IPs to revert as they do not constitute an exemption to above rule.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even after the deletion review Tedickey continues to mischaracterize the sources provided. The sources are published articles at IBM Developerworks, AIX Update Journal, actual electronic copies of the AIX Update Journals containing some of the articles, recognition by the International Standards Organization (ISO) of my Business Continuity Methodology (they do not recognize any other BC methodologies). At this point I seriously doubt there will ever be a source I can provide that will be acceptable to Tedickey, it appears to be a personal vendetta to him. Dfrench (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The background on this is when I began updating the article on March 8, 2009, Tedickey would revert the article back to old versions without reviewing the modifications or updates. After this happened several times I filed an official complaint against him. He then had the article deleted and my Wikipedia user id removed. I was able to get my user id restored and then pursued the deletion review. As I said previously, this appears to be a personal vendetta with him. Dfrench (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is not a reason to continue to revert. You have received another warning below...I've also answered on my talk page, but will be off-line now.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sock IPs

you created the article with an IP. you removed a deletion notice with your account. you are not allowed to remove notices from articles that you created yourself. do NOT try to bypass wikipedia rules by using an IP to create articles, but an account to remove notices. I will assume that it was an oversight on your part and not an intentional attempt to use sock IPs. next time I will be making a sock report and requesting that you and your IPs are blocked from editing.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already lodged a vandalism complaint against you. This page has already gone through a deletion review completed on March 17, 2008 and the decision was to restore the page.

So, I guess the part that says do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. applies to everyone in wikipedia, but not you. Or perhaps unlike everyone else, you are allowed to use sock IPs to get around such rules. Damn, I wish I had known that before editing your ~~auto-biography~~, sorry article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Dana L. French

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dana L. French. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was a restore of the article contents after an edit warring dispute resolution.

3RR report

Dana, I have made a 3RR report regarding your recent conduct, you may wish to respond. [[1]]

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various warnings / advice

Hello, you are clearly new here. You need to learn the rules. Firstly, please avoid edit warring, and understand WP:3RR and consider WP:1RR. Second, the only reason I'm not blocking you for edit warring on Dana L. French is that (a) you're new, and (b) you've probably stopped for the moment. Please do *not* edit it again for the next 24h at least. Third, you need to understand WP:COI which prevents you making any controversial edits to Dana L. French. That includes preventing you from edit warring. Yes that can be annoying but it is just tough, and asymmetrical. If you hve any questions, please just ask William M. Connolley (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Data center automation

I have nominated Data center automation, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data center automation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Shell curses

An article that you have been involved in editing, Shell curses, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shell curses. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- samj _in ^out

userpage request

Seeing as your user page is styled as a Wikipedia article, and you've repeatedly created an article on yourself and had it deleted as self-promotion, please use the {{userpage}} template at the top of it to avoid the representation that it is a Wikipedia article, and its deletion under WP:CSD G11. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you notable?

G'day Dana

I see that there has been some controversy surrounding your article. I can't find any information on your current user page that explains why you thought you were notable. What do you do for a living? Why are you famous? Have you won any awards? Have you played a major role in some or other public debate or in a publication about a highly visible or controversial cause? Who are you?

Hope to hear from you soon. -- leuce (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]