User talk:JP419

Christian Patriot

I have proposed to move the article. Please comment at its talk page. Gazpacho 05:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion: "Indiana Militia Corps"

I would like an explanation of how one organization (Indiana Militia) can be deleted on the basis of "no current notability" when another org (Michigan Militia) is kept on the grounds that "notability doesn't expire". I am confused by this disparity.

Here's the comments from the Michigan Militia AfD page:

1. Keep. Once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 8:05 am, 26 January 2010, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)
2. I have no particular opinion on this article but find the statement "... no longer notable" quite odd. - Rjd0060 (talk) 8:52 am, 26 January 2010, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)
3. Keep. This group got plenty of RS coverage in the early-mid 1990s. Notability does not expire. A Google Books search shows non-trivial coverage too. • Gene93k (talk) 9:39 am, 26 January 2010, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

Thanks for your answer in advance. JP419 (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no double standard - despite considerable research by two editors, there was a clear consensus at this debate that the Indiana militia is not notable, but at that one that the Michigan militia is. It was not suggested that the Indiana militia had once been notable but is no longer: in fact your argument was "their operations are sure to increase, and consequently they WILL be in the news... ", but that is the WP:UPANDCOMING argument, which we do not accept. If you disagree with the result of the AfD, you can take it to WP:Deletion review, but read the instructions on that page: it is not intended for continuing the same discussion, but for arguing that the debate was wrongly closed. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And you deleted the article unfairly by wikilawyering the argument and moving to delete as soon as possible. Deleting the article does not improve WP and overlooks the fact that there are other articles in the category of militia groups with far less notability (by your application of standards). I'm simply pointing out that the category has high notability at this time, and additional citations are sure to follow; we cannot be sure what will be published, but in any event the singling out of one article and ignoring everything I had to say is not best practices. I am beginning to believe that the critics of WP are correct about the underlying bias here, hiding behind a guideline to justify your rigid desire to delete an article contrary to the spirit and the principles of Wikipedia. As I said before, a guideline is subordinate to the Five Pillars. And yes, I will appeal. What you did was wrong. Wikipedia is supposed to be improved, not winnowed. Deletionism in WP is contrary to the principles guiding it! JP419 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indiana Militia Corps

You cannot simply re-create this article, and I have deleted it under WP:CSD#G4, "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". If you want to challenge the deletion, you should do so at WP:Deletion review; but please read the instructions on that page, which include:

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. Equally, this process should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted where your page has — each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits.

See also this thread on the administrators' notice-board. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've userfied the article for you. It can be found at User:JP419/Indiana Militia Corps. Once the article is fully compliant with WP standards it may be moved back into mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The version I userfied was the last one before deletion, minus a tag or two and with a tweak so that the userfied article does not appear in the various categories - remove the : before "Category" after you've moved the article. Between the two versions you should have enough to work with. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The venue for undeletion discussions is WP:DRV. However, you may be better off working on improving the userfied article and then recreating the article once it is ready. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, JohnCD is just another editor in this matter (OK, he's an admin, but that doesn't give him any more clout in a debate). He's entitled to his opinion as are all other editors. If you take it to DRV, the case for undeletion can be argued. I still think that the better option would be to work on the userfied article. References from reliable third-party sources do much to establish notability for an article. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

One possible course of action is to work up the article, then go to DRV, where you can link to the userfied version. I note that the rationale for deletion was that the organisation didn't currently meet notability criteria. The inference there is that this situation could change. Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, JP419. You have new messages at Xeno's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Xeno, I have taken a hiatus from editing the Indiana Militia Corps article and from Wikipedia because I got sick of dealing with cocksuckers like Angryapathy and other liberal, anti-patriot types infesting Wikipedia. I could not afford to invest the amount of time needed to appeal the article's deletion, because the arguments for deletion were simply bullshit. The organization is notable AND current. You'll notice that the article continues to remain deleted even though there is plenty of media coverage about them now, just as I predicted back in January/February. I'll probably put the article back up one last time, I don't care if it gets me permanently banned from Wikipedia because it's all a bunch of crap anyhow; I know that the subject of citizen militias is worthy of unbiased examination and Wikipedia is regarded by many to be a source of information that covers nearly every subject; the topic deserves to be treated without bias.

I'll ignore your insult, and repeat what has been said many times before: The article in question is not notable according to Wikipedia's policies. This says nothing about the importance of the group in general. Accusing people of some liberal conspiracy is also not helpful; we are treating this article the same way we'd treat any other article which no significant coverage can be found. I'm sorry you feel you have to take our actions personally. Angryapathy (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Patriot movement

There is no documented distinction that I know of between the "Patriot movement" and the "Christian patriot movement." Why should there be two articles? 23:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.180.101 (talk)