![]() |
Hi MusicAngels! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 18:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
See Wikipedia:User_pages#User_pages_that_look_like_articles.
Also Arthur Rimbaud exists already, so, what are you doing? You can test all you want of course but it looks a little strange as your main userpage. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 15:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You need to stop deleting conversations going on on talk pages or I will report you. 199.48.242.82 ( talk) 16:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
THIS EDITOR CREATED THE PAGE AND HAS A PARTICULAR INTEREST IN MAINTAINING IT. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR PERSONAL WEBPAGES. The entire page "Poetry in the Early 20th Century" should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.90.35.134 ( talk) 12:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
There is becoming a strong consensus that your edits and creation of pages are problematic. In the month of August you have picked fights with a number of editors who disagree with you. More and more will begin challenging your vanity projects.19:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)19:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)19:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:102:B30:12E:1802:787F:2464 ( talk)
Please avoid creating and restoring improper hat notes as you did here [1] and here [2] and here [3]. Also, please avoid claiming that the links to your page were "requested" by another editor or were the result of "consensus." There are no requests on any relevant talk page and no consensus. Anyway, why would another editor "request" a link instead of creating one? You are not doing yourself any good by writing statements like these, which are part of the permanent record of your actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.17.161 ( talk) 15:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It has come to my attention the content of your poetry articles were copied and pasted from articles on various poets. This is fine... but you must supply attribution, which you have not. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for how to fix this, specifically this section.
Now, I don't know if these are truly "vanity pages", but you should understand that no one owns articles and others are permitted to contribute. Likewise, to the many anonymous users blanking content, you'll need sufficient rationale to do so. Don't just blank entire sections stating it is "rubbish" or with some other unsatisfactory edit summary. Finally, please note WP:BRD is not a guideline or policy and no one is required to follow it. Edit warring applies to both parties in a content dispute, including the page creator.
Thank you for your cooperation — MusikAnimal talk 03:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
First off, please do not write your reply on any other page. We'll discuss here. Now, you did not do a cut and paste move, you copied and pasted partial content. Sorry to send you off to try to figure it out on your own, it's just a lot of work. So anyway, the easiest way to take care of this to use the {{ copied multi}} template (since you've copied from multiple pages). This will go on the talk pages. Here's a rough example:
{{Copied multi|list=
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet2 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
}}
You will need a {{ Copied multi/Copied}} for each and every article you took content from. Replace Poet1 with the name of the article. Next, go to the history page for Poet1, and click on the date of the revision from which you copied the content. This is likely the closest date to the date you created your article. For instance, here is a link to a revision from A. E. Housman [5]. Once you're on the revision page, you'll see oldid=1234567890 in the URL. Copy that number after the = and use that as the from_oldid in the {{ Copied multi/Copied}} template. Next, the "Here" should just be the name of your article. Finally, diff should be the diff of where you copied the content into your article. Diffs work the same way as getting the oldid, except click on "prev" in the page history rather than the date, and we'll want to use the full URL and not just the oldid.
First try this out on your own and I'll see if I can help you. This is a lot of work... so obviously I'm not too excited about doing it for you — MusikAnimal talk 16:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
NOTE I have copied the ANI discussion from the talk page to the main page. Bgwhite ( talk) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing at Anne Carson, Derek Walcott and W. S. Merwin. You have been told at ANI twice ( 1 2) to stop this. You have copied material from the articles to Poetry in the early 21st century, so there is even more reason not to do the hatnote. You have said this was requested by others and you have consensus, but have not shown proof. Do not revert unless you can prove you have consensus and discuss here, otherwise you have continued your disruptive editing and become subject to a block. Bgwhite ( talk) 23:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Neuroxic (
talk •
contribs) 04:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Birdman (film) you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Viriditas --
Viriditas (
talk) 01:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I am adding good information on Cordelia Ray and James D. Corrothers. I am citing properly and thoroughly. I am referencing and double referencing my work. Please stop reverting my edits without reason or I will alert an editor. JRW03 ( talk) 22:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Both of you need to stop.
MusicAngels, you are correct in invoking BRD, however, you need to say what you find wrong in JRW03's edits. BRD's instructions say to give a reason on why you reverted. Instructions also say not to revert twice.
JRW03, you never said why you made the edit. Explain your reason.
Bgwhite (
talk) 17:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Scorsese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Silence (film). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
User:MusicAngels, I decided to reply here to your post on my talk page. I did see that earlier ping of me at the IP's talk page. As far as I know I am actually not familiar with this IP. However, I have not seen any evidence that they are an IP-hopping troll, as you keep calling them. You need to stop the name-calling. If you believe your accusation is valid, file a sockpuppet investigation, or present your evidence to one of the admins you have mentioned on this talk page. Since you claimed they are "an IP-hopping troll account which has been blocked several times at several different IP-hopping accounts," you should have plenty of material for an SPI, specifying the other accounts and your evidence. If you don't in fact have such evidence (none is apparent at the articles where this IP has edited), you need to stop making these accusations. Accusing someone of being a troll or sockpuppet without evidence is a violation of WP:NPA. (Follow up: I see that you actually have been discussing this and providing some account numbers at EdJohnston's talk page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC))
In your note on my talk page, talking about this IP you said "There have been multiple blocks and warnings already". This is not true. The IP has a few old warnings, but a clean block log. [7]
Other Wikipedia policies you have violated in your interactions with this editor.
You were given good advice by Drmies at Talk:James D. Corrothers, but you have not followed it. Here is my advice to you: stop name calling, and don't lecture people about Wikipedia policy when you don't understand it yourself. Focus on the content and not on the editors. Or face sanctions yourself for the various violations of policy I have noted here. MelanieN ( talk) 21:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
P.S. In the time I was writing this, you re-added the "IP-hopping troll" insult to the IPs talk page for the fourth or fifth time. That is an outrageous breach of several WP policies, and if you do it again, I will block you myself. MelanieN ( talk) 21:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi MusicAngels, when you said,
here, "[...] the IP-editors you refer to are continuing to interfere with my edits as recently as yesterday.
" Please do understand that you can't throw such
WP:ASPERSIONS. Note: accusing without evidence can be considered disruptive. Anyhow, I hope you will take the advice seriously, which
MelanieN has given you on SilkTork's talk page and you'll drop this matter here.
Jim Carter 19:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Jim Carter 19:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear MusicAngels -- I am one (but only one) of the 128 IP editors that has tried to edit on a page and got into a skirmish with you. I am NOT all of them nor do I have to do with any of the other lists of IP numbers you are accusing of being socks and trolls. I have never hoaxed anyone. I in fact posted to User:Drmies that I can't help that the IP # changes every time I log on. I think there were four addresses (which I could not help) but all began with 128. I have been editing as an IP for several years; sometimes months go by that I do not edit at all. So here's the dilemma -- let's say I decide to get an account. Judging by what I have read about you here, on User:EdJohnston's page, from User:MelanieN, on User:Silktork's page, the accusations that you have said about other named accounts, you would immediately "Identify" me and accuse me of being a sock of my former IP numbers. When an IP editor gets an account, is he automatically a sock of his former IP address contributions? By your reasoning, yes -- so what incentive do I have? You will come after me the way you go after others and I will go back to being an IP. Do you see the problem? The problem is that you will not let anyone disagree with you or you will accuse them of disruption! 128.90.35.169 ( talk) 14:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
This is to let you know that I have filed a report concerning you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive interactions by User:MusicAngels. -- MelanieN ( talk) 05:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Guy (
Help!) 10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Note that an indefinite block does not mean permanent, it means only that it will not automatically expire, and will remain in place until you have satisfied the community that you understand the issues noted above and will change your behaviour going forward. Guy ( Help!) 10:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Poetry in the early 21st century is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poetry in the early 21st century until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies ( talk) 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The article
Birdman (film) you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Birdman (film) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Viriditas --
Viriditas (
talk) 03:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi MusicAngels! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 18:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
See Wikipedia:User_pages#User_pages_that_look_like_articles.
Also Arthur Rimbaud exists already, so, what are you doing? You can test all you want of course but it looks a little strange as your main userpage. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 15:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You need to stop deleting conversations going on on talk pages or I will report you. 199.48.242.82 ( talk) 16:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
THIS EDITOR CREATED THE PAGE AND HAS A PARTICULAR INTEREST IN MAINTAINING IT. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR PERSONAL WEBPAGES. The entire page "Poetry in the Early 20th Century" should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.90.35.134 ( talk) 12:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
There is becoming a strong consensus that your edits and creation of pages are problematic. In the month of August you have picked fights with a number of editors who disagree with you. More and more will begin challenging your vanity projects.19:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)19:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)19:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:102:B30:12E:1802:787F:2464 ( talk)
Please avoid creating and restoring improper hat notes as you did here [1] and here [2] and here [3]. Also, please avoid claiming that the links to your page were "requested" by another editor or were the result of "consensus." There are no requests on any relevant talk page and no consensus. Anyway, why would another editor "request" a link instead of creating one? You are not doing yourself any good by writing statements like these, which are part of the permanent record of your actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.17.161 ( talk) 15:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It has come to my attention the content of your poetry articles were copied and pasted from articles on various poets. This is fine... but you must supply attribution, which you have not. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for how to fix this, specifically this section.
Now, I don't know if these are truly "vanity pages", but you should understand that no one owns articles and others are permitted to contribute. Likewise, to the many anonymous users blanking content, you'll need sufficient rationale to do so. Don't just blank entire sections stating it is "rubbish" or with some other unsatisfactory edit summary. Finally, please note WP:BRD is not a guideline or policy and no one is required to follow it. Edit warring applies to both parties in a content dispute, including the page creator.
Thank you for your cooperation — MusikAnimal talk 03:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
First off, please do not write your reply on any other page. We'll discuss here. Now, you did not do a cut and paste move, you copied and pasted partial content. Sorry to send you off to try to figure it out on your own, it's just a lot of work. So anyway, the easiest way to take care of this to use the {{ copied multi}} template (since you've copied from multiple pages). This will go on the talk pages. Here's a rough example:
{{Copied multi|list=
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet2 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
}}
You will need a {{ Copied multi/Copied}} for each and every article you took content from. Replace Poet1 with the name of the article. Next, go to the history page for Poet1, and click on the date of the revision from which you copied the content. This is likely the closest date to the date you created your article. For instance, here is a link to a revision from A. E. Housman [5]. Once you're on the revision page, you'll see oldid=1234567890 in the URL. Copy that number after the = and use that as the from_oldid in the {{ Copied multi/Copied}} template. Next, the "Here" should just be the name of your article. Finally, diff should be the diff of where you copied the content into your article. Diffs work the same way as getting the oldid, except click on "prev" in the page history rather than the date, and we'll want to use the full URL and not just the oldid.
First try this out on your own and I'll see if I can help you. This is a lot of work... so obviously I'm not too excited about doing it for you — MusikAnimal talk 16:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
NOTE I have copied the ANI discussion from the talk page to the main page. Bgwhite ( talk) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing at Anne Carson, Derek Walcott and W. S. Merwin. You have been told at ANI twice ( 1 2) to stop this. You have copied material from the articles to Poetry in the early 21st century, so there is even more reason not to do the hatnote. You have said this was requested by others and you have consensus, but have not shown proof. Do not revert unless you can prove you have consensus and discuss here, otherwise you have continued your disruptive editing and become subject to a block. Bgwhite ( talk) 23:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Neuroxic (
talk •
contribs) 04:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Birdman (film) you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Viriditas --
Viriditas (
talk) 01:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I am adding good information on Cordelia Ray and James D. Corrothers. I am citing properly and thoroughly. I am referencing and double referencing my work. Please stop reverting my edits without reason or I will alert an editor. JRW03 ( talk) 22:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Both of you need to stop.
MusicAngels, you are correct in invoking BRD, however, you need to say what you find wrong in JRW03's edits. BRD's instructions say to give a reason on why you reverted. Instructions also say not to revert twice.
JRW03, you never said why you made the edit. Explain your reason.
Bgwhite (
talk) 17:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Scorsese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Silence (film). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
User:MusicAngels, I decided to reply here to your post on my talk page. I did see that earlier ping of me at the IP's talk page. As far as I know I am actually not familiar with this IP. However, I have not seen any evidence that they are an IP-hopping troll, as you keep calling them. You need to stop the name-calling. If you believe your accusation is valid, file a sockpuppet investigation, or present your evidence to one of the admins you have mentioned on this talk page. Since you claimed they are "an IP-hopping troll account which has been blocked several times at several different IP-hopping accounts," you should have plenty of material for an SPI, specifying the other accounts and your evidence. If you don't in fact have such evidence (none is apparent at the articles where this IP has edited), you need to stop making these accusations. Accusing someone of being a troll or sockpuppet without evidence is a violation of WP:NPA. (Follow up: I see that you actually have been discussing this and providing some account numbers at EdJohnston's talk page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC))
In your note on my talk page, talking about this IP you said "There have been multiple blocks and warnings already". This is not true. The IP has a few old warnings, but a clean block log. [7]
Other Wikipedia policies you have violated in your interactions with this editor.
You were given good advice by Drmies at Talk:James D. Corrothers, but you have not followed it. Here is my advice to you: stop name calling, and don't lecture people about Wikipedia policy when you don't understand it yourself. Focus on the content and not on the editors. Or face sanctions yourself for the various violations of policy I have noted here. MelanieN ( talk) 21:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
P.S. In the time I was writing this, you re-added the "IP-hopping troll" insult to the IPs talk page for the fourth or fifth time. That is an outrageous breach of several WP policies, and if you do it again, I will block you myself. MelanieN ( talk) 21:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi MusicAngels, when you said,
here, "[...] the IP-editors you refer to are continuing to interfere with my edits as recently as yesterday.
" Please do understand that you can't throw such
WP:ASPERSIONS. Note: accusing without evidence can be considered disruptive. Anyhow, I hope you will take the advice seriously, which
MelanieN has given you on SilkTork's talk page and you'll drop this matter here.
Jim Carter 19:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Jim Carter 19:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear MusicAngels -- I am one (but only one) of the 128 IP editors that has tried to edit on a page and got into a skirmish with you. I am NOT all of them nor do I have to do with any of the other lists of IP numbers you are accusing of being socks and trolls. I have never hoaxed anyone. I in fact posted to User:Drmies that I can't help that the IP # changes every time I log on. I think there were four addresses (which I could not help) but all began with 128. I have been editing as an IP for several years; sometimes months go by that I do not edit at all. So here's the dilemma -- let's say I decide to get an account. Judging by what I have read about you here, on User:EdJohnston's page, from User:MelanieN, on User:Silktork's page, the accusations that you have said about other named accounts, you would immediately "Identify" me and accuse me of being a sock of my former IP numbers. When an IP editor gets an account, is he automatically a sock of his former IP address contributions? By your reasoning, yes -- so what incentive do I have? You will come after me the way you go after others and I will go back to being an IP. Do you see the problem? The problem is that you will not let anyone disagree with you or you will accuse them of disruption! 128.90.35.169 ( talk) 14:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
This is to let you know that I have filed a report concerning you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive interactions by User:MusicAngels. -- MelanieN ( talk) 05:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Guy (
Help!) 10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Note that an indefinite block does not mean permanent, it means only that it will not automatically expire, and will remain in place until you have satisfied the community that you understand the issues noted above and will change your behaviour going forward. Guy ( Help!) 10:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Poetry in the early 21st century is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poetry in the early 21st century until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies ( talk) 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The article
Birdman (film) you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Birdman (film) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Viriditas --
Viriditas (
talk) 03:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)