![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Nick Merico requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. reddogsix ( talk) 22:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted the article Paola Andino as you copied it almost verbatim from her IMDB page. This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding copyright; when you write about a subject it must be in your own words. Another major issue with using IMDB is that it does not meet reliable sourcing criteria for biographical data, so even if there were no copyright issues you should still not be using it as a basis for creating a BLP. Finally, please ensure the individuals you are creating articles on meet notability guidelines. In most cases actors need to have had significant roles in multiple notable projects with coverage in independent (not IMDB!) sources to meet notability standards.-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 16:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or
poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about
living persons, as you did to
Danielle Morrow. Thank you.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
14:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing, as you did at
Talk:Judge Judy. Your edits have been
reverted or removed. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being
blocked from editing. Diffs:
[1]
[2] I'm not quite sure what you are attempting to do, but you are adding edit request templates to this talk page 1) when there is no actual edit request 2) on a comment that is one year old. Please experiment in your sandbox instead of on this talk page. Thanks.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
23:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you
vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at
Talk:The Fairly OddParents, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Diff:
[3] Article talk pages are not sandboxes.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
05:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Newrunner769. Happypillsjr, thanks for creating Skylan Brooks!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Add some for main content to the intro.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Newrunner769 ( talk) 00:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The article Skylan Brooks has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Jbh ( talk) 03:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Black Kite (talk)
08:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)SunriseInBrooklyn ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm doing my best to creating Skylan Brooks but I need to do be professional.
Decline reason:
Considering that the majority of your edits are totally unconstructive, and that you show no sign whatever of taking notice of messages about the problems, it seems to me that the only thing about this block that might be subject to review is that it is for so short a time. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
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.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
New York 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
Happypillsjr --
Happypillsjr (
talk)
18:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The article
New York you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:New York 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
Jaguar --
Jaguar (
talk)
19:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit 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
Happypillsjr --
Happypillsjr (
talk)
18:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Happypillsjr, it looks like you started a review of your own Good Article nomination, which isn't supposed to happen. Someone else needs to open and conduct the review. I've arranged for the review page to be deleted, so someone else can start the review, which I hope happens soon. There's a GA Cup competition starting late next week, so I expect the number of reviews to increase then. Best of luck! If you have any questions, just ask. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The article
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
BenLinus1214 --
BenLinus1214 (
talk)
15:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The article
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit 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
BenLinus1214 --
BenLinus1214 (
talk)
16:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
IPhone 6 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
Happypillsjr --
Happypillsjr (
talk)
23:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Happypillsjr, as the nominator of this article at GAN, you are not also allowed to be the reviewer, which is what you've done by creating this page.
What you're effectively doing is blocking a potential reviewer from ever reviewing this nomination by opening your own review.
There are two ways to fix this. The first is to ask for this review page to be speedily deleted. If you don't know how to do this, I'll be happy to submit the request for you: just let me know here and I'll have it taken care of. (I'll also have deleted that oddly named review page that you created the other day.) Thanks. If you have any questions about the GA nomination and review process, I'll be happy to answer them. There's also a basic GA nominations instruction page you will want to read if you haven't already, and the GA criteria page as well. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Adding: you should never need to edit the WP:GAN page. The bot rebuilds it each time, based on the GA nominee templates on article talk pages. Your recent edit there has already been superseded, and the changes to your sig there undone. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The article
IPhone 6 you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:IPhone 6 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Numbermaniac --
Numbermaniac (
talk)
04:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
L (New York City Subway service) 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
Happypillsjr --
Happypillsjr (
talk)
05:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The article
L (New York City Subway service) you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:L (New York City Subway service) 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
Happypillsjr --
Happypillsjr (
talk)
02:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm afraid that in my capacity as an admin, I need to ask you to stop nominating articles for GA and FA review for the foreseeable future, since it does not appear to other editors or myself that you understand what a good article and a featured article should look like. As a result, you're creating problematic nominations, which needlessly creates more work for editors to undo, like here and your nomination of L (New York City Subway service). Both articles lack adequate sourcing throughout, which would be a tip-off that either article is not yet ready for GA or FA evaluation. Please find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Please stop adding a timeline graphic showing host tenure to the Family Feud article. The information is already described in the #Hosts and announcers section. Additionally, in your edits, you added subsection coding that caused "===== Timeline =====" to display on the page. AldezD ( talk) 17:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Chew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clinton Kelly. 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) 11:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
The Warriors (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
Happypillsjr --
Happypillsjr (
talk)
00:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Nick Merico requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. reddogsix ( talk) 22:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted the article Paola Andino as you copied it almost verbatim from her IMDB page. This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding copyright; when you write about a subject it must be in your own words. Another major issue with using IMDB is that it does not meet reliable sourcing criteria for biographical data, so even if there were no copyright issues you should still not be using it as a basis for creating a BLP. Finally, please ensure the individuals you are creating articles on meet notability guidelines. In most cases actors need to have had significant roles in multiple notable projects with coverage in independent (not IMDB!) sources to meet notability standards.-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 16:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or
poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about
living persons, as you did to
Danielle Morrow. Thank you.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
14:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing, as you did at
Talk:Judge Judy. Your edits have been
reverted or removed. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being
blocked from editing. Diffs:
[1]
[2] I'm not quite sure what you are attempting to do, but you are adding edit request templates to this talk page 1) when there is no actual edit request 2) on a comment that is one year old. Please experiment in your sandbox instead of on this talk page. Thanks.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
23:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you
vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at
Talk:The Fairly OddParents, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Diff:
[3] Article talk pages are not sandboxes.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
05:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Newrunner769. Happypillsjr, thanks for creating Skylan Brooks!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Add some for main content to the intro.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Newrunner769 ( talk) 00:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The article Skylan Brooks has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Jbh ( talk) 03:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Black Kite (talk)
08:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)SunriseInBrooklyn ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'm doing my best to creating Skylan Brooks but I need to do be professional.
Decline reason:
Considering that the majority of your edits are totally unconstructive, and that you show no sign whatever of taking notice of messages about the problems, it seems to me that the only thing about this block that might be subject to review is that it is for so short a time. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
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.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
New York 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
Happypillsjr --
Happypillsjr (
talk)
18:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The article
New York you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:New York 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
Jaguar --
Jaguar (
talk)
19:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit 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
Happypillsjr --
Happypillsjr (
talk)
18:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Happypillsjr, it looks like you started a review of your own Good Article nomination, which isn't supposed to happen. Someone else needs to open and conduct the review. I've arranged for the review page to be deleted, so someone else can start the review, which I hope happens soon. There's a GA Cup competition starting late next week, so I expect the number of reviews to increase then. Best of luck! If you have any questions, just ask. BlueMoonset ( talk) 20:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The article
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
BenLinus1214 --
BenLinus1214 (
talk)
15:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The article
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit 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
BenLinus1214 --
BenLinus1214 (
talk)
16:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
IPhone 6 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
Happypillsjr --
Happypillsjr (
talk)
23:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Happypillsjr, as the nominator of this article at GAN, you are not also allowed to be the reviewer, which is what you've done by creating this page.
What you're effectively doing is blocking a potential reviewer from ever reviewing this nomination by opening your own review.
There are two ways to fix this. The first is to ask for this review page to be speedily deleted. If you don't know how to do this, I'll be happy to submit the request for you: just let me know here and I'll have it taken care of. (I'll also have deleted that oddly named review page that you created the other day.) Thanks. If you have any questions about the GA nomination and review process, I'll be happy to answer them. There's also a basic GA nominations instruction page you will want to read if you haven't already, and the GA criteria page as well. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Adding: you should never need to edit the WP:GAN page. The bot rebuilds it each time, based on the GA nominee templates on article talk pages. Your recent edit there has already been superseded, and the changes to your sig there undone. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The article
IPhone 6 you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:IPhone 6 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Numbermaniac --
Numbermaniac (
talk)
04:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
L (New York City Subway service) 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
Happypillsjr --
Happypillsjr (
talk)
05:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The article
L (New York City Subway service) you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:L (New York City Subway service) 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
Happypillsjr --
Happypillsjr (
talk)
02:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm afraid that in my capacity as an admin, I need to ask you to stop nominating articles for GA and FA review for the foreseeable future, since it does not appear to other editors or myself that you understand what a good article and a featured article should look like. As a result, you're creating problematic nominations, which needlessly creates more work for editors to undo, like here and your nomination of L (New York City Subway service). Both articles lack adequate sourcing throughout, which would be a tip-off that either article is not yet ready for GA or FA evaluation. Please find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Please stop adding a timeline graphic showing host tenure to the Family Feud article. The information is already described in the #Hosts and announcers section. Additionally, in your edits, you added subsection coding that caused "===== Timeline =====" to display on the page. AldezD ( talk) 17:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Chew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clinton Kelly. 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) 11:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
The Warriors (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
Happypillsjr --
Happypillsjr (
talk)
00:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)