User talk:Scottandrewhutchins

See User talk:Scottandrewhutchins/Archive 1 for messages from 2006-2010.

Hello Scottandrewhutchins! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {&#123helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Hello, Scottandrewhutchins! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You added information to this article but did not add a citation to the source where you got this info. Please add a ref. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's important to introduce background information for musicals. Please don't delete it. See, for example, Hair (musical), Flower Drum Song and Carousel (musical). All of these have been reviewed by numerous editors and promoted to GA-class or FA-class. Also, please see our guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. Also see WP:LEAD, which explains that there should be a summary of the whole article in the Lead, and then the article is laid out at full length below. I know the article is just a short article now, but eventually it will be expanded with more information. WP:MUSICALS guidelines about background/history sections says that the section should answer the following questions:

• What is the source material for this work? What is notable about the older work or how has the musical changed its focus?
• How did this musical come to be written and/or produced?
• Whose idea was it to make this musical?
• Was this musical started in any workshops or previews? What was unusual about them? (For example, in a workshop of the precursor to Dreamgirls, Nell Carter's performance influenced how the show developed, and this should be addressed in this section.) -- [User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Please explain what you see as resembling "advertising". I don't see it, but I'd be happy to discuss it and try to solve your concern. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need the word "famous" to describe the film, if that's what's bothering you. I'll delete it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Yes, that's ok. Of course the film IS famous, but we don't need to say so: we can give the evidence instead - that it won the Academy Award. Personally, I think we should add that it continues to be broadcast on TV, but I'll leave it to you as to whether you want to add that now. I think it's worth noting, as it also makes it crystal clear to most readers that we are, indeed, talking about THAT version.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to collapse the big Oz navbox at the bottom of these articles? It seems very obtrusive. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested, as a compromise, that the 1939 film adaptation bore a stronger resemblance to the original that "many" previous versions. Does that work for you? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience in this discussion. I will copy the new sentence to the 1987 article. I understand that you are familiar with the literature in this area. Can you find a citation for the sentence? We should give a page range from a source that compares these versions and notes which of them were more or less similar to the original book. Perhaps we can cite to a chapter or two in the Swartz book? Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a plot summary. Can you check it and add any important details? For instance, after the Wizard takes off in his rocket ship, does Glinda show up, like in the film, or does Dorothy make a journey to Glinda's home, like in the novel? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the information that you disputed. Is it ok now? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very skeptical about the suitability of the Baum book being in the Alice template. -- Evertype·✆ 15:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you edit the comment you made on my page? There's a syntax error and I am not sure what you intended to say. -- Evertype·✆ 18:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Sigler lists Baum's Dot and Tot of Merryland, The Magical Monarch of Mo, and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz all three in her bibliography (though she does not annotate it)... indeed the Wonderful Wizard is a story about "girl who goes to otherworld and has adventures" while if I understand it the Magical Monarch is a set of stories without a common character through them. (I could be wrong; I haven't read it). Is there more in Baum criticism that discusses the nature of the imitation or influence? -- Evertype·✆ 19:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

Two things:

1. Remember the General Notability Guideline. Being a character in a book ≠ being noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. The threshold is sources; all the nominated articles have source problems; and in addition were stubs and are from some of the lesser-known books
2. Questioning my competency can be construed a personal attack

have a nice day! Purplebackpack89 07:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scottandrewhutchins. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Human feces, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RadioFan (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do NOT add unsourced information about living people to articles. Watching a video and claiming you saw something is not a WP:RS by wikipedia standards. Again, do NOT add potentially damaging information about living people to articles. You will be blocked if it continues. Please read up on WP:BLP, and it wouldn't hurt if you reviewed our sourcing and verifiability policies. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you continue to add unsourced, especially possibly damaging or negative information, about living individuals to Wikipedia articles, you will be blocked. If you don't understand the policy, please ask questions. This is a matter we take very seriously on Wikipedia. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to discuss article content further. And I'd also apologize and retract my warning above if proven wrong. But the text you added, the actual content, could in no way be derived from the 'source' in question. If I am wrong, please quote me the portion of the source that I am apparently missing. I don't see specific actors named, I don't see specific sex acts named, I don't see anything about closeups or anything that you added. I'd really like to know how you found that in the source. But again, let's continue this on the article's talk page. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems nothing short of childish vandalism. You will be blocked from editing if this or other disruption continues. Toddst1 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Scott Walker (politician), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I thought Yahoo! News qualified as a reliable source. Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It depends; there's nothing inherently flawed about Yahoo News, especially in that they frequently host AP and Reuters content, among others. The issue is that nothing in the yahoo source says anything to support the claims you made here, where you accuse a living person of illegal conduct. Ignoring that, you don't cite the article - you very specifically cited a comment on the article. Comments of this type are absolutely not reliable sources - anyone can post anything. This is a gross violation of WP:BLP. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:22, 22 February 2011 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

'This source says the same thing that I said on my edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpUWM1EtJCs . Is The Young Turks not considered a reliable news source, either? A citation error is not a valid reason for a block.'

Decline reason:

But you are not blocked for citing "Young Turks", whatever that is, but for citing an anonymous comment about a living person as the source for derogatory information about that person. You still do not seem to understand the problem.  Sandstein  21:58, 22 February 2011 (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.

Specifically, you were blocked for this series of edits which is the second time you added that info which is not supported by the source you cited. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bull.--04:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand the problem. I made a citation error. The Young Turks does specifically state that using state troopers to bring Congress back into the state is illegal. You are in severe violation of WP:civility in doing this to me. Todd's comment regarding the David Friedman citation is an outright lie. And besides, David is openly gay. I have his e-mail address, and I am sure that he will find it asinine that you have blocked me for mentioning his partner.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblock provided. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:52, 23 February 2011 (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.

You were not blocked for mentioning his partner - you were blocked for synthesizing that he shares a house - an assertion clearly not supported by your source - after numerous warnings. You seem to continue to be having great difficulty complying with WP:V and WP:SYN despite numerous warnings and attempts to clarify the policies with you.

The nonsense at Scott Walker, human feces and other pages, just illustrate a broader instance of this problem. Toddst1 (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for continued addition of un-cited material/WP:OR and addition of inappropriate WP:EL as citation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

What did I add that was unsourced? The only thing I can think of is on Black Orchid. There are two issues of Suicide Squad where Black Orchid's disappearance is mentioned, but I haven't been able to determine the issues, although they were within The Janus Directive. Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Decline reason:

The block was clearly for this. If you can't see what's wrong with that edit, well, there's not much hope. Closedmouth (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2011 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I posted nothing at Scott Walker that can be considered "nonsense." It was simply deleted before I had time to beef up the sources.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

At this point you are just forum shopping. Take this time to review the guidelines that other editors have pointed out to you. When the block wears off please feel free to contribute constructively. --Selket ^Talk 23:10, 28 February 2011 (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.

{

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I broke none of the guidelines on WP:EL that I can see. Please identify which one I broke. I needed to source the claim that the cited article did not support. Also note Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored: "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.". In addition, she told Sean Hannity on his show just what she was doing in the video, although she did not mention she was viewing pornography and claimed to have been alone in the room, while someone is clearly there with her moving the camera. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSLKmnAACKI I did not state this, because it might violate WP:OR, but it cannot be argued that it is an irrelevant link, nor can it be considered a BLP violation (its inclusion could be a topic for debate, but since there is no discussion of this matter on the talk page, it is an extraordinary stretch to consider my edit a violation) considering she has gone on international television and talked about the video in question.Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Enjoy the remainder fo your time off. Before you come back please review this matter and reconsider your approach to sourcing and synthesizing content or you will be blocked again. By the way I am revoking your ability to post further unblock requests, you may contact WP:ARBCOM by email if you wish to appeal further. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2011 (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.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Knook 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/Knook 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Purplebackpack89 22:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this and this indicate that you have neither familiarized yourself with the policies surrounding deletion, nor the guidelines for notability. Just because a character is in a book or two does not automatically qualify it for its own article here; just because a character is in one chapter does not mean it should appear without any contex. Note that you being blocked and therefore unable to participate in the discussion is probably not a good reason, nor is “this is idiotic”, but you could try a Deletion review anyway. Have a nice day! Purplebackpack89 19:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scottandrewhutchins. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you provide a link of said ArbCom discussion? And, as I've said, if you don't like where this is going, you can mention it at DR or ANI or whatever Purplebackpack89 04:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scottandrewhutchins. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

By ArbCom discussion, I meant the one about the guy who blocked you Purplebackpack89 23:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scottandrewhutchins. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Requests for comment are made at this page, not on an article's talk page Purplebackpack89 17:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? If you haven’t noticed, I’ve added 32KB of content to this article even if you take off the list, and 56KB of content if you don’t. That doesn’t sound like vandalizing deletionism to me, that sounds like talking a craptacular list of redlinks and making it into a decent article. And just because you haven’t written the blurbs (I’ve been the one writing most of the blurbs around here), you can just add the blurbs as you write them Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use the word "vandalism" to describe good faith edits in a content dispute. "Vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, which you can read about at WP:VANDAL; the quick summary is that vandalism is something which indisputably is done to damage the encyclopedia. Purplebackpack's reversion of your addition is a content dispute, and clearly not vandalism. Calling another editor's good faith edits vandalism is generally considered to be a personal attack, and thus not allowed under WP:NPA.

Furthermore, you need to respect the standard BRD editing process--that is, if you add something to an article, and another editor reverts it, don't re-add the information and thus start an edit war. Instead, discuss it on the talk page until consensus is reached (which is clearly not the case yet). Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But from youre talk page you sound like an extremely intelligent person! That is not fair, fuck the world! Nex Carnifex (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on List of Oz characters ‎ . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your post at Talk:Egyptian pantheon:

There were a lot (a lot) of gods that could be represented by cobras (Meretseger, Wadjet, and Renenutet, for example). You say the snake god didn't have a cobra hood, but it's possible that it was a cobra depicted without its hood spread; I've never heard of such a thing, but there's tremendous room for variation in Egyptian art. The only god that I'm sure was consistently shown as a snake without a hood was Apep, but I've never seen him in human-animal form, just as a really long snake. My best guess would be one of the bizarre demons of the Duat, who are shown en masse in funerary texts but don't have much individual identity.

All this assumes, of course, that the wall display was based on genuine Egyptian art, rather than something made up in modern times. A. Parrot (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--nothing too terrible about your comment, but I don't think anything coming from the initial comment was ever going to be very useful! Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're aware, I've revdel'd your comment off of my talk page. In the future, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post any sort of private information like that on my talk page - or anywhere else. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His Memorial service is tomorrow in Colonie, NY. I left, under external links, a link to the Albany Times Union Obit. They allow a Legacy book feature for people to leave condolences. I know you admired his work so I felt I should at least tell you this. I also was sent a photo, from his Pastor, with permission to use it in his article. I'm not too sure how to do that. I used to know but my brain overflowed. Can I send you a link to the photo? BTW, I am very sorry for your loss if you also knew him or studied with him as I did. I'm trying to write something to be read tomorrow and get it to them in time. His Pastor also sent me a digital copy of the announcement of his death to his Parish. Leonard's conversion to Christianity is one of the biggest reasons he never made another film. All the scripts he wrote, beautifully written ones, had a redemptive theme to them. When I worked in Development, I passed two of my favorites to every producer I could, including Mel Gibson, but at that stage in his life, he just wanted murder & mayhem as did the others, hoping for the next Honey Moon Killers.

I'd like to see if we can add a paragraph about Leonard's teaching and it's impact. If I manage to wrote my eulogy and it's published eventually, it might be quotable.

Thanks, LiPollis (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scottandrewhutchins. What do you mean by this edit? How is it not clear that this particular vulva is shaven? Clicking on the image clearly shows that this is a shaven vulva. It is not a natural state (as though the woman doesn't need to shave), and it is not a child's vulva. Which is why I reverted you on that. If you plan on reverting me without discussion, I will be bringing in other editors on this matter. It's a pretty clear-cut case as far as I'm concerned. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on my talk page, "Oh, okay. If you click on the picture, you can see the times it was altered. And at one point, there is a hairy version. Sorry if you felt I was attacking you. With the version I saw, I just couldn't fathom how someone thought it wasn't shaven." Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Wizard of Ahh's has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet criteria of WP:NFILM. Google search brings up 95 "unique" results, none of which constitute a significant mention in any reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster _talk 04:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wizardofahhs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article A Moving Sound has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

May not meet the notability criteria for musicians.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 22:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is a saftey save? You used the term on a newly created blank article. Just trying to understand some unfamiliar wikijargon here. i kan reed (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saving my work in progress in case of a loss of power.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had to cancel this page move request of yours, as it did not contain the proposed new name. Please review the instructions at WP:RM and try again. Favonian (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scottandrewhutchins. You have new messages at Favonian's talk page.
Message added 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Favonian (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lawrence Leathers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unable to find reliable sources about him. (WP:SOURCES). Fails WP:MUSICBIO.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

e    I'm undertaking work re Drake which IMO is the friendliest possible approach to your efforts, and it seems worthwhile trying to clarify that for your information.
   (Incidentally, FWIW it may help you to know that it is clearly not "[his] new book" in which she is mentioned, as he wrote -- per the blacklisted URL www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&tag=mozilla-20&index=blended&link_code=qs&field-keywords=%26%2334%3BThe%20Worst%20Album%20Covers%20in%20the%20World%26%2334%3B&sourceid=Mozilla-search -- a follow-on in 2005.)
   The rough-handling approach would be simple reversion of the Dab Joyce (singer) back to the Rdr (which survives to preserve the addressability via external links to the SAmerican singer). This is justified by the guideline WP:DabRL, part of the navigational doctrine that we Dab actual articles (and not potential ones).
   Instead, i intend to apply that only after applying the guideline against WP:incomplete disambiguations (which IMO is based on their dispensibility, and the difficulty of maintaining them). The difference that will make is that the edit history of your and others' reverted edits will be trackable within the Dab page's history, rather than only in the fairly obscure blind alley of the Rdr's history. Without forming any opinion about the notability of JD, i think it will be feasible to write at least a stub about her, and the presence of content from the (restored) Rdr's history in the history of the Dab may benefit an editor working on that.
   If that's confusing, drop me a note; i gotta run right now.
--Jerzy•t 00:18 & 00:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

   (OK, that didn't save the first time, bcz of the bad URL, & i just found out 3 hours later. BTW, go see The Debt (2011 film), which is worth the while even if you've seen the Israeli original.)
   I'm back at the kbd for a while.
--Jerzy•t 00:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I've done what i said i would; note in case of confusion that i'm not interested in writing a stub on JD.
--Jerzy•t 07:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jana Herzen has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. 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 ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bernard Telsey has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. 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 ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you have done some sterling work on the Hellblazer article, and was hoping to ask for a little assistance. I'm trying to get this up to GA (or beyond), and any assistance you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Don't worry if you have better things to do! Cheers Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 11:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well now I'm going to be distracted by looking up the artists on your label! You have the best of Ennis' run yet to come! Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 15:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Café (musician) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have 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 ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. AstroCog (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Frank M. Stammers has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have 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 ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message; I thought I'd managed to abort that. I realized as I clicked on it that it isn't too likely he'd be alive. When I closed Twinkle and refreshed the page it showed up without the tag, so I assumed it didn't go through. Sorry about that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scottandrewhutchins. You have new messages at Help talk:Multilingual support (East Asian).
Message added 08:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're in a bit of a pickle in the Wagner discussion page. The issues concerns what can be in the introduction and what not, should it be shortened and are the chapters in the right order? At the Wagner discussion page there is Edit War solution topic and at the end of it some courses of action that I was requested to list. Please help, it seems that the few old hags (me included) don't want to come to any conclusion. Just take a fast look. Thank you User:Major Torp (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This title is in the list of Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz#Future adaptations, with a 2012 release date. In the Template:Oz, there's a listing for "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (2011)" in the film section. Are these the same films? And do you think that the film is notable enough yet to belong in the template as an important forthcoming film? and, if the template film is different than the 2012 adaption, which film IS it? As you probably know, templates should generally not have nonlinked or redlinked subjects, unless its patently obvious they deserve an article. in this case, i dont even know what its referring to, let alone if its notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Devil Dog: The Hound of Hell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Witch Mountain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Video Communications, Inc. 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 an organization or company, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 22:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Family Home Entertainment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Gardner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rajamitkumar.JPG, which you've sourced to Raj Amit Kumar. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]