User talk:Bali88

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A page you started (American names) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating American names, Bali88!

Wikipedia editor Jennie Matthews 97 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Excellent article!

To reply, leave a comment on Jennie Matthews 97's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Oba Chandler[edit]

As you seem to be a good crime editor could you please take a look at the Oba Chandler article to see if there is anything you can find to expand. Always good with more input.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I also moved you contributions page to your User page. As that made it impossible to send messages to you without them beinf incorporated in that list.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! I haven't studied that particular case so I'm not sure how much I can do, but I'll take a look. Also, I'm brand new to wikipedia...I've only been editing for about a month and a half, so you might want more experienced advice on top of mine.

Also, would you mind taking a look at the David Camm article? I've studied the case, so it's tough to be objective, I need someone not familiar with the case to tell me whether it makes sense and whether they have questions that I didn't answer. Bali88 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have made a read-through of the article and I find it to be really informative and good :) I will however do a more over all read in a day or two but from what I can see I do not have any complaints or ideas at this time. Also one of the reasons that I contacted you about Chandlers article. :) Good work!--BabbaQ (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I looked at the article. Looks really good. One thing--personally, I'm of the opinion that we should only state facts we can really know, so like I favor phrasing such as "Oba Chandler is an American man convicted and executed for the murder of..." instead of "Oba Chandler is a murderer". Even though he was convicted, we can't really know with absolute certainty whether he is truly is a murderer. The only thing we can know with certainty is that he was convicted of that murder. For the same reason, the part that reads "Chandler lured Canadian tourist Judy Blair onto his boat", I would write that more like "Judy Blair stated that Chandler lured her onto the boar". I feel like it improves the neutrality and helps the reader understand where the information is coming from. :-) Bali88 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, if you find the time please change that. Yes the Oba Chandler article is in my opinion one of the better crime articles on English Wikipedia and it has recieved praise from most users reading it. :)--BabbaQ (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I just saw your other new articles and I helped you by adding the Wikiproject tags to each of them. Good work expanding the crime articles.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at the Tammy Lynn Leppert article. You might not have any ideas of improvements but I let you know about it anyway. Interesting case but bad article.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help! I know how to write, but I still don't know how to do very much in the way of tags and things. Also, do you know much about using non-free photos in articles? I noticed that a lot of crime articles use them, but the explanation doesn't make much sense to me. I'd like to add photos to the David Camm and Haleigh Poutre pages. I'll take a look at the Tammy Leppert page and see what I can do. Bali88 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


Because the spinny barnstar is the coolest[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
for your wonderful work at Alexian Lien beating --μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your excellent work at the Alexian Lien article. I personally felt strongly that the article should not be deleted, but I did not have the time/energy/will for the thorough rewrite it seemed to cry out for. Thank you for your efforts. I am also dropping this note to User:Medeis. Cheers! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm so glad I was able to help. Bali88 (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Lol, oh okay. That makes sense. User:Medeis did a ton of work on the article but I couldn't find any substantial edits from the other dude. Bali88 (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

African American names[edit]

Hey I found a good article that may help with your African American names article


       Distinctive African American Names: An Experimental, Historical, and Linguistic Analysis of Innovation
       Stanley Lieberson and Kelly S. Mikelson
       American Sociological Review
       Vol. 60, No. 6 (Dec., 1995) , pp. 928-946
       Published by: American Sociological Association
       Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096433

Rbruc022 (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance of Terrance Williams & Felipe Santos[edit]

May I suggest that you nominate this article for mention at the DYK. It is a great article.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

All newly created articles with more than 5,000 characters are eligible for DYK. You seem to create well-sourced and long articles so it is atleast a suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Also really interesting developments with the Oba Chandler article. From nowhere, the case was considered closed just a day or two ago.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the compliment! What is DYK? I'm new enough that I have no clue what that means :-) What happened with the Oba Chander article? I hadn't been following that one. Bali88 (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

First you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know , there you will find all the DYK information. But it is for the "Did you know" section at Wikipedia main page as you will see there. It is several articles each day that are newly created and approved that is featured there for million of users that log onto Wikipedia every day. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I nominated it, but I'm seriously not sure if I did it right. Maybe you can look at my submission and check it out! Gah Bali88 (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Disappearance of Terrance Williams and Felipe Santos[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your great work here on Wikipedia. Being a crime writer myself on this Wiki I feel your help with expanding and creating articles are priceless and useful!--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's so wonderful to hear that!!! And thanks for the DYK suggestion. The age got over 7k views that day alone! Bali88 (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes that is great :) If you want to you could add it to Wikipedia:DYKSTATS as all articles over 5k can/should be added to the list for March.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
This is a well written article, thanks for your contribs! Beakermeep(talk) 16:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, I forgot to mention this was for Murder_of_Carol_Jenkins, well done & cheers. Beakermeep(talk) 16:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I figured it out. Appreciate it! :-) Bali88 (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The Saffron Swastika[edit]

Thanks for your good and helpful suggestions on the AFD. I have begun to add some sources. :) --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

American names[edit]

Hi,

Excellent article I recommend a move to Naming in the United States. Also I was wondering if your interested in splitting Adam Lanza from Sandy Hook? Valoem talk contrib 16:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a good idea. I have no idea how do that. lol I haven't studied the Sandy Hook shooting at all. I really don't know if there is enough for him to have a second article. Is there a reason you're mentioning it to me? Do you need help with that move? Bali88 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll move it for you, just wanted to see if you agree. Also there is enough for a split, I don't want to do it though. Valoem talk contrib 18:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Did you create a redirect for American names? Bali88 (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Marvin Gabrion[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Chiles-Whitted UFO Incident[edit]

Just FYI, I have completely rewritten the Chiles-Whitted UFO incident article, complete with new citations and sources. Feel free to edit/change the article. I'm the poster who discussed the UFO skeptics with you on the article's deletion talk page. Thanks! Populism (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks so much for all your work! :-) Bali88 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Need Help![edit]

Hello, this is the Chiles-Whitted editor. I do try to keep an eye on certain UFO-related articles to keep out vandalism and unwarranted edits. I'm having trouble with the McMinnville UFO photographs article and could use some help from a more experienced editor. An anonymous poster keeps deleting whole paragraphs that are skeptical of the incident, even though they are cited. They also persist in changing the words of a ufologist to "proved" instead of the more accurate and less-POV words "asserted" and "argued." I have restored the deletions no less than six times, yet the poster keeps returning. I think it's clearly vandalism, as they give no reasons for their deletions, they just do it. Is there any way you could block the poster, or at least send them a warning to not make wholesale deletions without providing a reason? I think it may just be a teenager getting some kicks. Thanks! Populism (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

202.159.165.92[edit]

You notified the IP that you had reported the UFO edit war, but I don't see your report of the edit war. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in the middle of filling out the report and my kid fell. Had to tend to other business! It looks like the page they were vandalizing has now been protected, so I just deleted the notice. Bali88 (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Alexian Lien semi-pro[edit]

I don't recall whether I posted in support of your previous application for semi-protect status on this article, but if you apply again and drop me a note I will make sure to chime in. Cheers. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll hold off for now. It seems the vandals have screen names now, which makes things easier to deal with. If it continues, I'll nominate again and let you know. Bali88 (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

The Cornelius Dupree article was actually created after a suggestion from me :) --BabbaQ (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh awesome. :-) Bali88 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

As someone who has edited the article Asian American this year, I am seeking your input on a proposed change to remove a reference to epicanthic eyefolds. This topic has prompted discussion in 2009, 2010 and most recently in 2013.

There's a fine line between being WP:BOLD and subverting WP:CONSENSUS. Given the history of this topic, I'm hoping that a robust discussion, for the record, would improve the article whether this reference stays or goes. Ishu (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Leigh Leigh[edit]

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bali88. Thanks for your review of my nomination. Yoniah has proposed a second hook, which now needs a review. Would you mind having a look at it? I ask as you have already checked for close-paraphrasing/other issues etc so it shouldn't take you very long, Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wrongful convictions in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leschi. 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) 09:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

List of social fraternities and sororities[edit]

Alpha Phi Alpha, Kappa Alpha Psi, Iota Phi Theta and Phi Beta Sigma are both in the IFC and the NPHC. Please restore.Naraht (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the talk page to discuss the topic. I am in the process of removing double listings and putting an asterisk indicating double membership to improve readability of the page. If you disagree with the decision, give your feedback on the talk page and we'll discuss :-) Bali88 (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Disappearance of Holly Bobo[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC) 00:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for List of hazing deaths in the United States[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Good work Bali88! Impressive DYK. --Pudeo' 19:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hazing victims[edit]

D'you think it's worth adding File:Stuart Pierson, hazing casualty (1905).jpg to the article, as a reminder that these were people, not just names? DS (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I've never added a photo to a list before, where would I put it? If you'd like to go ahead and add it, go right ahead! Bali88 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hazing article[edit]

Kudos for creating this article. If it could raise awareness, and potentially contribute to the abolition of hazing, that would be a very good thing. Best, Awien (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Disappearance of Terrance Williams and Felipe Santos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cadaver dogs. 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) 09:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Katy Perry article[edit]

A while ago, when I was seeking conflict resolution regarding another editor on the page for Katy Perry, you took my side and said this:

"For what it's worth, @Mitsguy2001:, I agree with you on this issue. It looks like you guys have come to a consensus, but just thought I'd tell ya. For something like this where the article states a fact as literal truth: the songs are about teenage love, and the writer of the songs herself says something that contradicts that, we need to consider whether our reliably sourced statement is worth having on wikipedia. I mean, just because it's deemed a reliable source doesn't mean it's true. For whatever reason, many wikipedians want to hide behind the policy and say that they have no duty to truth, they have a duty to verifiability. I just think it's silly. It may be following the letter of the rule, but it's ignoring the spirit of it, which is to have an accurate encyclopedia. I'm not saying we should skip the verifiability phase and just post what we believe to be the truth, sources be damned, but on top of verifiability, we should also consider which sourced information is the most reliable and true. In this case, where Perry herself said something that contradicted what the magazine said, I would err on the side of truth in this case and then attribute the statement. It would be different if it was a self-serving statement, but it's not. She knows what she wrote the songs about. The way I would handle it is to say "W magazine said her songs are about teenagers in love, but Perry said..." Secondary sources aren't always preferable to primary ones. It just depends on what it is and how you use it. Bali88 (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)"

I am now having another dispute with one of those same editors regarding the Katy Perry article (about her voice type, and her family's financial history). You can look at that page's Talk page for details. I feel that editor thinks he/she owns that page, and that he/she alone can decide what sources are reliable and what are not. I do not feel that is right. And, I feel that he/she is again, as you said, focusing on the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law, in that he/she is focusing on sources, rather than truth. In both cases (her voice type, and her family's financial history), he is asserting things based on sources that he/she says are reliable, but do not make any logical sense.

In particular, her voice type should be deleted, since Katy is not an opera singer, and there is no reliable source as to what her operatic range would be, and Katy's pop songs clearly include all 3 female vocal ranges (although the editor in question seems to consider that to be original research).

As for her family's financial history: the logical explanation is that her family's income in itself would have been below the poverty line, but that they inherited significant money from Katy's maternal grandparents when they died, allowing the to live an upper middle class lifestyle despite having low income. No, there are no sources that say that, but I'm basing it on logic. In any case, saying that they lived in poverty or struggled financially is extremely misleading. If you want to argue that they did struggle financially, then there needs to be some explanation as to how that is possible, despite her maternal grandparents' money. And there needs to be an explanation as to how they were able to afford an upper middle class lifestyle in one of the top school districts in the nation, and in a neighborhood where comparable houses go for $800,000. Since it's unlikely that a source exists, I think that any comments on her family's financial history should just be deleted.

I have already deleted both of those comments months ago, but they were reverted. So, I know from experience that if I try to delete them again, I will be accused of edit warring, and that Wikipedia's moderators will just take the side of the other editor, as they did before.

Do I have any recourse at this point? Or do I just have to suck it up and deal with the fact that the Katy Perry article is not accurate and probably never will be? Mitsguy2001 (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oy...the song thing was one thing. I'm not sure if I want to get into a big discussion over all that stuff. I'll take a look at the article tomorrow afternoon, but honestly, when it comes to those articles that are heavily guarded, often it's better to just let it go and focus your energy elsewhere. You have to consider whether it's really worth your time and energy to fight for those issues in that article because they will no doubt be a bear. Bali88 (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
So in other words, you want me to give in to a bully? That is especially ironic given Katy Perry's song "Roar". (then again, she also sings "Choose Your Battles") Mitsguy2001 (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying you should go either way, It's up to you, I just know that with featured articles, people are pretty protective of them and it may not be worth your time or effort. I've gotten exactly one edit into a featured article since I've been an editor and to this day, I still can't believe it made it in. Another thing to consider, those two issues you mentioned are probably not going to amount to much in terms of readers. Her vocal range and whether or not her family had extra help financially...virtually everyone is going to read it and then immediately forget it. This may be a "pick your battles" type of moment. It's your decision, but if it was me, I'd probably just focus on another article and bring it up to snuff. Bali88 (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I have these problems on any article, not just the "featured articles". My problem isn't so much these issues in themselves (Katy's family's financial history, and Katy's voice type), but rather the fact that most Wikipedia pages seem to be dominated by 1 or 2 bullies who basically shut down anyone else's opinion. As Wikipedia is more and more dominated by such bullies, and users such as myself (who want an accurate encyclopedia) are forced to throw in the towel, Wikipedia will become more and more dominated by the bullies and will be less and less accurate, rendering Wikipedia more and more useless. Unfortunately, many casual observers believe Wikipedia to be 100% accurate. Unfortunately, the moderators usually side with the bullies, since the letter of the law is usually on the bully's side, and the bully is usually a more experienced editor who is better known to the moderators. I realize that there is nothing that you or I can do about it, so I'm mostly just venting. The one thing we can do about it is (as Katy Perry would say) "find your inner roar" and stand up the bullies, but since I've been threatened by the moderators with a permanent ban, I'm not in the position to do that, especially not over a minor issue. It seems that people like a rags to riches story (even when none exists) and like assigning voice types to pop singers (even though such classification isn't really appropriate), so if I'm going to risk a lifetime ban, I'm going to risk it for a bigger issue than these. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it can be frustrating. What I would suggest is to work on articles that either aren't in existence yet or articles that are stubs/have been abandoned. No one is really working on them and you won't have any resistance to making the article really good quality. Unless it's an issue that is really glaring and has real world implications and you have a ton of proof, I wouldn't bother working on featured articles. I mostly do crime articles, and there aren't a ton of editors that do crime, so I have a lot more creative control. I'm not sure if music is your major interest, but there are probably artists and albums that haven't been covered yet. You just have to find your niche. Bali88 (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I have created a stub article about Maria Jose Alvarado a missing beauty queen. Unfortunately she is likely dead and the news will blow up big in the next few days. Sh e was about to compete in the Miss World beauty pageants in the next few days. Cheers--BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll help you work on it if I get a chance :-) Bali88 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks :) She was unfortunately murdered today.. sadly.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
My article Von Sydow murders will appear at the top of the DYK section in a few days :)--BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Exciting! Congrats! I've been too busy with Thanksgiving and kids to write anything lately. Bali88 (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, that does sound much more important :) Hope you are having a great time!--BabbaQ (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryan Ferguson[edit]

I strongly suggest reading the trial transcripts from Ryan Ferguson's trial. Chuck's testimony is very powerful. Transcripts three and four cover his testimony. http://freeryanferguson.com/transcripts/ Countacolor (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What specifically makes you think it's reliable? I'm not sure how much we can trust what he said at trial given he didn't seem to remember what the murder weapon was or where it happened or anything about the crime scene when he was first interrogated. If someone gave me the details of the crime, I could pretend I was there and give a powerful performance too. To me that doesn't seem very solid. Bali88 (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
On the stand, he mentions that his memory appeared to be foggy during the interrogation not because he couldn't really remember, but because he wasn't ready to give a full confession. He wasn't ready to take that step, so he was trying to minimize his involvement. If you read the full transcript from the interrogation, you'll discover that Chuck knew quite a few details. He knew that Kent was beaten around the head with a tire tool, and then strangled afterwards. The strangulation was not public knowledge. He also remembered yelling to the cleaning lady to go get help, which is another key detail that wasn't public knowledge. Have you read the trial transcripts now? Have you read how Chuck details the murder? Have you read how Chuck describes cleaning themselves off in the creek? Have you read how Chuck describes returning to the club? Have you read how Chuck claims he is 100% sure that he and Ryan committed this crime? I think the question to ask is if Chuck was 100% sure at that point in time, what in the world is causing him to doubt himself now? Countacolor (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I have not read the transcripts. But I've seen the video of the interrogation and he doesn't seem to know much at all. He very much seems to be led around by the police. And he doesn't seems so certain anymore. Also, how did they return to the club when the club was already closed? And if he yelled at the cleaning lady, why did she say those weren't the guys she saw? She seemed very clear on that point. Right from the start she said those weren't the guys she saw. Thus far, I don't see anything convincing. To me, the coworker seems like a very likely suspect. His paperwork was in the parking lot, he had a confrontation with the victim that day, he was with the victim very close to the time of death, and his behavior afterward was very strange. Bali88 (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Their theory is that the two white boys were just bystanders on the basis that they just casually walked away toward the janitors as opposed to running the other direction. To me, it seems like too narrow of a time frame for Boyd to have left and then someone else came along and committed the murder. 166.175.59.214 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You should read the transcript of the interrogation in its entirety. It puts everything in proper context, and it isn't a cherry-picked edited video from a biased source. He's recanting now because he wants to get out of prison, simple as that. He's been labeled a snitch in prison, and he has to stay in solitary most of the time for his own protection. Do his recantations really sound credible to you? His first recantation is that he alone murdered Kent, while Ryan tried to stop him. He now says that he was so drunk, he doesn't remember anything at all. Do you really find that credible after the narrative he gave in that courtroom? Shawna Ornt has said that she can't identify the suspects, that is true. Have you seen her police sketch though? It sure does resemble Chuck though, no? Both Ornt and Jerry Trump testified that they saw two young white males near Kent's car when they went out in the parking lot. One of the boys yelled out to them before they ran off. This fact alone completely eliminates Michael Boyd, the coworker, as a possible suspect. Obviously Boyd isn't a young white male. Anyway, a lot of this was clarified and refuted in the trial. You really need to read the transcripts so you can have a better understanding of this case. If your research is based on biased defense propaganda, then you really haven't done your homework.Countacolor (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

barnstar[edit]

FSBarnstar.png The Fraternity/Sorority Barnstar
for creating Template:Fraternities and Sororities DocumentError (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much!!! Bali88 (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wrongful convictions in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ed Johnson. 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) 10:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

TFA[edit]

Take a look, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Ronnie Lee Gardner.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kendrick Johnson.jpg.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kendrick Johnson.jpg.png. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)