User talk:CatWizard777

Hello, CatWizard777, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Hi Team Just reverifing that I own both www.darrylread.com & crushedbutler.co.uk and the page is mine on cdbaby.net --- this advertises my recorded works. As mentiomed in a previous mailing to you, all articles we wish to include in DARRYL READ, and CRUSHED BUTLER are of public domain or Darryl Read copyright. I have, in the case of the Darryl Read page here made a temp sub page, in case you are not happy with the first, by automatic shoes (who works for me). My sub page is Darryl Read copyright and written partially by Clive Zone for me. This item is also regarded as public domain, as in accordance with my own biographical information.

Thank you sincerely for your help in this pending matter

Best from Darryl Read (catwizard777) of www.darrylread.com

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The said article was not created by me but is of my copyright which you seek permissions on. These edited articles were originally submitted by automatic shoes and julie Rex (Julie Welham), both of whom have my permission to use the public domain writings and of my copyright. Hope you can help

Thanks Darryl Read —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.38.187.47 (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Material isn't automatically public domain, I'm afraid, for quite a long time after publication. Different countries have different rules, but the Berne convention sets as a minimum 50 years after the death of the author. Even if this biography was written decades ago, it wouldn't be automatically public domain. We'd need verification of that from the copyright holder--who is generally the original author. The article has been relisted at the copyright problems board to allow the verification procedure to carry forth. If the material isn't verified, the article may be rewritten in a week and seven days. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons behind it at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, as well as at our copyright policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update regarding copyright concern

Since we do not yet have verification of permission by the processes set out above and sufficient time has passed since the placement of the notice, the article has been deleted for copyright concerns. This deletion is not necessarily permanent. If you have already sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) and GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (if you are not the copyright holder or have co-authored the material, release under CC-BY-SA-compatible license alone is sufficient), the article will be restored when that letter is received and processed by the Wikimedia Communications committee. Likewise, if you have not yet sent a letter, you still may (or resend it, if you believe your original may have been lost), and the article will be restored when that letter is received and processed.

As Wikipedia does not require proof of identity on account creation, it is essential that we receive external proof of authorization in order to ensure that we remain compliant with US Copyright law. It is also essential that we verify that copyright holders understand the extent of the release they are authorizing, in that our licenses permit modification and reuse in any forum, even commercial publication, as long as authorship credit is maintained and future copies are compatibly licensed.

Please note that once permission is verified, the material may be evaluated and altered to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Although we appreciate donations, we cannot guarantee that material donated will be retained.

If you have questions about the verification procedure, please feel free to contact me at my talk page. Alternatively, you might address them at the talk page of the copyright policy, which is generally monitored by volunteers experienced in processing such matters. Thank you. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Crushed Butler.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Crushed Butler.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:RememberaDayfilmposter.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:RememberaDayfilmposter.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we will supply all relevant detail in due course CatWizard777 (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger

Within pages the format to remove surperfluous detail in the link is to use a pipe. This is useful for readers and they only see Tiger - if still unclear, let me know, but please don't undo any further updates. I've done this on the Crushed Butler. The link goes to the right wiki page. Many thanks Londonclanger (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Remember a Day (2000 film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Remember a Day (2000 film) 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/Remember a Day (2000 film) 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. Michig (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Remember a Day (2000 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Wright (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) 10:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remember a Day (2000 film)

Would you like the article returned to you for further work? We acknowledge that the film exists, but the issue is that it has not been shown as having received commentary and analysis in Reliable sources. If you fee that you will be able to provide such sources, I'd be able to "userfy" to article to you at User:CatWizard777/Remember a Day (2000 film) for continued work. When it has been improved to meet the notability criteria for films, I'd be glad to bring it back to article space.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michael Schmidt - Yes we would like the work returned, and yes the film exists - as well as all the references that were quoted! It seems that London Clanger in particular are out to sabotage most of Read's works. Can you help with this genuine wiki item. Please contact me CatWizard777 (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody denies that it exists: the consensus of the deletion discussion was that it is not notable - i.e. it has not been discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. It was up to you (or somebody else who thinks the article should be kept) to find such sources and add them to article, and then contest the deletion. Since you did not do so, it was deleted.

And please don't make accusations of bad faith on other users. If you have a disagreement with User:Londonclanger, it is up to the two of you to discuss it and attempt to resolve the matter, following the procedure for dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colin we did fill in the required genuine sources/citations for the Remember a Day page, perhaps the bot failed to recognize them. If you admit the film exists why do you think its ok for delection? Regarding LondonClanger: we have ignored his dabbling with Darryl Read, Crushed Butler, Tiger Remember a Day - for sometime. For us it seems to be harassment, or an attempt to put himself into the limelight by picking on well-known artists. After over a year of this bashes, we felt it best to retaliate CatWizard777 (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Some cautions inre "we felt it best to retaliate":

You've been editing since 2009 and surely understand that being percieved as disruptive or combative is a good way to have one's editing privilages removed, as the behavior polices Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and WP:POINT are strongly enforced here on Wikipedia. I urge temperance and patience.

As for films, please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to better understand just what Wikipedia requires from a source in order for it to be considered reliable enough to source notability. Then review WP:Notability (films) to better understand what is required of a film in order for it to be considered notable enough for inclusion. It needs to have been written of in a more-than-trivial manner in reliable sources. It is simply not enough that a film exists, is for sale, and has been written of on numerous blogs and personal websites. We need more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfying to a workspace

You ask above that I help. Fine. Per your request, I shall place the article in a workspace for you for continued improvement. find it at User:CatWizard777/Remember a Day (2000 film). But please understand, it cannot return to mainspace unless and until it meets inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IMDB is okay in the external links section (see WP:ELNO, WP:ELYES, and WP:ELMAYBE), it is not suitable as a citation. Also, and with respects, citing to your own darrylread.com website... even if you personally "know" your website is accurate... is unsitable as a source. For proper and acceptable citations, use reviews and commentary from what Wikipedia guideline has determined as reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Michael, we will try to fix all in the workspace - it may take time, in the interim - perhaps you can help us with further advise or suggest temporary edits that will get the page back up - until the other sections meet criteria. As I mentioned Remember a Day has been established for many years now at the Internet Movie Data Base, and they are fairly stringent as to content there, bringing me to say, that most of what is written or Remember a Day is verified there also. Thanks again for your help in this matter CatWizard777 (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Orange Illusion for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Orange Illusion 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/The Orange Illusion 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. Michig (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:RememberaDayFilmposter.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RememberaDayFilmposter.jpeg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are working on this image data to restore back to article, and will supply correct terminology of this image for re-inclusion - thanks bot CatWizard777 (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

This will explain: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Orange Illusion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at the Help desk

Hello, CatWizard777. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Darryl Read

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Darryl Read, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.--Michig (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Darryl Read, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. --Michig (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your post on the Help desk, the article does not have an abundance of citations, it only cites three sources that would be considred reliable and independent. The entire 'Early years and career', 'Hollywood underground' and 'Political beginnings' sections do not cite a single source between them, and the rest of the article contains a lot of material that does not indicate the source. This is unacceptable in a biography of a living person (see WP:BLP). As you have stated several times that you are the subject of this article, you have a clear conflict of interest here, so that tag is also appropriate. I would suggest that you don't edit articles where you have a close association with the subject. --Michig (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you can contact me about this page. This page has existed since 2009, where adjustments were made to fit all of Wikipedia's criteria. There were many issues when this page was created and were corrected, you seem to be picking unnecessary holes in confirmed and existing works. I would like to try and work out a resolution on this page and the Remember a Day page with you, and try to find out what you have in mind to fix the already confirmed criteria. Michael Schmidt has offered to recover. May I add that there are many pages on Wiki that do not have a citation or source value in every line and section. If you atre so stringent in your works and collaboration with LondonClanger on seemingly intellectual sabotage, why did you not set about seeking a deletion on Darryl Read some years ago. CatWizard777 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are really not doing yourself any favours making accusations like this. Nobody is trying to get the Darryl Read article deleted, simply improved. The way to improve it is to find reliable independent sources and cite them in the article so that the article passes the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Bear in mind that we constantly have problems with people creating articles about themselves and editing those articles to only include those things that they want included - this is why basing an article on reliable, independent sources will give the best results.--Michig (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the citations are independent, or other wise printed in books/magazine as references. Surely you would have thought that your particular request, put in a technical fashion, on a three year old established wiki page - is pushing it somewhat in terms of your role as an administrative contributor. I shall seek further help on all, as well as the help desk on what I believe is unfair prejudiced on your behalf and instigated by LondonClanger. I have asked you to contact me on this matter so we may get a resolution in a civilized manner. CatWizard777 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A book written by the subject is not independent of the subject. I found some independent, reliable sources, which I have added to the article - generally from books and magazines. It needs more.--Michig (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations/references from the book are independent from the article, and pertaining to history of the subject -which meets the Wiki criteria and has been up an archived in Wiki for three years. How much more citations and references do you require personally? Do let us know what meets your own personal criteria... CatWizard777 (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC) CatWizard777 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be independent of the subject, i.e. not written by the subject or someone closely associated with them. The criteria for verifiability and biographies of living people are not my own, they are policies and guidelines of the project. --Michig (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously agreed, otherwise I would not be editing here since 2009, what I have in question is if this article had not met the wiki criteria for inclusion it would not have been up here in wiki for three years, and even your collaborate LondonClanger has been doing his best to adjust all of the Darryl Read connected pages for a year or so - to his tastes other than bio-graphed , and has not found fault in the sources you mention or for that matter anyone else - including Wiki's other editors. Please explain, and seeing that you are so concerned with these pages, please can you assist us on the two sections you have mentioned - to fix them for what you consider to be the correct data for inclusion here. Failing that would you be happy if we deleted the publicly and historically bio-graphed documented content of the two sections you mentioned. Those being Poetical Beginnings and Hollywood Underground. Or perhaps you can help us edit the sections to the way you see fit, as you are semmingly in control of what is ouputed here CatWizard777 (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC) corrected: Thank you CatWizard777 (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:CatWizard777/Remember a Day (2000 film)

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 User:CatWizard777/Remember a Day (2000 film) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Remember_a_Day_(2000_film). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]