User talk:Jon Doh
Hi – the assertions about the subject of this article that you've made in its initial edit may very well be true, but you haven't provided any sources. As the claims are unverified, they currently violate WP:BLP, which states that poorly sourced negative assertions about a living subject must be removed quickly and indiscriminately. Accordingly, I have tagged it for deletion. If you can provide reliable sources, the article should stay unharmed. Thanks. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have now added a reliable source (CNN.com) and so removed the deletion tag. Loganberry (Talk) 01:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Walter's Chapel A.M.E. Zion Church has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt the subject might not be notable enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability for the relevant concerns. An example of notability guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (websites). If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.
If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Lucy Betts, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh har har. Don't know if I should laugh or cry. Anyway, I've now deleted the article. As another editor said on talk page, we're not really a joke book; this is supposed to be a serious encyclopaedia. If you want to add jokes and let out steam, Uncyclopedia is probably a better place for that. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
British rock and roll
[edit]Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page British rock and roll. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. NawlinWiki 16:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Michelle Carston, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. BigHairRef | Talk 17:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Copyright issue with The Loretta Claiborne Story
[edit]Hello. Concerning your contribution, The Loretta Claiborne Story, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://psc.disney.go.com/disneychannel/learningtoserve/story/index.html. As a copyright violation, The Loretta Claiborne Story appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. The Loretta Claiborne Story has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:The Loretta Claiborne Story. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at The Loretta Claiborne Story, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Flyingtoaster1337 09:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. LittleOldMe 15:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Notability of William Sanderson (pastor)
A tag has been placed on William Sanderson (pastor), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Atomic1609 17:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Notability of Hephzibah Baptist Church
A tag has been placed on Hephzibah Baptist Church, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Atomic1609 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You changed the link in Theology of Pope Benedict XVI from the previous wikisource link
to a link to the new article you created. Umm, wouldn't it be a good idea to add that wikisource link to your new article? That way the material wouldn't get lost. Shenme 03:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Asia, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. · AO Talk 10:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Terence 16:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
March 2007
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Europe, are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. MattieTK 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Hephzibah_Baptist_Church, you will be blocked from editing. Woodsstock 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
April 2007
[edit] Please do not violate Wikipedia policy by introducing inappropriate pages, such as Blues Never Fade Away to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 17:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Blues Never Fade Away, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 17:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Its not a notable song. The article is only two sentences long. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a list of non-notable songs. It should still be deleted unless you plan on making the article longer. If you are, then add
{{hangon}}to the top of the page. I have removed the warning I gave you. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) 17:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Its not a notable song. The article is only two sentences long. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a list of non-notable songs. It should still be deleted unless you plan on making the article longer. If you are, then add
Muhammad Ali
[edit]It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- No Guru 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Made in England (song)
[edit]
I have nominated Made in England (song), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Made in England (song). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Juvenile Deletionist 19:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The article Hephzibah Baptist Church has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- not clear how this orphaned article meets notability guidelines, lacks any references to 3rd party 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. RadioFan (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm contacting you as a significant contributor to Elton John. I am concerned that such a high profile article on a living person is so poorly sourced. It is a matter of priority that statements are sourced. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Quotations from Elton John or any other person must be closely cited, as per Wikipedia:Quotations. If reliable sources cannot be found then all contentious material should be removed - [1]. It is better for us to have no material at all than to have incorrect, misleading or potentially libelous material. Will you help to source the article? SilkTork *YES! 10:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)