User talk:Resueht

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:PicfromHill.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Mo Pic from hill.JPG. The copy called Image:Mo Pic from hill.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 00:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Steven Ritz

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Steven Ritz, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Steven Ritz 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 an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Steven Ritz, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot 07:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

class upgrade

Assessment of articles is fairly subjective, but your recent edits clearly warrant an upgrade to "start" In fact it woudn't take much to bring it up to B class. Ask any of the regular editors for an assessment review after working on an article, and they'll be glad to review it for you, just drop them a line on their talk page, and of course you can always give me a shout (I've become quite the assessment monkey of late;) ). Holler anytime and Great job on the article! Jacksinterweb (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to bring Mo Ranch up to WP standards is to provide citations from independent sources (newspaper or magazine articles, but not from blogs or anything closely tied to Mo Ranch). This is important, because the number one reason articles get deleted is a lack of sources. I suspect you might have to dig a bit to find them, but you can probably find them. Jacksinterweb (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mo Ranch

The article Mo Ranch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not even a whiff of notability, in the text or the reference section--positively not-notable and spammy.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a Handbook of Texas entry, and that saved the article. Howewver Drmies was totally right that much of the article was not serving an encyclopedic purpose, so he removed much of it. As User: Jacksinterweb said awhile ago, you need to rely on secondary sources. There is a newspaper in Kerrville and they have articles about the history of the place. Don't rely on routine news (think the little league won a game again, or annual camp retreat concluded). Think of major developments and changes. Check for articles that cover those, and cite those articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]