User talk:Picknick99

Greg Day (playwright)

The discussion is closed and they have decided it keep the article!

Common Sense - 1

Arse-y Admins - Nill

Well Done :)
Rushton2010 (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rushton2010

I know Burton well.
I was born in the hospital; so I could in someways be classed as a Burtonian or Staffy maybe?
Of such varied background usually don't get classed as anything other than "odd"

Rushton2010 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that would be interesting; do you have the URL?

Next time you're hassled - you can copy up to 1 chapter of a book, without infringing copyright, so long as it is only for your own uses and won't be published or shared.
-Spent fair time in a library for my sins lol

Rushton2010 (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And with the deletion thing. I've tried my best but like I said: admins can be arseholes. They cherry pick what rules they want to follow, ignore those which contradict them, and never listen to facts and reason. Law unto themselves.
No democracy on wikipedia...

Nomination of Clout Communications for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clout Communications 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/Clout Communications 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article.

Some help

Ok I'm going to help you out a bit here by posting links to various wiki regulations. When I tagged Simon Rumley for a speedy it was because it had no sources. All articles (particularly biographies of living people, or otherwise Wikipedia can be sued) must be sourced and have reliable sources please see here for more info. You may also find this of help. For the article you wrote about yourself I have to bring to your attention Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography although it is unlikely to go anywhere fast unless someone tries to delete it under notability claims. Speaking of which here is Wikipedia:Notability guidelines and Wikipedia:Notability (people) and as you can see from those two links there are a few more notability guidelines. Finally for now please see Wikipedia:Signatures and sign when you post on talkpages. I get your point of wanting to see it "live" instead of in a word doc. Perhaps next time try creating the article in your sandbox. You can of course cite other articles, but only if that article is well sourced and has the information your citing complete with a reference, and edit other articles using sources to back up your claim. I'll write again regarding Alan Jones as a quick look of your talkpage and I see a bot has reverted you which gives me a clue but I'll look before voicing an answer. GAtechnical (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Rumley Film Director.jpg

Hi. When you uploaded file:Simon Rumley Film Director.jpg, you said that you had permission from the copyright holder and could provide it upon request. Please forward that permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. It is important that the permission be on file in order to verify that it is sufficient for Wikipedia's licensing needs and that the intent of the copyright holder matches the licensing information on the image description page. Please see Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample declaration of consent that the copyright holder can use. --B (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflict of interest?

Hello, Picknick99. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Nicholas Whittaker, you should consider our guidance on Conflicts of interest and take a look at the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional references

If the book was not used to source any of the information in the article (and you seem to have added the same reference to four other confectionery articles, without adding any new content to those articles), then it is misleading to cite it as a reference. By all means add useful new material sourced to the book, or challenge the incorrect "received wisdom" you've spotted, but simply adding the same book as further reading to multiple articles adds little to the encyclopaedia and could be regarded as inappropriately promotional. --McGeddon (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By all means improve the content of articles, but simply listing your own (?) out-of-print book as "further reading" because you personally consider it to be "worthy" could be regarded as a violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies. If you think it would improve an article to have your own book mentioned, I'd suggest raising it on the article's talk page first. --McGeddon (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can see something in Wikipedia that looks like it's been lifted uncredited from your book, with no alternative source provided, by all means credit the source as being your book, or the trade journals you were researching. Sadly a lot of the confectionery articles seem to be on the sketchy side - I suspect they tend to encourage anecdote and nostalgia.

Sorry if the guidelines here seem a little opaque, but there's method in them somewhere, and the strong "conflict of interest" policy does what it can to keep Wikipedia neutral and impartial, discouraging the promotion of one book over another based on which author happened to drop by. All the best. --McGeddon (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles lacking references

If you feel confident that a sticker at the top of an article doesn't apply any more, by all means edit the article to remove it (ideally with an edit summary explaining why) - if anyone disagrees, they'll hopefully explain their view in return. Let me know which articles you mean, though, if you want me to take a look. --McGeddon (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove any template you disagree with, unless the template specifically says "this notice must not be removed" or something right there in its box. Looking at the article it seems fine for references, but needs more footnotes to clarify what the interviews are being used for. I've changed the template and added a one-line lede section while I was there. --McGeddon (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Greg Day (playwright).
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clout Communications

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please do not remove the improvement tags unless the issue has been addressed. The inline citations can be legitimately removed; however issues still exist regarding the article's notability, advertisement/promotion and orphan status. Wikipedia articles are open to be edited by anyone and tags are used to help editors quickly identify problems and rectify them.
Removing tags that are still relevant is counter productive to the improvement of the article and can be viewed as vandalism.
In future please do not remove them unless the issues have been addressed.

Regards
Rushton2010 (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I didn't come up with Wikipedia's rules and policies, but all users are bound by them.

I could have nominated the article for deletion as soon as I noticed the issues with it; I, however, took the softer approaches of using the improvement tags. Lists of articles are created from these tags and there are editors that work their way through those lists improving the articles. It also informs the passing reader or editor that there are issues so that they can improve on them. By removing those tags and ignoring the problems those issues are never going to get rectified, and if the article is not brought into line with policy it is deleted.
Its the whole idea of Wikipedia: no body owns or solely controls the articles - everyone can contribute to create the highest quality, most complete articles possible.
Its nothing personal against you.

In the mean time, if you can bring the article into line with the various policies, you'd be able to stop it being deleted.

Regards
Rushton2010 (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can remove tags once the problem has been addressed; the issue was that they were originally all removed with none of those problems rectified. Later they were all removed again whilst only the inline citation issue had been rectified.
When tags are being unjustifiably removed, it can quite easily appear like vandalism.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and chose to warn you about it using Wikipedia's standard warning messages, rather than going straight to reporting you for vandalism, as many other editors would have done.
Warning you has no long-term effects; reporting you could have lead to your username and IP address being banned from editing Wikipedia. -Hence me giving you the benefit of the doubt and using Wikipedia's standard warning messages.

Regards
Rushton2010 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regards your query about the notablity of villages, the criteria is for articles is:
"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
So even a small settlement which will have countless independent pages about its history and inhabitants, where as the overwhelming majority of companies do not.

It's always good to remember Wikipedia is very much a social project; by the people for the people; all about community. Settlements are important to their inhabitants and notable within their wider area.
However, the overwhelming majority of companies are not, with the exception of the larger companies, as most people won't have heard of them; even then people might not consider them "important".
And it's from that standpoint that Wikipedia's rules are drafted: Very much community and social minded. Is it important to the wider community? etc. etc. etc.

Hope that helps

Regards
Rushton2010 (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; Even after a few years the rules and processes (especially the technical ones) can be mind boggling, and the standard messages can be a right pain. I review articles waiting for creation and some of the standard messages just don't quite fit.
Even with the tags, on the Clout "advertisement" doesn't quite fit; its the promotional rules it's breaking but the tag we're given just says advertisement.

I think the issue is how the article reads; so with a few tweeks we could improve it to meet the required criteria. The article looks as if its intention is as promotion for its founder (it says he worked for Columbia Pictures, Channel Four and Channel Five; that is enough - the extra detail isn't relevant to an encyclopedic article about the company, and sounds overtly promotional). Also, it looks as if the company's claim to be notable is drawn off the notability of its clients (by all means have a list with a few well known clients, but ensure the notably is established elsewhere in the article).

Its extremely difficult to write about a company without veering onto promotion; at the minute it reads very much as if it is just intended as promotion for its founder.
The only advice I can give is to stick to pure facts. Just for basic examples: When the company was founded and how(a merger for example?). What industry the company is in, how it operates; what it does.

Establishing notability could be harder. A google search is the basic check Wikipedia will do; all that comes back are websites that are not independent of the company (their website, twitter, facebook etc.).
The easiest way of establishing notability is by stating the thing that sets the company apart from the others in its field. If people wanted a list of companies they would go to the yellow pages; think about what makes the company deserving of record: what is it that someone looking at the encyclopedia in 10, 50 or 100 years is going to find interesting or unusual? For some ideas: Is it the first to do something or the first in an area or industry? Is it the largest in a sector, the largest turnover or profits? Is there something different about the way the business is structured or the way it operates?
The very basic criteria is "significant coverage in reliable sources"; so has the company been subject to media attention?. Has an industry magazine run an article on the company? Has it been in a newspaper (passing references won't be enough- it needs to be the subject of the article or significantly mentioned)? Even bad publicity is useful: a national newspaper calling a company the worst thing in existence is still coverage in a reliable source.
There are three newspapers cited, but there are no article names and authors (or even better would be a website link to the article), so there is no way to verify those references are correct. The fact they are from the 1990s and the company wasn't founded until 2006 looks dubious though.

Sometimes I just make the changes and additions myself but I'm afraid I can't with this article: just because I don't know the company and haven't been able find anything online.

If you need any help or help deciphering policies; let me know.

Regards
Rushton2010 (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you find any articles that are overly promotional or you don't think are notable; send them to me and I'll nominate them for deletion. You can ask and ask for months wanting the articles to be improved but it's amazing how quickly things get moving when you nominate them.
So yeah, send me any you find and we'll either get them fixed or get rid of them.
Rushton2010 (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I think it is a bit OTT. It's not written in a a promotional tone and is just stating that the tradition exists.
Rushton2010 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Day (playwright)

Is now up at AfD. Please desist from creating articles that promote Greg Day and his various companies and endeavors. Please read WP:AUTO and WP:COI and stop your disruptive article creation. Qworty (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Stop vandalizing my user page right now or I will move for you to be blocked. Qworty (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thamks for your message and support. I was beginning to think that I wa slost in some Kafkaesque nightmare like The Trial where one is constantly accused of mistakes, usually caused simply through ignorance and inexperience. The thing is, as a journalist, I know a lot of famous people for my sins and asm friends with a few - Sean Bean, Lenny Henry, Sir Richard Attenborough, Uri Geller - not name dropping here, but just to make the point that some Wiki editors would probably say I be banned from editing their pages too just because I know them. That hardly seems fair and no one knows who I know and who I don't know. One might equally say that I should not be allowed to edit the article on Burton on Trent as I'm from there and it would be a conflict of intersst because I'd be bound to be positive about it and not objective. Again, I have no objection whatsoever to the academic rigours of Wikipedia - but feel it most unfair that they are often applied in a random fashion.

And by the way, what makes qwerty an admin and not you - or even me? Who decides these things?

Thank you again for message. It is appreciated. Qwerty's message spoiled my weekend and I know thar Wiki does not want it to be that way, for anyone, let alone newbies liek me,

For the record, Qworty is not an admin and cannot block you. He can only ask for you to be blocked, but he needs a valid reason. I believe his warning was related to this edit which, while misplaced, does not constitute vandalism. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rushton2010

I can honestly say I've had more nonsense on wikipedia in this last week or two than I've had in the all the years combined. So your not alone in getting disheartened with it all.
It's supposed to be an opening and welcoming community but far too many just looking to cause problems, vandalise or threaten.

Twice this week I've been accused of copywright infringement; both times falsely. Once it was because the person hadn't bothered to actually read the copyright information, sojust presumed it was a breach! The other time all the information was there, just in the wrong place. But of course instead of just moving it, these people would prefer to threaten "you'll be blocked and banned"!

The message above from Qworty is a perfect example.
You have been putting your messages to me on my user page: the correct place is the user talk page. Anyone with any braincells at all can see that's an honest mistake, made through inexperience but he's saying he's going to try and get you blocked because of it.
ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!

Wikipedia has 5 Fundamental Principles that everyone is supposed to follow: Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner is one of them.

I'll take a look at the article.
No promises I can do anything - if an admin's taken a vendetta against you, you're pretty much screwed -they can be right arseholes when they want to be and there is no comeback.

Rushton2010 (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a sort of pseudo attempt at democracy. Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. You nominate yourself -people vote on whether you're to be approved or not. But wikipedia is not a democracy; number of votes count for nothing; and the ultimate decision is made by admin (the same fake democracy as with the deletion discussions).
So your basic dictatorial elitism -admins pick who they want to join them.

Rushton2010 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've taken a look at the article; notability is generally judged by having significant coverage from reliable and verifiable sources.
The sources you use do demonstrate significant coverage (the most recent one is 2004 however, so maybe add some more modern ones too), and they are from reputable sources; national newspapers and the like. I would suggest they downfall is that they can't be verified (short of someone finding and reading the entire newspaper for that day). This could be rectified if you could add the title and author of the articles.

I've also added an online reference. A lot of users make judgement based just on the number of online references or hits on google. They shouldn't -the significant coverage the rules go on about doesn't have to be online (or even easily accessible). But still, a lot just glance briefly at articles and don't bother to do in depth checks -so try and put is many online references as you can just to protect yourself from the half-arsed brigade.
Rushton2010 (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. That's absolutely correct. Picknick99 came to my user page to call me a "snob," a clear violation of the very WP:CIVIL policy you are citing. You argue that he left his insult in the wrong place. I must then ask you this: Where precisely on Wikipedia does his insult belong? The answer is that it belongs nowhere. I really don't care if Picknick99 is insulting me on my user page or on my user talk page--wherever he's doing it, I'm going to scrub it off and ask him not to do it again. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly true. he said "True encyclopaedias do not make value judgments but go on the facts of the matter. Anything else is purer intellectual snobbery and should be challenged.". That's not the same as calling you a snob, and it's certainly not vandalism. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar For You

		The Purple Star
		The Purple Star given to Wikipedians who have been hurt by others, for example by having their user pages vandalized, being mistakenly blocked (for too long, or affected by range blocks), being personally attacked, etc. Rushton2010 (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KIND

Images that don't exist

I see you've added a couple of appparently non-existent images to the Simon Rumley infobox today - is there a problem I can help with there? I can't see any pictures with his name in either on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons...--McGeddon (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did your image get uploaded and then deleted, or were you unable to successfully navigate the upload wizard and upload the file? I was under the impression that files uploaded "with permission" would have a short grace period before being deleted, to see if permission was forthcoming. Afraid I don't know much about the permission process beyond that (I only ever upload CC-licenced images) - if something doesn't make sense, Wikipedia:Help desk should be able to help you out. --McGeddon (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horninglow railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diesel shunter (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) 00:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Howarth references

To meet WP:BASIC, Howarth needs to have been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - a couple of profiles or interviews from the press or heavyweight film websites should be enough. If such sources don't yet exist, then Howarth doesn't merit a Wikipedia article at this time.

Where exactly did you get all the "On leaving school he studied mechanical engineering and general technology as an apprentice at Jaguar Cars." stuff from? --McGeddon (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The line about Jaguar Cars was in the first version of the article, which you appear to have written yourself. If you learnt about Kevin Howarth's personal life from a press interview, then that's great and you should add the source to the article (even if it was printed magazine or TV slot). If you're a friend of Kevin who helped him to write his own Wikipedia entry, then you may have difficulty finding sources to support all of this - the WP:COI policy isn't just to avoid unscrupulous marketing, it also helps Wikipedia stay in line with existing, published sources. --McGeddon (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're taking material from sources, you should cite those sources. And as I say above, I don't know much about image permissions - try the Wikipedia:Help desk? --McGeddon (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I've never even heard of Google Knowledge Graphs. Regarding Berckman, I'm not sure what you think you mean when you say "demonstrably worthy of inclusion", but an author has to meet WP:BASIC sourcing requirements in order to merit a Wikipedia article. Merely having published books or written screenplays is not enough, the author has to have been the subject of significant reviews or biographies.

(You don't need to start a new heading every time you comment on my talk page, incidentally, it's clearer if you just continue the previous one. And new headings should go at the bottom of a talk page anyway. Might be worth your time to read through good talk page practice.) --McGeddon (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Which article are you referring to when you say "It's ok. Just delete it."? If you're having second thoughts about an article you created and don't think it's a viable topic for Wikipedia after all, you can put {{db-author}} at the top to flag it as the author requesting its deletion. --McGeddon (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Barrister were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in top right. For more details see talk page guidelines. Thank you. Also, I suggest retitling the section. Looks like you are addressing the merger proposal. Call the section "Merger proposal". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Leeds, Bradford & Morecambe Residential Express

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Leeds, Bradford & Morecambe Residential Express requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. –
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds, Bradford & Morecambe Residential Express

Hiya, I've moved Leeds, Bradford & Morecambe Residential Express to your sandbox User:Picknick99/sandbox1,
Apologies If you felt offended - Certainly wasn't my intention!
Kind Regards, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picknick

Hi Glad to know the Derbyshire link was useful - did I also mention the merton priory press too, who have several booksd relatedf to Derbyshire history. When I was at gramar school in the sixties we were press-gange dinto helping with an archaeological dig at the old Roman fort at Little Chester in Derby - which I see does have a Wiki page. Also I added a little bit about Overseal railway sheds. I only ever visited once, a gruelling bike ride from Burton - only to find it utterly empty!Picknick99 (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rushton 2010

Sorry for delayed reply. Unbelievably hectic few weeks! Was hoping things had calmed down.... oh to be so lucky: people throw more stuff at you and have another hectic two weeks at least :/. Holiday in a fortnight- small blessings!

FI did look at the Derbyshire Record Society. I have been toying with becoming a member- looks very up my street. Few things I be interested to read. Interesting future potential outlet for some of my research/writing too, maybe.

Best --Rushton2010 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Evelyn Berckman may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'The Crown Estate'' Doubleday 1976. Published as 'The Blessed Plot', Hamish Hamilton. London, 1976)
s End'' Doubleday 1977. Previously appeared as Be All and End All: H. Hamilton, London, 1976)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Picknick99. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clout Communications concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clout Communications, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Greg Day (playwright) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Greg Day (playwright), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George Augustus Henry Sala may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

to 1842, and learnt drawing in London, and in his earlier years he did odd-jobs in scene-painting (for [[John Medex Maddox]] at the [[Princess's Theatre, London]]} and book illustration. The connection of his mother and elder brother (Charles Kerrison Sala) with

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clout Communications

Hello Picknick99. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Clout Communications".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Clout Communications}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Whittaker

why did you withdraw this article? It seems Ok to me. He's pretty clearly notable, and its adequately documented & could be documented further. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume then you have no objection to it being restored, and I will do that. If you disagree after looking at the restored article, let me know on my talk page, DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Louise Golbey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Acoustic, Omar, Jazz FM, Example and Anthony David

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

dates
years
commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

This applies to infoboxes, too.

Please watch the capitals.

Thanks, and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kevin Howarth

The article Kevin Howarth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BIO, no secondary sources (interviews are not secondary sources per WP:PRIMARYNEWS), article has been flagged as such for a year.

While all constructive 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. McGeddon (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Have noticed that you've been somehow hand-crafting infoboxes for articles, such as on Greg Day (playwright) - it's generally better all round to use infobox templates, as outlined at MOS:INFOBOX. They're easier for other editors to alter, and if Wikipedia ever decides that all actor infoboxes should look a little different, we only need to change the template for all the articles to be updated. --McGeddon (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest again

Just bringing this up as a direct question because it looks like it was never clearly addressed in the past. Do you have any professional or personal connection to Alan Jones, Greg Day, Nicholas Whittaker or any of the other people that you've written about at Wikipedia? --McGeddon (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you don't have any connection to these people? Every image you have uploaded to Commons is credited, by your own hand, to "Nicholas Whittaker". --McGeddon (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the nature or quality of the photos, I'm just concerned that you uploaded them identifying yourself as "Nicholas Whittaker", and have been editing articles about Nicholas Whittaker and his colleagues, which WP:COI strongly discourages. Are you the Nicholas Whittaker that you have been writing about? --McGeddon (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting you should avoid editing the Uri Geller article because you once interviewed Uri Geller. I'm not interested in determining whether or not you consider Phil Collins to be a friend or a colleague. I am simply trying to determine whether you have broken WP:COISELF by creating or contributing to articles about people who you know personally or work alongside.

You've given me a "short answer" of "no", but just to check you understand, please take a look at WP:COISELF. Do you have any personal or professional connections ("such as being an employee, or having family ties or some other relationship") to Alan Jones, Greg Day, Nicholas Whittaker or any of the other people whose articles you have worked on? (A "yes" is fine here, it just means you should stop editing them in future, and we'll take a look at the articles to make sure they meet notability guidelines, haven't been edited with any inadvertent bias, and don't contain any unverifiable/unpublished information that you've added from personal experience.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is Clout Communications. Thank you. --McGeddon (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, all I have are concerns, which is why I've been trying to discuss them with you. If you want to explain how your edits could look like a conflict of interest but actually aren't, or if you appreciate that you maybe do have a conflict of interest and want some guidance on how to handle that, then we can talk about that, ideally at the COI noticeboard link above. But "no, I don't have a COI and I don't like your tone" is a bit of a brick wall. --McGeddon (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just try to keep Wikipedia discussions brief and to-the-point, I assume we all have jobs and wider lives here. I don't mean this to be impolite, and I like to think that I remain WP:CIVIL in response to whatever replies I get.

I've tried to point you directly at the most relevant parts of policy to spare you from having to read too much - WP:COISELF is just two paragraphs, and says "If you have a personal connection to a topic or person (such as being an employee, or having family ties or some other relationship), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." An editor who liked Clout Communications would be welcome to write about that company, its staff and clients, but if they were an employee of the company, the spouse of the CEO, or a close friend of the marketing manager, they would have a conflict of interest and should state this connection so that other editors could take it into account, and advise them on how it should affect their editing. --McGeddon (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Greg Day is an old acquaintance of yours, then you have a conflict of interest. It doesn't matter if the work was done for free, or if he didn't tell you which pages to edit, or even if you've lost touch since: if you are editing Wikipedia articles about a company run by an aquaintance of yours, it's a personal connection and there are COI problems with you doing this. You "are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection" - WP:COIADVICE goes into more detail. Does this make sense? --McGeddon (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I've gone ahead and taken down the COI noticeboard discussion, since it looks like we're now making some progress here.) --McGeddon (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are in the difficult situation where it looks from their website as if you are employed by Clout Communication as a PR associate, but you are actually only listed there as a personal favour, I and other editors would appreciate it if you could "provide full disclosure of the connection" you might have to Alan Jones, Greg Day, Nicholas Whittaker and Clout Communication, before making any more edits to articles about the company, its staff and clients. (It's been observed that having a merely apparent conflict of interest can be as damaging as an actual conflict.) Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, you are still advised to provide full disclosure of your connection to Clout Communications and its staff, even if this connection is now in the past. And any Clout-related articles that you edited before disassociating yourself would still need to be looked at. --McGeddon (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're choosing not to disclose your present or past connection to Clout Communications, I'll re-open the COI noticeboard discussion to see what other editors make of it, and what needs to be done about it. Note that, per WP:COI, "misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity" is against Wikipedia's terms of use. --McGeddon (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that these questions seem harrassing, but I'm just trying to get a clear line from you on what your connection is or was to Clout Communications and its staff - you haven't yet given that (since Tuesday you've just told me that you've "disassociated" yourself from your friend's company and that you think plagiarism is more serious than COI editing), and you're continuing to edit articles related to the company.

I've just been hoping that you'd give me a straight answer and I could talk you through any COI issues and what to do about them. If you'd rather not discuss this with me any more, that's absolutely fine: I'll raise it on the COI noticeboard for other editors to take a look at, and will refrain from any further direct communication with you. Your work on other articles is appreciated, and I don't mean to be discouraging. --McGeddon (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response.

A conflict of interest doesn't require the editor to be paid, directed, to have a conscious intention to promote a subject, or to be editing Wikipedia in a professional capacity. Although a paid, directed, promotional professional writing about a company would obviously be wildly inappropriate, well-meaning friends are also discouraged - if I write an article about my friend and the company he runs, I'm going to find it hard not to be biased towards presenting him in a good light, and I may inadvertently omit negative material, or include content from personal experience which can't be sourced (and may even be wrong). It's always better if articles are written by people unrelated to the subjects, working from published secondary sources. (Such as your work on the Bolingbroke articles - it's safe to assume you aren't being polite about a dead 19th century Viscount to spare his feelings, or recounting personal, unpublished anecdotes!)

WP:COISELF puts it very clearly: "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends." - if Greg Day is an old friend of yours, it was inappropriate for you to have created an article about him, irrespective of any business relationship.

That Day made you an "associate of the company" and you went on to create articles about that company and its clients may seem innocent from your side, but I'm afraid this looks quite bad under Wikipedia policy, as could reasonably be seen as falling under WP:NOPAY (where you may have been "expect[ing] to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia"). Obviously nowhere near as bad as if Day had explicitly given you a desk and a salary and instructed you to edit Wikipedia on his behalf, but a company owner doing you a favour and you then deciding to write his company up on Wikipedia, for whatever reason, doesn't look entirely on the level - I hope you can appreciate that.

I'd say the best way forward from here would be to get someone to look at the articles related to Clout Communications and make sure that all content is strongly sourced, that it contains no promotional or biased language, that it omits no significant controversies, and that the articles stand up by themselves. That can either be me, or someone else. Let me know what you think. If you disagree and would like a second opinion on whether or not you have a conflict of interest, then I can raise this at WP:COI/N for other editors to look at, or you could leave a message at the WP:HELPDESK. --McGeddon (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll check whether any Clout Communications articles should be flagged as having COI issues, and get to cleaning them up over the next few days. Are you okay with the guidance given at WP:COIADVICE and happy to restrict your edits on Clout-related articles to what it defines as "Non-controversial edits", in future? --McGeddon (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bolingbroke articles

Your new articles seem fine, and are definitely still there. You can check your own past contributions to Wikipedia at Special:Contributions/Picknick99 and click through. They've been tagged as needing references and categories, but I'm sure other editors will add those in time. --McGeddon (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vernon Henry St John, 6th Viscount Bolingbroke, 7th Viscount St John, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bath (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) 08:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

Not sure which way you're assuming the plagiarism is going, there, but if it looks like a Wikipedia editor lifted a paragraph verbatim from a source (even if they credited it), then yes, this goes against WP:PLAGIARISM guidelines and the content should either be reworded or removed. --McGeddon (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hayley-Marie Axe

The article Hayley-Marie Axe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BIO, no secondary sources (interviews are WP:PRIMARYNEWS).

While all constructive 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. McGeddon (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Somerville

Looking at the article history, nobody was suggesting that Somerville wasn't notable, just that the then-current version of the article (which had no sources) didn't show how she would "meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline". (The general notability guideline is, at heart, just that "an article must have at least two reliable sources".)

If someone has flagged an article with orange or yellow boxes, consider it a polite reminder! It means they want to see the article improved. If an editor genuinely thought that an article was unworthy or unsalvageable, they would have put it up for deletion. --McGeddon (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Somerville

Nice article, Picknick, thanks for writing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Jane Somerville

Dear User:Picknick99, thanks for the message on my talk page. If you were insulted by the tag, please accept my apologies. It was meant to ensure that reliable sources are added to the article in accordance with WP:RS. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia and best wishes in the future. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Picknick99, I appreciate your comments on my talk page. I hope this interaction will give you a more positive experience on Wikipedia. I just looked at Kevin Howarth and Simon Rumley. The articles are referenced and with their involvement in several films, both seem notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kevin Howarth for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Howarth 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/Kevin Howarth 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. McGeddon (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you mean you'd rather not receive automated alerts like the one above (there's a pre-ticked tickbox for "Notify page creator if possible" on the deletion form I was using), no problem, I'll make sure to untick it in future. All the best. --McGeddon (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Walter Somerville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to File and Clontarf

Duncan Mackay (musician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paul Raymond

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Greg Day (playwright) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Greg Day (playwright), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Greg Day (playwright)

Hello Picknick99. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Greg Day (playwright)".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Greg Day (playwright)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Ronnie Apteker has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ronnie Apteker. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ronnie Apteker (November 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ronnie Apteker and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 08:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ronnie Apteker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Material. 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) 09:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Pozzo di Borgo

It's not an article. Xx236 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC) This article may be expanded not written.Xx236 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Translation If the English article does not yet exist: Xx236 (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Wikipedia, I'm a humble editor. As you can see below my opinion is right. As far as I know there are lists "to be translated", but I'm not active there.Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Philippe Pozzo di Borgo

The article Philippe Pozzo di Borgo has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has 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 seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- GB fan 21:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ronnie Apteker

Hello, Picknick99. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Ronnie Apteker".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marc Morris (Producer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FrightFest. 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) 12:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jake West, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pumpkinhead. 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) 10:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Picknick99. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Picknick99. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Joanne mitchell premiere before dawn 2012..jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Joanne mitchell premiere before dawn 2012..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. --B-bot (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Bass Works Excursion 1904.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bass Works Excursion 1904.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. 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) 00:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The King's Stamp for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The King's Stamp 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 King's Stamp 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. KDS4444 (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Annette Robertson

Hi, I'm MordeKyle. Picknick99, thanks for creating Annette Robertson!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Like Wikipedia, IMDb is user edited, and therefore is not a suitable source. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb for more information.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Joanne mitchell premiere before dawn 2012..jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Joanne mitchell premiere before dawn 2012..jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Majora (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows of the Workhouse

Hi, your using bare urls in the above article. The first ref you have : https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jul/06/jennifer-worth-obituary Jennifer Worth obituary, The Guardian, 6 July 2011 is a bare URL instead of using Cite Web template. Second one is https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Shadows_of_the_workhouse.html?id=uuXtAAAAMAAJ is also a bare URLS. For Google books you should be using Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books to create a proper well formatted citation. If any of these urls changed, the reference is broken and it makes it difficult to recreate it, thereby invalidating the article. scope_creep (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flower Of Gloster 1st Ed Dust Jacket.jpg needs authorship information

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Flower Of Gloster 1st Ed Dust Jacket.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Picknick99}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
or use the {{own}} template.

Please also add authorship and sourcing to other files you created or uplopaded. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting Terry Darlington?

A number of your recent edits have been to insert obvert promotions of an article/author of questionable noteworthiness: specifically Terry Darlington and his book, Narrow Dog to Carcassonne. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, and editing this way can be an indicator of further problems (e.g., conflict of interest). Please review wp:promotion and wp:coi for further information on these two subjects, to be sure there is no COI, and to understand the limits of inserting promo material in an article. Thanks. 842U (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A author of questionable noteworthiness - do you really believe that? Penguin do not publish authors of 'questionable noteworthiness'. There is no COI whatsoever. I like the guy's books and I do stuff about canals (and books). End of.2A02:C7D:E2BA:400:30BB:81F1:DDEB:2269 (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An author being published does not equate to notability. Nor does a single editor "liking a guys books" qualify information for inclusion. It's not a question of what one editor believes; the article on Terry Darlington is currently flagged, questioning its notability. In other words, the notability hasn't been established. Whether you or I like him or not, again, isn't germane. 842U (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that that there are just too any many people making "value judgments" Delete it if it gives you pleasure. I've got better things to do and probably won't bother making any more contributions. Life's just too short. Picknick99 (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ronan O'Casey

added links pointing to The Magic Christian, Santa Barbara, Blow Up and Easy Street

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Ronan O'Casey

added a link pointing to The Shrike

The New Forest Rustlers

added a link pointing to Reginald Marsh

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ronan O'Casey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alf's Button. 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) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Material 2012 film poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Material 2012 film poster.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Video Nasties Nucleus Films.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Video Nasties Nucleus Films.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Travelling Man DVD Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Travelling Man DVD Cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Flower Of Gloster TVTimes 1967.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Flower Of Gloster TVTimes 1967.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Wizards way film poster.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Wizards way film poster.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Picknick99. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Giada del Drago

Hello, Picknick99,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Giada del Drago should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giada del Drago .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Winged Blades^Godric 09:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Picknick99. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ibiza Undead film poster.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ibiza Undead film poster.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Hello, Picknick99, I saw that you made a draft for a new article at User:Picknick99/Barbara Ruskin. Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable. But in this case, you haven't edited your draft for a long time. If you wish to improve the draft yourself, please do. Otherwise, you may consider donating it to WikiProject Abandoned Drafts (a participant can help). Thank you. GretLomborg (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Walk with Me?

The article Walk with Me? has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable film, no significant independent coverage, per WP:NF

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. BOVINEBOY2008 10:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of England's Lane (Peter Sarstedt album)

The article England's Lane (Peter Sarstedt album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NALBUM

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. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]