User talk:Tom27jr

Speedy deletion nomination of Bishophenry

Hello Tom27jr,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Bishophenry for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Cdtew (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bishophenry

The article Bishophenry has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days 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/dated}} 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. reddogsix (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bishophenry

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bishophenry requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be 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, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Please do not remove Biographies of Living Persons PRODs from articles, as you did with Bishophenry, unless reliable sources have been provided. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the respective talk page instead. Thank you. reddogsix (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Bishophenry. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. reddogsix (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible legal action

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. reddogsix (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk: Bishophenry. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. While saying that an editor is a Muslim is not a personal attack if they are a Muslim, you were obviously using it as a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Th8is same editor attacked my character as well my friend. and reverted my page from the updates that were requested. That established the person was who they were and etc.

How Wikipedia works

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- This is why the article you made is being contested, the sources you have provided are all affiliated with the subject, not independent.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.
It is recommended that you do not add anything relating to yourself to article space, and it is expressly forbidden to use Wikipedia to promote anything about yourself. Personal websites are generally not allowed in external links.
Biographies of persons assumed to be alive are held to especially high standards of verifiability -- all unsourced information may be removed, no matter how plausible.
Noone owns any article here, or even their edits to articles. At the top of the edit page, it says "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone," which means that if you don't want someone to change or even remove what you add, then you need to use another site.
Assume other editors are here to help as much as is possible.

Ian.thomson (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sited and produce proof as well... Anyways. I am tired of arguing to convince why this article is a great resource to add to wiki. It is not worth it. I will let bishop maintain the venues he already uses to get his information out. He has met great success doing such.

You cited websites that were connected with and affiliated with him. By your own admission, he paid to have those websites put up. That is the opposite of an independent source. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think every company owns there own sites. Books written was sites as well. As I said and I will maintain your user:reddogsix has been very unfair...there is too much proof to prove it.

The fact you didn't address my complaint about photos I own was tag for deletions by reddogsix is very telling as well.

Very telling. My photos I own....tag as though they violated copywrite law and I own the photos

Let me break it down for you: The only article here that is owned by its subject is the Wikipedia article. The McDonald's company does not own our article about them. We do not base our article on McDonald's on just the McDonald's website. We base it on newspapers, magazines, and books that are not owned by McDonald's, from publishers who are neither affiliated with nor paid by McDonald's, by writers who do not work for McDonald's. Independent. If an employee of McDonald's (or someone McDonald's hires) tried to re-write our article on that company so that it only cited the McDonald's website, we would block him from the site. The same is true for other articles. If Thomas Henry is notable, then people who have not been paid to write about him will write about him.

If I have been unfair, it is been in your favor. I chose to decline the speedy deletion (even though only you would have objected to me siding with the letter of WP:CSD#A7), leaving you with a week to find independent sources. I have not blocked you for editing with a conflict of interest, even though it's pretty clear that you are either Thomas Henry or an employee of his (Wikipedia does not allow users to share accounts). If you want me to be fair, I can treat you the way I have treated everyone else who has come here to promote their businesses by blocking you and deleting the article. Do you want me to be fair?

Also, I haven't made any complaints about your photos, so that's a red herring. Ian.thomson (talk)

3:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not say you tag my photo on wiki common that was uploaded. I said reddogsix one of your editors tag the photo I own for deletion

He's not "my" editor, he's just another editor. I have nothing to do with his actions or decisions. You could say that we're independent.

Again, what you need to do to rescue the article and stop it from being deleted is cite professionally published independent sources like magazines, newspapers, or academic books. If you cite just one independent source that supports any of the claims in the article, that gets rid of the current proposed deletion, though that brings about another one for failing WP:GNG (giving another week) unless you cite at least two independent reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Reddogsix Is still deleting and tagging things on my page. They have tagged a picture I own complete rights to again. I really does not understand why this user have such a problem. I will be email wikipedia again.

You said I had a week and the page is already deleted?! WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tom27jr (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that was the action of an admin independent of me, on the grounds that the article was your attempt at self-promotion. Let's face it, it was. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Material

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia articles. If you have permission or are the owner of the material, please follow the instructions in WP:DCM. reddogsix (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

copywrighted material was not added as I told Ian I own all rights to the photo which I posted on wikipedia. I paid for the photo to be taken myself. Please do not start with me again. Let me contact the other editor... this will not happen again.

Just so you understand, all published work is copyrighted. That's the way copyright laws work - it helps protect the owner of the material. Again, read WP:DCM for the instructions on how to donate the image to Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand I owned the IMAGE and no one but me OWN the image and I own the material... I do not know how many ways to say this. I followed the instructions on the commons page. I view this as harassment. Since I have consistently explain and said THIS IS A PHOTO I OWN AND PAID TO HAVE DONE.

You don't seem to understand that the photo cannot be published on any Wikimedia Foundation property, whether that be Commons or the English Wikipedia, without being released by the copyright holder to the Wikimedia Foundation under an acceptable free license. You are not the copyright holder, the photographer is. If you paid to have the photo done, you still don't own the copyright unless you have documentation showing that the photographer transferred the copyright to you.

Even if you do own the copyright, the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't have permission to publish it, therefore the Wikimedia Foundation will not publish it without permission.

And that permission cannot be granted by some random Wikipedia account that claims to own the copyright. That permission must be granted via proper channels, such as an email that is verifiably from the copyright holder. See WP:CONSENT for further information. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signature needed

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I see that the page was deleted even though I was given a week to find source materials Tom27jr (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Thomas Henry (bishop)

Hello, Tom27jr. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Thomas Henry".

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. reddogsix (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]