User talk:Rhssoccer

Apology[edit]

Dear Mr. "Patstuart", I am terribly sorry for any problems Franklin (ScoobyDooGuy1991) caused you, I just received his letter and he told me what happened. He's my sister's nephew, and for some reason is a huge fan of mine. The reason he caused all these problems was that he thought you were saying he was a liar, and knowing everything he said was true, it just hurt his feelings a little. I had a talk with him, and this shouldn't happen again. I am a little bit curious though, why there isn't anything on here about my coins, or me. I'm on tv.com and imdb.com, but it doesn't matter, I don't mind, I'm not too big a star. Again, I'm really sorry for any trouble that was caused. -Bradford N. Smith, and I'm new at this thing, so hopefully what I typed will show up correctly. Also, I typed this same thing in under "Bradford Smith Good Luck Tokens", but I'm not sure if you saw it, so I thought I'd type it in here.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhssoccer (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry about the incident, if it caused some hurt feelings. As the page is deleted, I can only speak from my memory, and from the log on your nephew's page, as to what it was. If I remember, it was some type of coins or pogs that he created and he and his friends liked to play. I do not doubt for a second that it was true, but it fails Wikipedia's notability guildelines, specifically WP:NFT; as Jim Douglas pointed out on Scooby's userpage, there was only one google hit, and that was on this encyclopedia. Please understand that there are rules to Wikipedia, and we cannot accept just anything. As to yourself, I would encourage you to try to create a page for your name, however, I'm not sure if even that would pass WP:BIO (you also might want to tread carefully on the Conflict of interest page, should you create it). However, if you think you can prove notability, I encourage you to add the page.

Also, please understand that your nephew was not banned for creating the page; it was for the way he conducted himself afterwards by vandalizing the talk pages of the people who had been involved in removing the page (my conscience is ticking at me; do me a favor and please don't get mad at him if you didn't know about this before; I wouldn't have written it if I thought you might). The official reason was a bad user name, which only holds some water (I don't think he was trying to impersonate anyone), but I suspect it had more to do with the vandalism. If your nephew were to appeal the block, he may or may not win, so long as he showed remorse, and promised to act in good faith from here on.

Finally, if you're still seeking answers, I encourage you to look at the log history of the Bradley Smith Good Luck Tokens page, and you can contact the administrator who removed it, as he can look on the actual contents of the page. He can also give a more official voice to Wikipedia than myself. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied back to this under your discussion page for September in the article entitled "Bradford Smith Good Luck Tokens", in case you are wondering -Bradford N. Smith

Thanks. It's usually better to just respond right to the talk page, and to respond to the end of it (that's OK though - it's not like we hold it against you). I don't have time to say much, but basically, ScoobyDoo didn't show us the information that you've showed us (e.g., the part about you having an imdb entry); he certainly didn't mention that these things helped you get on Letterman. If you could provide some sort of reference, this would help out greatly. I would mention more about notability concerns, but I have to get going. Thanks for your time. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living people[edit]

Hi Mr. Smith, Pat Stuart is unavailable, and he asked me to follow up with you. As I recall, the issue was that the article was not sourced. There are about 4,000 new articles created on Wikipedia on a daily basis; half of them are deleted (either immediately, or after a few days of review) because they fail one or more of our guidelines. The specific issue in this case was that the article included no references, and we were unable to confirm the facts of the article through verifiable third-party sources. The overall guidelines can be found here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The specific problem with the original article was with this guideline: Wikipedia:Verifiability. The gist of the policy is explained in this sentence:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

If Franklin rewrites the article, being sure to cite sources that can be cross-checked by other editors, then the article will be less likely to be immediately deleted, as it was last time. To be completely honest, we still can't guarantee that it won't be deleted...but without verifiable references, it definitely will be.

Please feel free to follow up with me on anything at all. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:1 vs 100.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:1 vs 100.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial use of Image:Bradley Bolke.jpg[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Bradley Bolke.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Bradley Bolke.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Bradley Bolke.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:FilmFestivalPoster.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:FilmFestivalPoster.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey There[edit]

Hey there, I have put a template on the top page asking for sources. Other users will eventually take a look at the article and see if the movie rules are truth or not. I have asked for sources on all the material. Good luck. Chaldean (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bradford and John.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bradford and John.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. rootology (C)(T) 22:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Teddy Infuhr[edit]

The article Teddy Infuhr has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references in article, but article was created before March 18, 2010.

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. Delta13C (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]