User talk:SunriseInBrooklyn/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Happypillsjr, you are invited to the Teahouse
Speedy deletion nomination of Nick Merico
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 Nick Merico 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 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 "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. reddogsix (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Copyright issues
I've deleted the article Paola Andino as you copied it almost verbatim from her IMDB page. This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding copyright; when you write about a subject it must be in your own words. Another major issue with using IMDB is that it does not meet reliable sourcing criteria for biographical data, so even if there were no copyright issues you should still not be using it as a basis for creating a BLP. Finally, please ensure the individuals you are creating articles on meet notability guidelines. In most cases actors need to have had significant roles in multiple notable projects with coverage in independent (not IMDB!) sources to meet notability standards.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
June 2014
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Danielle Morrow. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
December 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Judge Judy. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Diffs: [1][2] I'm not quite sure what you are attempting to do, but you are adding edit request templates to this talk page 1) when there is no actual edit request 2) on a comment that is one year old. Please experiment in your sandbox instead of on this talk page. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
March 2015
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:The Fairly OddParents, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Diff: [3] Article talk pages are not sandboxes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Ways to improve Skylan Brooks
Hi, I'm Newrunner769. Happypillsjr, thanks for creating Skylan Brooks!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Add some for main content to the intro.
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. Newrunner769 (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The article Skylan Brooks has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created 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. Jbh (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
April 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Unblocked 8 April 2015
SunriseInBrooklyn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm doing my best to creating Skylan Brooks but I need to do be professional.
Decline reason:
Considering that the majority of your edits are totally unconstructive, and that you show no sign whatever of taking notice of messages about the problems, it seems to me that the only thing about this block that might be subject to review is that it is for so short a time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New York you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Happypillsjr -- Happypillsjr (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hapypillsjr, you are not allowed to both nominate an article at GAN and also review it. As nominator, it will be your task to respond to the independent review made by someone other than the nominator. While I'm sure you feel that the article should be a Good Article, there are specific criteria that articles must meet in order to qualify, and the reviewer will examine the article to see whether it meets them. If it does, or is reasonably close—there's usually at least a few things that need fixing in terms of prose—then it will be up to you to make those fixes. If it does not fulfill the criteria and is not close to doing so, the article will not pass.
- Because you aren't eligible to review this nomination, I'm going to request that the review page be deleted. The nomination will be put back into the reviewing pool, and someone will be along eventually to undertake the review, at which point a message like the one above will appear on this page. Best of luck with the eventual review! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The article New York you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:New York for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Law & Order: Special Victims Unit you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Happypillsjr -- Happypillsjr (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Law & Order GA nomination
Happypillsjr, it looks like you started a review of your own Good Article nomination, which isn't supposed to happen. Someone else needs to open and conduct the review. I've arranged for the review page to be deleted, so someone else can start the review, which I hope happens soon. There's a GA Cup competition starting late next week, so I expect the number of reviews to increase then. Best of luck! If you have any questions, just ask. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
The article Law & Order: Special Victims Unit you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
The article Law & Order: Special Victims Unit you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
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) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article IPhone 6 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Happypillsjr -- Happypillsjr (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Happypillsjr, as the nominator of this article at GAN, you are not also allowed to be the reviewer, which is what you've done by creating this page.
What you're effectively doing is blocking a potential reviewer from ever reviewing this nomination by opening your own review.
There are two ways to fix this. The first is to ask for this review page to be speedily deleted. If you don't know how to do this, I'll be happy to submit the request for you: just let me know here and I'll have it taken care of. (I'll also have deleted that oddly named review page that you created the other day.) Thanks. If you have any questions about the GA nomination and review process, I'll be happy to answer them. There's also a basic GA nominations instruction page you will want to read if you haven't already, and the GA criteria page as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Adding: you should never need to edit the WP:GAN page. The bot rebuilds it each time, based on the GA nominee templates on article talk pages. Your recent edit there has already been superseded, and the changes to your sig there undone. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Happypillsjr, this is the second message you've received since April 2015 about a having a potential conflict of interest, since you've twice nominated articles you've created for GA status. Do you understand why this is problematic and why you shouldn't do it? Please understand that I expect an answer otherwise I'll have to decide whether or not, in my estimation, you are competent to edit here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb, what Happypillsjr has done—for the third time this year, as it happens, not just twice—is nominate an article for GA status (which is allowed whether the user created the article or not), and then turned around and opened a review of the nomination, which is clearly against the rules since there's a definite conflict of interest in reviewing your own nomination. This has been explained each time. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The article IPhone 6 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:IPhone 6 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Numbermaniac -- Numbermaniac (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of L (New York City Subway service)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article L (New York City Subway service) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Happypillsjr -- Happypillsjr (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of L (New York City Subway service)
The article L (New York City Subway service) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:L (New York City Subway service) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Happypillsjr -- Happypillsjr (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Please stop nominating articles for GA and FA review
Hi there, I'm afraid that in my capacity as an admin, I need to ask you to stop nominating articles for GA and FA review for the foreseeable future, since it does not appear to other editors or myself that you understand what a good article and a featured article should look like. As a result, you're creating problematic nominations, which needlessly creates more work for editors to undo, like here and your nomination of L (New York City Subway service). Both articles lack adequate sourcing throughout, which would be a tip-off that either article is not yet ready for GA or FA evaluation. Please find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Family Feud
Please stop adding a timeline graphic showing host tenure to the Family Feud article. The information is already described in the #Hosts and announcers section. Additionally, in your edits, you added subsection coding that caused "===== Timeline =====" to display on the page. AldezD (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Chew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clinton Kelly. 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) 11:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Warriors (film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Warriors (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Happypillsjr -- Happypillsjr (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Per the comments of administrator Cyphoidbomb above, and your failure once again to follow GA instructions by opening a review on your own nomination, I am removing this nomination from the article, and once again arranging to delete the improper review page. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)