User talk:Smjwalsh

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome...

Hello, Smjwalsh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Bobak 20:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects:

You can direct a page to another page if there are either multiple spellings or other reason for more than one version. All you need to do is replace the article's text with #REDIRECT [[Target article for redirect]]. I noticed the problem with Phineas F. Bresee and Phineas Bresee. --Bobak 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing Joseph Pomeroy Widney article

I've uprated it to 'B', cannot assess any higher as it would have to go through A-class review department or Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates. It's one of the longest articles I've ever seen, with a lot of sections from soures copied in. Would be good to create more links rather than reams of non-linked writing and, at the risk of sounding superficial would be nice to include some more pictures e.g. graphics. It would also be a good idea to make it more navigable/manageable, don't know if it would a good idea to hive-off some material into separate articles, there are also some tools for changing the way in references are presented e.g. the way it's done in David Cameron. Well done if you were the person who added all the material! Please make sure it's not original research or copyrighted. Tom 14:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smjwalsh, there are a few problems with your otherwise excellent article concerning Joseph Pomeroy Widney. The primary problem is that the article is far too long. It exceeds any other biographical article on Wikipedia by an order of magnitude. Please look over Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style for more information. The normal target size for Wikipedia articles is around 30-50K. The Joseph Pomeroy Widney article is currently 179K. Another problem is the extended bibliographies. The bibliography of Widney's works needs to be renamed "List of works" to conform with Wikipedia conventions. It should be limited to his most notable works rather than being an exhaustive list. The lists of books, etc, that are related to Widney needs to be replaced with a list consisting solely of the works used as references for the article. This section should preferably be named "References". You can also create a small list called "Additional reading" or "Further reading", but those lists are not encouraged in Wikipedia articles. I'll make a couple edits to get you started on these revisions. If you implement the suggestions above and reduce the article length significantly, I have little doubt that this could become a featured article. Let me know if you have any questions. Kaldari 22:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source citations

Thanks for all your numerous edits to Church of the Nazarene! It would make it easier on us all, though, if you added your sources as referenced rather than in-text numbered links. I can get you some info. on how to do this, if you like. Just let me know! Take care, Smjwalsh. Aepoutre (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of William Ament

A tag has been placed on William Ament 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BigDunc^Talk 20:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy tag I added to give you more time to establish notability. BigDunc^Talk 21:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Ament and Mark Twain

I came across the William Ament article and was very impressed. Ament's story is part of the Boxer Rebellion story. But it seems to me that the material on Mark Twain should be a separate article. Do you have plans in this respect? Would you object? ch (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I only came across Ament's name this morning, and after seeing no WP article, believed he needed. The Mark Twain material established Ament's notability, as it is the focus of his two most vituperative anti-imperialistic articles. To remove the Twain material would almost certainly remove the need for the Ament article. I plan to at least put some reference to the Ament-Twain controversy in the main Twain article.smjwalsh (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that the article has been tagged for deletion! I'll make a quick edit which I hope will help but which you might want to edit. ch (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion tag was placed on just after I created the account and quickly removed after the creation of the first paragraph. Thanks for your edits.smjwalsh (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for creating the Ament page -- I didn't realize the history of the "delete" and am much relieved. My suggestion was NOT to delete the Twain material, but to create a new page where it would be more prominent. Obviously we would leave a brief version on the Ament page, with a link (one of the criteria for the importance of an article is the number of links).

BTW, I agree with an earlier comment that the length of Wikipedia articles should summarize knowledge for the reader, not present too much for the reader to take in. I've sometimes had to rein in my own enthusiasm as well. But the Ament article is in danger of turning into a documentary history, not a summary. So my impression is that the Ament article should be boiled down, replacing the blocks of direct quotations with a few choice quotes.

I agree with your opinion. My method seems to be to gather excess information, and then start the boiling down process (or allow others that privilege :)) I sometimes leave certain block quotes from hard to find primary sources.smjwalsh (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could put the time into new articles? For instance, I can't find an article on the "Oberlin Band," which to my mind is a more important topic.

I have other research interests that I should be pursuing, so I do not imagine I will put much more effort into this article for a little while. Another one of my methods is to let the article settle for a while, and allow me sufficient perspective to rigorously pare it down. I agree the Oberlin Band would be worth researching.smjwalsh (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I seem too forward. ch (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer direct communication, especially as it is both constructive and helpful.smjwalsh (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my comments are constructive and helpful, and appreciative too! ch (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in China

Hello Smjwalsh,

You might be interested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Christianity in China work group. Just a friendly invite so that more folks could get involved. Thanks.Brian0324 (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. I have joined - I think. smjwalsh (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:SKHine.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SKHine.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sasikiran (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:HGTA Shea Sheet Music.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:HGTA Shea Sheet Music.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:New Century Hymnal 1995.gif

Thanks for uploading File:New Century Hymnal 1995.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of cricket

I think you should see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Cricket invented in Belgium? and take a few steps back with regard to this new "theory". It is evident from reading the cricket history articles that the Flemish involvement in early cricket had already been acknowledged. I would also refer you to this site where you will see that the author has acknowledged the "find" but has put it into its proper perspective. As he says, the jury is still out.

Thank you for your comments. I just read the relevant discussion. Of course, it was not written when I made my contribution. While the new insertion I made was no doubt too long in relation to the rest of the section, it was certainly NPOV and presents it as a theory (not definitive).(smjwalsh (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Your edits have unbalanced the history section of Cricket and, as one contributor to the project's talk page says, there is now more about this latest fad than about the whole of the 19th century or the whole of the 20th century.

I see where you are comiing from.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I am also bemused by your reversion of my edit to History of cricket to 1725. You had duplicated and even triplicated the information about Herr Gilmeister and adversely affected the readability of the article. I realise you have since made further amendments but your reversion seems to me to be a breach of WP:AGF. I think you have overstated this newspaper story and I would suggest that the proper way to treat it is in 1301 to 1700 in sports. --Orrelly Man (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised at the wholesale deletion of a section that not only included the duplication and triplication of Gilmeister, but other information that was not redundant. Easiest way was to revert and then effect the substantial changes you indicated. No disrespect was intended. You will see that revert was immediately followed by my edits to closely approximate your intention.

I'm not sure that I over-stated anything, I merely included what was reported and let Gilmeister and Eddowes speak for themselves. Perhaps they are over-stating the case, which is why it was categorised as a theory. (smjwalsh (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Image tagging for File:AstorHouseHotel1870s.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AstorHouseHotel1870s.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 "Edit this 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) 15:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Google Earth Astor.png

Thanks for uploading File:Google Earth Astor.png. 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 "Edit this 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) 15:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Astor House Logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Astor House Logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:AstorHouseDining1.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:AstorHouseDining1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Astor House Shanghai 1912.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Astor House Shanghai 1912.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 "Edit this 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) 16:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Astor House 1886.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Astor House 1886.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 "Edit this 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) 16:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COTN

Hey, I noticed this. Seems we reverted different bits at the same time. :-) With regards to your edit summary, I'd agree but also say that it simply wasn't necessary to remove the infobox parameter, especially without explanation. It's not as if the article is overly long. Cheers! --King of the Arverni (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to fix previous edits that left info box scrambled. I was not aware that I removed the info box parameter.(smjwalsh (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You didn't; you re-added it (from what I saw), as you should have. I was commending you. Well done. (-: --King of the Arverni (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My guess is previous editor left some unintended consequences.(smjwalsh (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure why they felt such a need to delete the parameter in the first place, which is why I re-added it. Thanks again! --King of the Arverni (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Howard Hoople

On August 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Howard Hoople, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen Carlson and The Daily Show

You inserted the bit about The Daily Show in the Carlson article so I figured you might like to join the debate now:

Talk:Gretchen_Carlson#Jon_Stewart_comments_of_December_8.2C_2009

--Louiedog (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alma White

I formatted the two references you added to Alma White to correct the error added by User:Cathar11. In this format I need the direct quote from the long article on Godbey. I will look for it and add it when I find it, but if you find it first, please add it. Other people are against using the quote function, but this is a perfect example. User:Cathar11 claims the article says that Godbey isn't an elder, but doesn't provide a quote from the article. You add the proper quote and the question is settled. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a direct quote, but rather a summary of facts from Hamilton's book, which I accessed through Google Books in snippet form. I am a fan of the quote function. Hamilton's book is quite explicit that Godbey was both an ordained elder, and a presiding elder. Godbey had as much authority to ordain White as Wesley himself who was an ordained presbyter/priest in the Church of England, and yet ordained Coke and Asbury.(smjwalsh (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

OK, I see you removed the quote parameter, I just restored it. I will remove it again and format your comment as a note. See if you can find a quote from one of the articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that is do-able.(smjwalsh (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Are you going to contribute to the Godbey article? It is just a stub now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in time. I have ordered Hamilton's book, so will await its arrival.(smjwalsh (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:MembershipGrowth09.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:MembershipGrowth09.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astor House

Lots of neat stuff -- but far too long for just one article. Might you consider either breaking out smaller articles and wikilinking to them, or pruning some of the minutiae which are interesting enough, but not essential for the reader to know? Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have been thinking of doing just what you are suggesting. Probably divide it into the Main Article, History of the Astor House, and then articles on Guests and Residents. As it stands, more than 50% is reference support. I need to remove duplications in the footnotes, abbreviate some of the references. I'm getting close to finishing and will start pruning and dividing after that.(smjwalsh (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I would actually prefer you do the dividing - I tend to cut a bit -- and I would like to honor your understanding of what is, and is not, important. This is not really an article where folks will pick apart the references, to be sure. In order to keep all the history intact bewteen the new articles, you might ask an admin to make copies of the page with the new names - then edit each of them down, and wikilink the new names to the article you keep with this name? Perhaops a short overview of its history and history since 1954 ("modern history"?), a broken-out "history to 1954" linked, "Notable Guests" (losing the "unconfirmed" ones as not really adding a lot to the article?) and pruning the references a bit would work? Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to do the dividing (creating new articles) as I have done previously with other long articles I have worked on. I have had communication from a WP lurker regarding some of my edits. He has thoroughly critiqued some edits. His concerns have been reasonable. Apparently he is working on a scholarly book on The Bund. Over-referencing may be a reaction to those enquiries. However, I am looking to reduce both the number, as well as their content through use of abbreviations and short reference cites. As I see it, the Main article would include all of the sections, but in summary form where there is a separate article. I am doing that with biography articles spun off from this article. As the biography article is created and fleshed out, the content in the main article is reduced commensurately. Unconfirmed guests is an attempt to respond to claims by the PR department of the hotel, and the multiplication of those claims in various media eg Lonely Planet, Frommers, newspaper articles etc. It has been interesting to me my own edits show up in other publications almost word for word.(smjwalsh (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Too heck with PR departments <g>. Let's whip this too long article into shape, right? Collect (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of last night (my time), article was just over 250K in length or just over 37,000 words (translates to 59 pages using PDF download facility), of which there was 20,000 words of content and 17,000 words of reference material. I have started dividing process. Created 2 history articles (1844-1858) and (1858-1959), and will create another (1959 onwards). Will probably need to divide 1858-1959 article into 3: (1858-1900), (1900-1922) and (1922-1959), as these represent ownership changes. I have created List of residents and guests article, and removed same from main article (reducing size by 20% of total). I believe the references can be reduced significantly and will work on them. There are more challenges and work involved than I initially expected so I would appreciate time to divide and shift material. However, I believe it would be OK to start reducing History section of main article until Pujiang Hotel/1959 and onwards section.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

History of the Astor House Hotel, Shanghai 1844 to 1858

Hi. I'm curious why this article isn't title Astor House Hotel (Shanghai)? And I think the Astor House Hotel article should be disambiguated? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Yesterday I put this very topic on the talk page. When I first encountered the WP article last year, it was named as it is currently. I will wait for a few more days and if there is no objection, will rename the article Astor House Hotel (Shanghai).(smjwalsh (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi Smjwalsh -- I notice you uploaded this picture a couple of months ago and give the source only as a newspaper article. Could you please provide a few more details such as (at the very least) which newspaper, date, and page number? Other details such as the name of the article and author(if known) of the article would be helpful too but are less important. As things stand, there isn't enough information there to verify the copyright status of the image. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Angle/Larry Norman

Hi Smjwalsh. While I've no problem with the changes you've recently made, the failed angle is subject of discussion. Currently there seems to be quite a lot of interest(!) in "Failed Angel". There's also some opinion differences in the current editors of the Larry Norman article. May I respectfully ask that you consider contributing to the discussion before making changes. Thanks Matthewdjb (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the discussion and am following it closely. As there was nothing remotely controversial in my changes, I acted BOLDLY and made the necessary changes.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I need to go to bed. Could you please stop editing the Stonehill section. I just lost nearly an hour of editing to two conflicts. I need to fix some issues with that section. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your request but this is a most unusual request. I'm sorry you lost your changes. I know how frustrating that can be. I have a few more changes to make before I take a break. As I am in Australia, and there are many hours time difference, I think it best for me to do what I planned, allow you to sleep, and you can edit as you see fit once I have a more settled version for you.

(smjwalsh (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. I'm done now. Fortunately I have some tools that allow me to merge changes together, albeit external to Wikipedia. I needed to clarify the differing points of view around the end of Randy's first marriage. Larry and his biographer seem to be at odds with the first-hand accounts in Fallen Angel. I really appreciate how you're fleshing-out the rest of the section. You're a very good and dedicated editor. Feel free to add whatever information you can to other Jesus music artists. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your tireless improvement through the addition of sources and other material to the Larry Norman article. Please keep up the good work! Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collective noun having singular form of verb

I noticed you recently edited Little Anthony and the Imperials‎, changing "Little Anthony and the Imperials are a rhythm and blues/soul/doo-wop vocal group..." to "Little Anthony and the Imperials is a rhythm and blues/soul/doo-wop vocal group...", with the edit summary "Rules of English grammar require collective noun to have singular form of verb, therefore 'Is' not 'are')". I agree with you for American English, but British English (and most other variants of English) use the plural form of the verb with a collective noun. So you will see that all non-U.S. band articles use are. However, you will see that most Wikipedia references to U.S. bands also use are (and other plural forms such as were and they). If you look at the edit histories of these articles, you may see multiple revisions changing back and forth between singular and plural forms. So I think you are fighting a losing battle; don't be surprised if someone eventually reverts the edit and similar edits to other articles you may have made. --hulmem (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say something like that. The whole BrE/AmE thing is a pain - I dunno why we can't just mix 'em all up... Rothorpe (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. As an Australian, I was educated in the intricacies of British grammar, and so can advise that the rule applies in both Australia and other British English countries. Through voracious reading I am familiar with the American variant:) Grammatically I am correct, but realise that common usage would be "are". It will be interesting toi see how quickly it is reverted.(smjwalsh (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Further to the above, the WP article: [1] is interesting, but not sourced.(smjwalsh (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

WP indicates that an article on a topic (eg biography) related to a particular nation should use the grammar and spelling of that nation. "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:HEAD#National_varieties_of_English(smjwalsh (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

I know. Isn't it a frightful bore? Rothorpe (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consequently, an article on an American band or singing group eg Little Anthony and the Imperials should conform to American English grammar conventions.(smjwalsh (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I agree, and I've tried that (Beach Boys, etc.) but someone invariably reverts the edit back to the plural form. It just isn't important so I quickly gave up. I guess I was trying to alert you that you have an uphill battle. I think the root of the issue is that to many people, one way "sounds" right and the other way "sounds" wrong. Based on an informal look at a number of articles, the empirical consensus seems to be to use the plural form, right or wrong. --hulmem (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both your sentiment and prognosis.(smjwalsh (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Astor House Hotel 1927.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Astor House Hotel 1927.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Norman References

SMJ - On Talk:Larry Norman you have recently added

"There seems to be a way to consolidate references also, which would reduce article length considerably"

I'm not sure if you are saying you don't know how to do this? If not, then instead of starting the reference with just <ref> start with <ref name="XXX"> where XXX is a short memorable title, and complete the reference as usual. When you want to re-use the same reference just use <ref name="XXX"/> If you knew this - sorry for trying to teach you to suck eggs. Arjayay (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was not familiar with the process only with the product.(smjwalsh (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Related to this edit, where's the new article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just found it. Perhaps a brief paragraph or two in the LN article with a main tag is appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just about to direct you to the new page. Will add the appropriate tag ASAP. As we are both fans of Randy Stonehill, perhaps we can work together to ensure the new article is fair and even-handed.(smjwalsh (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

I'm interested in assisting in creating new articles to help weed this page down. I don't have any stake in it, just saw somewhere I might be useful in growing my wiki-editing skills. So if you have suggestions of pages that can be culled out, let me know. I'll spend some time with the article later today and see if I can come up with something on my own.Tuxhedoh (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind offer. I plan to do it probably next week. From my experience premature separation ends up creating extra work - double handling some data. One area that I will need to shift is the People! section, but as there is already an existing People! WP article, It will require time and skill to integrate it. Can I get back to you if I need help?(smjwalsh (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Get back to me... that's fine.Tuxhedoh (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petra ref

I edited your addition to the Petra (band) article and the "owner" of the article decided to remove it completely. Feel free to restore your version or my edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "heads up".(smjwalsh (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Removing Maintenance Tags on Larry Norman

I did not place them there as a joke nor to be humorous. They were placed there because the article needs improving. Removing tags like this are viewed as vandalism. Please improve the article and request that the templates be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see article talk page.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preview

Please allow me to introduce you to the Show preview button. I'm concerned that your multiple minor edits will cause the Christian rock‎ article to load slowly as has happened with Larry Norman. I would appreciate if you would take the time to make your changes all-at-once rather than one-at-a-time, particularly when they're all to the same section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phydeaux Records

Hi, Since this record company fails WP:CORP in that it has no coverage of it's own (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), has only one artist Larry Norman (as far as I can see), and the Larry Norman artical has a section on it I don't see the issue. Codf1977 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand how you arrived at your conclusion after momentarily dropping in on this article. There is an extended discussion on the Larry Norman talk pages relating to that article's length and the consensus that sub-articles be created. Consequently the Phydeaux Records article was one of the sub-articles created. The Phydeaux material on the Larry Norman article is slated for reduction and summarisation. While Norman was the primary artist on the label, there is an extensive discography to include. See, for example, [2]. As the label is now defunct. a current google search probably won't reveal too much. Additionally, it was probably the first mail order indie label in the Christian Rock /CCM genre.(smjwalsh (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Sorry but I don't see that the answer to the problem is to create articles on non-notable companies - if you need to reduce and summarise the section in the main article then do that but unless you can show Phydeaux Records meets WP:CORP then it should be redirected to Larry Norman as per WP:BEFORE. Codf1977 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, reviewing WP:CORP, there are various secondary sources that reference Phydeaux. See Randall Herbert Balmer, Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism (Westminster John Knox Press, 2002):411f; John J. Thompson, Raised by Wolves: The Story of Christian Rock & Roll (ECW Press, 2000); W. K. McNeil, Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music (Routledge, 2005); Pat Browne, The Guide to United States Popular Culture (Popular Press, 2001); Barry Alfonso, The Billboard Guide to Contemporary Christian Music (Billboard Books, 2002); Don Cusic, Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music: Pop,Rock, and Worship (ABC-CLIO, 2009)(smjwalsh (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

I think that is the issue - when you say "secondary sources that reference Phydeaux" - that does not meet WP:CORP - they need to cover Phydeaux, not just "report" on record releases. Codf1977 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The six secondary sources identified above discuss the creation of Phydeaux, its development, and demise, and do not report on record releases at all. I will enhance the notability rationale within the next 24 hours.(smjwalsh (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thats fine, if that that is the case - otherwise it will need to be a re-direct. Codf1977 (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absent that notability rationale - I have re-redirected the article. Codf1977 (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of songs recorded by Larry Norman

I have nominated List of songs recorded by Larry Norman, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Larry Norman. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. If you can be more specific in identifying the areas where there is too much specificity, I am willing to attempt to address them editorially.(smjwalsh (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Captain Mikey

Sir, I am impressed with what you did to the Captain Mikey article I started yesterday. By the way, I did start it after seeing your article about Larry Norman (who you know Captain Mikey managed and produced) on AfD yesterday. I had no plan to do this, but sources started popping up to the point that I figured I should make it public. I would have guessed from as far away as you are that you wouldn't have had the interest in an American radio hero, but you found things I never would have known to look for and made the article so much better. Wikipedia would be so much better if there were more editors like you out there to help the cause. I wish I knew how to issue a barnstar, because you deserve it.Trackinfo (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. It is encouraging to receive positive feedback especially when there are those who do very little but delete, criticise, and then try to have articles you created removed. Captain Mikey has been on my radar for a while from his involvement with People! and Larry Norman, two articles that I have worked on extensively. I'm a firm believer in the idea of Wikipedia and value collaboration and cooperation. As regards barnstars. I think you award them the way one adds userboxes - find one and paste on the recipient's user page.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Re: Silvertone (Selfridges)

You are welcome. This morning, I was talking with Lugnuts when I saw the AfD for Silvertone Records on his talk page. I moved up the "See also" section and did few minor edits on it. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re List of songs recorded by Larry Norman

Thanks for the comments on the essays. One always wonders if anyone ever reads them. I am pleased you found them useful and trust you will find ways to apply them productively.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:LN Mic.jpg

File:LN Mic.jpg file is on the chopping block because the person who uploaded the file didn't have the rights to and requested that Charles provide the information. Charles still hasn't provided a release. If you have any way to contact either to prevent this from happening, it would be appreciated. Feel free to see the discussion at File talk:LN Mic.jpg. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Prudence Olive Tracy Wedge 1912.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Prudence Olive Tracy Wedge 1912.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) 00:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tip on repeated references to same source

I see you've made lots of improvements to Fanny Crosby, it seems a bit late to bring this up, but it it possible to share a single citation multiple times rather than repeating it, I did one here. Copying from an older note about another article,

Hi, just a tip that may save someone some work later – when adding multiple references (as in Albert Gonzalez) to the same news article, you can use the "name" parameter in the <ref> of the first use of the citation, thus: <ref name=MH0822>, then later on instead of repeating the same citation over and over, just say <ref name=MH0822 /> (note trailing slash) to cite the same reference. Some of the other cites in the Albert Gonzales article already use this method.

Best, --CliffC (talk)

Rather as suggested in User talk:Smjwalsh#Larry_Norman_References above Arjayay (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I was going to deal with multiple cites later through use of the AWB process.smjwalsh (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Crosby

Hi, I note your comment above about sorting some things out later. This is creating a lot of work. For the second time in a few days I have had to spend an hour or so fixing errors on the page that caused the article to be listed in the maintenance lists. A few tips:

start using edit summaries - actually, not a tip as you can and should be warned for not doing so
before you finish a session, check towards the bottom of the page for errors relating to references (they will be in big red bold font). If there are errors then please fix them because you are nearer to the action & will most likely find the problem faster than some random editor who turns up to deal with the issue
you may find it easier to use cite templates as these will go a long way towards avoiding the refs errors you keep creating. I've added a few in the further reading section by way of example, and there is a list of them on my user page, together with links to the relevant template articles. For now, I've had to move the reflist below the Further Reading section, which is not how things should be laid out but was the only way to quickly resolve the issue. "Quickly" being a relative term here.

I'm also going to be tagging the article because it is now way too long. I'm not yet sure how to resize it in a manner that enhances rather than works against it but, one way or another, I think that it needs splitting. I'll have a think.

All of the above intended constructively. I do appreciate the massive effort that you have put into this article. - Sitush (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive comments and constructive tips/suggestions. I regret any unnecessary time you had to spend on this article due to my work habits. I will:

include edit summary - question: are they always necessary?
I noticed reference error message sometime ago but could not locate problem after a diligent search. As you can imagine, given the length of the article, it is easy to not see such warnings. I will endeavour to look in the future.
I find using cite templates harder and take longer, and only minimally reduce number of citations, as I often quote from many different pages in a book. I understand that some editors prefer that approach, but that current method is acceptable, as are others. While I understand it has the potential to create the cite error you rectified, I think if I am more diligent in checking error messages more frequently, it may obviate the situation. I am aware of perhaps 3-4 such errors on this article previously. If there were more, again sorry for that.
Thanks for refering me to your user page for helpful templates.
Regarding length. It is long, and can/will be divided later in process as I have with some oither long articles I have created. I find it best to do at the end of the creation process (which is very close to conclusion), as it avoids duplication of work. Tagging article is appropriate. smjwalsh (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding length: As I suspected article is at upper limit of recommended length. However, readable prose is 107kB, with the references being approximately 45% of total article size.

Prose size (including all HTML code): 210 kB
References (including all HTML code): 96 kB
Prose size (text only): 107 kB (18235 words) "readable prose size"smjwalsh (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consolidated some citations using Reflinks earlier today. However, one of the reasons why the References section is so large is because they are still not fully consolidated, eg: page 311 of one citation appears several times. Furthermore, I think that you are perhaps being a little too pedantic in your manner of citing. If you make some statements based on the content of page 311, some that are on 311 & 312, & some more that are solely on 312 then it seems pedantic (to me): specify a page range for the entire group, pages=311-312. I think that you can credit the reader with a little sense and patience.

I agree on the need to consolidate references and there seems to be several ways to do it. In my academic research, where one can use ibids and op cits, it takes care of length issues. I too tend to be pedantic on cites since editing on WP. My usual practice would be to consolidate all sources in one footnote at the end of a paragraph, but WP seems to prefer sources individually. Also, I have edited other WP articles where chapter and verse is needed for every single edit.smjwalsh (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing this will not only massively reduce the references list, the size of which seems to me to be grotesque, but probably also decrease page load times because the software will not have to parse so many variations. The latter point is a guess, but an educated one based on quite a bit of professional programming experience.

It may be as you say about page load speed. WP seems to prefer more references than less, but I'm sure there can be too much of a good thing:)smjwalsh (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really is a fantastic piece of scholarship but something has to give because I suspect that most readers will be completely overwhelmed by it. Indeed, a GAN reviewer for one of my articles reckoned that article was on the large & complex size, despite the guidelines you refer to above it being maybe 33% of the size of Fanny Crosby. The article, not the person!

Thanbks again for the scholarship. While I edit all kinds of articles, and have created many that are quite small, I like to create quality articles for "deserving subjects", especially those slightly off the beaten path. Here's my take. Casual readers will find most of what they need about the subject in the lead. More interested readers, will look at specific sections. Most Christian readers will probably look at her bio details and the hymn section, but there is so much more to this subject unknown to both the hoi polloi (including me). There is a lot of erroneous, incomplete, and inadequate informatiojn scattered throughout the internet. Even the best, most scholarly biography (Blumhofer) misses stuff. I imagine the article will be split into "Hymns of Fanny Crosby", "Poetry of Fanny Crosby", "Popular Songs of Fanny Crosby", another on her career as a rescue worker, etc that will reduce the actual length of the main article. I do have a plan in mind and have done the same in other articles that have been as long as this one.smjwalsh (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for edit summaries, well, we all forget from time to time. As I understand it, the rule is that they should be used always. However, check the link I gave above if you do not fancy being consistent about it. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read the edit summary article. While it does say they should be used always, it also seems to suggest their use primarily in contentious edits, or when one is removing or changing the work of another editor, which I invariably do. As I tend to work away from the public glare until an article jumps into the top 50 of lengthy articles, and very few watch my articles, and because I make anywhere from 600 to 2,000 edits on these mega-articles, I have tended not to bother, and have rarely been called on it in these situations. I cannot recall a time when one of my 16,000 edits have been mis-identified as vandalism. Thank you for your courtesy in dialoguing and your contributions to WP.smjwalsh (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Fanny Crosby. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

I see you just reversed my edit, removing some of the overlinking at Larry Norman. Despite admitting that there was overlinking; you just reversed the lot. WP:Overlink is quite specific - to quote some relevant sections:-

What generally should not be linked

Avoid linking plain English words.
Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, and common professions.
As a rule of thumb, link on first reference only.

Lead section

Too many links can make the lead hard to read

An example article

Do not link to the "United States", because that is an article on a very broad topic

Common words like "singer" should not, therefore, be linked

Although the guideline says religions should not be linked, I left "Christian" as it is important to the article, but reduced the number of occurances.

I reduced repeated links to the same article e.g. Christian music, Jesus Movement, Capitol Records, People!

I therefore, politely, request that you undo your reversion, and, if there are one or two items you sincerely feel need multiple links you can insert these, manually, yourself.

Arjayay (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments with interest and the relevant WP article. I apologise for reversing the lot but could not find a quick and convenient way to reverse some. I should not have done so, but was not aware of the over-linking guideliness and could not see the harm in the 15-20 links you de-linked. I just tried to undo my edit but could not, getting this message: "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits". So if you can, please do so with the assurance it won't be reverted by me. I appreciate your comments and the way you communicated them.smjwalsh (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prudence Olive Tracy Wedge 1912.jpg needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Prudence Olive Tracy Wedge 1912.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|Smjwalsh}} will produce an appropriate expansion,

or the {{own}} template..

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Di Sabatino for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Di Sabatino 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/David Di Sabatino 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Errant ^(chat!) 20:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent edit

This edit was well-done! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had something similar when article was first created. I have both editions of DDS's bibliography and have appreciated his writings over the years. I have always tried to be fair to him prefering to discuss his work than the other stuff that people focus on.smjwalsh (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Early life of Fanny Crosby

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Early life of Fanny Crosby. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Fanny Crosby. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Fanny Crosby - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Rescue Mission Ministry of Fanny Crosby

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Rescue Mission Ministry of Fanny Crosby. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Fanny Crosby. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Fanny Crosby - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Sitush (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Burke

We ought to bear in mind that there may well be legal issues arising from his estate, which could be influenced by the legalities of his marriage(s) and legitimacy of his children. It may be better to use words like "... claimed" and "... stated", rather than attempting to set out a definitive position based on possibly unreliable sources. Another obvious point is that any references to living children would be covered by WP:BLP, I think, even if the article isn't about them. Just a couple of thoughts to be borne in mind. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. My practice is to only use verifiable sources. It may well be that what the anon isp includes is accurate, but verification is needed. I'm trying to be as fair as I can and as the verifiable sources allow. Some of the main problems she has are with material that is either from SB himself and was published in his lifetime. He acknowledges 4 marriages, and 21 children. The accusations the anon makes may violate BLP.smjwalsh (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At some point it may be useful to get some input at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - given that, although Burke is deceased, there are clearly references to his living children in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's your wisdom on this matter? What would cross the line?smjwalsh (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Smjwalsh. Thanks for your superb edits on my first article on Wikipedia. Greferjun (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. it was a genuine pleasure. You can improve article by discovering names of his children, mother, middle name, date of ordination, places he pastored.smjwalsh (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. In fact I know the names of his children. Somebody told me that the information about him being the son of Alfonso A. Pablo is not part of his. It must be a different Pablo. I will double check and will remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greferjun (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Mind Garage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Episcopal

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When You Wish upon a Star

Thanks for sourcing that fact! I'll add it to the song page.
Ulmanor (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Article Test Data Generation

Hi, I was writing an article on Test Data Generation. On writing of the article I had gotten a comment to rewrite the lead of the article. Following this even you made some contributions and I too improved it from my side. However, I haven't heard from anybody since and I would appreciate if you could help me sort out the article so that is in good shape and so that I can make any improvements to the article. Gakiwate (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have no knowledge of this or similar subjects and cannot critique the article's content. If no-one has commented, it may be that they are happy with the changes made already.smjwalsh (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay if I take down the Lead Re-write thingy down then? Gakiwate (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me. Let's see what happens.smjwalsh (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. Gakiwate (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Treasures from American Film Archives, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Home movie and Travelogue (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) 10:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Cornell

Thanks for tracking down further information on her birthdate. Because this has been the subject of disputes that have gone on for years, I'd like to fully document all sources. Could you please provide on the article talk page some details of the three ancestry.com references you added? The first appears to be the same one discussed on the talk page, the El Paso county, Texas birth record. What are the other two, and what other information do they provide that we might be able to cross reference? --Ronz (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody That I Used to Know

A discussion has been started at Talk:Somebody That I Used to Know re the presentation of performances in media and the notability of performances on American Idol. Aspirex (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. When you recently edited Jan and Dean, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Surf City and Drag City (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) 10:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Cornell - great work!

Great job on tracking down all those references! I hope we're close to resolving this, but I'm happy to wait for more feedback from BLPN, and perhaps wait for what her office produces in the way of a new bio. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I love a good mystery and have an aversion to people distorting their details for PR purposes.smjwalsh (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Benjamin Harrison

Hi. Thanks for all that material you added to the Richard Benjamin Harrison article. It really helped build it up. I do have a few questions and concerns, if you don't mind my asking:

1. I notice you added a few citations of a publication called The Dispatch, which you indicated is based in North Carolina. I assume that that is this publication, right?

2. I notice that some of the citations of The Dispatch end in a colon and number, such as ":5". Is this the page number of the story?

3. The citations of The Dispatch do not indicate the author or title of the story. Is this information not available? May I ask where you got these stories from? I tried going to the Dispatch website, but could not find them.

4. The paragraph that you added to the top of the Career section, (the one that begins "With only $5,000, in April 1981..."), does not have a citation. Can you add the citation to that one? Nightscream (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for adding those additional citations to the article. Just one thing, though: Although the cite publication info indicates two different obituaries, I think you accidentally cited Ruth's obituary twice, instead of citing hers and Dorothea's once each. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bert Bushnell

On 11 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bert Bushnell, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 1948 Olympics rowing gold medallist Bert Bushnell was involved in the evacuation of Dunkirk during the Second World War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bert Bushnell. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Floyd Cunningham

The article Floyd Cunningham has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have 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 ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job with Donald Owens

That was a huge improvement! Hobit (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.smjwalsh (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of guests and residents of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of guests and residents of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 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/List of guests and residents of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 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 template from the top of the article. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of History of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 1858-1900 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 1858-1900 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/History of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 1858-1900 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. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Richards' Hotel and Restaurant for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richards' Hotel and Restaurant 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/Richards' Hotel and Restaurant 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. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 1922-1959 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 1922-1959 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/Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) 1922-1959 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. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	While doing some reading, I stumbled on your Lois Weber article. One of the best I've read in a long time, great work! Wizardman 21:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying user about missing file description(s) (bot - disable)

File:Shoes 1916 film.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Shoes 1916 film.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 22:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Smjwalsh. You have new messages at Talk:Astor House Hotel (Shanghai).
Message added 15:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John of Reading (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ko Ko Mo (I Love You So) may have broken the syntax by modifying 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ko Ko Mo (I Love You So) 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ko Ko Mo (I Love You So) may have broken the syntax by modifying 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ko Ko Mo (I Love You So) 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ko Ko Mo (I Love You So) may have broken the syntax by modifying 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ko Ko Mo (I Love You So), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mambo (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) 12:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ko Ko Mo (I Love You So), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moonlight in Vermont (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) 12:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robin Clark (Pop singer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 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:

from Bright Hope to Frog Level, Second Serving'' (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2007).; [[http://www3.etsu.edu/etsu/news_text.asp?Action=ListEvent&EventID=5922 "Sauceman publishes second

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robin Clark (Pop singer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

was #1 on Radio station [[WHYN (AM)|WHYN]] in [[Springfield, Massachusetts]] on March 4, 1961.<ref>[http://www.las-solanas.com/arsa/surveys_item.php?svid=7866 "WHYN 560 AM: Springfield, Massachusetts
solanas.com/arsa/surveys_item.php?svid=7866 "WHYN 560 AM: Springfield, Massachusetts Week: 03/04/61).</ref> After Clark appeared on both the [[Bob Clayton]] and Ray Doey shows on Boston's[[WHDH-TV (

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

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.

Robin Clark (Pop singer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Flip side, Tuscaloosa, Jack Keller and WIBG

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill 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/Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill 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. Gamaliel (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Musicals of Larry Norman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Musicals of Larry Norman 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/Musicals of Larry Norman 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. Beerest355 Talk 23:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hound Dog (song)

Smjwalsh: You're right that it would have been nice to talk before reverting your edit; on the other hand, considering the extent of your edits on the Hound Dog (song) page, it would have been nice to talk about some of those changes before you added them, or before re-reverting. As I noted, the new section you added is functionally redundant with an existing (and already oversized) section in the article, and much of the new content is redundant with that of the preexisting section and/or of dubious significance by Wikipedia standards. I don't have a problem with list per se—indeed, I created that list myself for the Leiber & Stoller website discography page (and I am currently working on a massive update with many additions). For my personal and professional interests, the more the merrier. However, for Wikipedia's purposes, perhaps you would consider sandboxing an updated version of the extant discography section instead of dumping a pile of data into a new section on the live page and then "wikifying" afterward. Pstoller (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and the considerate manner in which they were conveyed. As Wikipedians we are encouraged to be BOLD in adding content (as long as it is verifiable), and so did not mean to create any offence by adding the section from the L&S Discography. As indicated, I always intended to pare, wikify, categorise, and consolidate into a more meaningful presentation. The goal will be to reduce the redundancies between the two sections, and eliminate non-notable content. I am comfortable with articles being "in progress", but I suppose others prefer to view the end product rather than view the process. I must confess that I usually work very much in dark corners of WP and rarely get feedback for my edits for some considerable time afterwards. Besides this particular section, are there other edits that you believe required consultation? smjwalsh (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just another comment - you know that the lead is supposed to summarise the article content, and not contain citations itself? I think the guidance needs to be interpreted flexibly, but if you're thinking of putting the article through the GA process at any time, it will need to be addressed. I don't envisage doing any major editing of the article myself, unless I happen to come across worthwhile new sources, but I've given the introductory paragraphs a light copy-edit, mainly to give a little greater weight to the Presley version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I know the lead paragraph(s) establish notability, and summarise the content of the article. Thanks for your suggestions and work you do across the L&S catalogue of articles.smjwalsh (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Thanks again" - the second comment wasn't from me. :)

As for the rest: I appreciate the Wikipedian boldness mandate; it just seems like a lot of addition to what was already an overly-large section. I don't know if Wikipedia has a specific standard for listing covers/remakes in song entries, but it seems to me that, for songs with many versions, such lists should be confined to recordings of historical relevance. Versions that have charted, appeared in hit films, or otherwise had some demonstrable impact should naturally be included. In this specific case, the Thornton and Presley versions (incl. Presley's early TV versions) are clearly essential, and the other pre-Presley versions are also noteworthy (esp. Freddie Bell). On the other hand, the vast majority of the post-Presley versions are not notable of themselves—even if by notable artists. A relative few examples might be selected to demonstrate the range of genres and generations across which the song has been adopted. Otherwise, I think it's enough to note the number of recordings (approaching 600 by my current count).

You didn't "create offense" by copying from the official L&S discography; indeed, that discography exists as a reference point for work such as this, and I'm happy to see someone making use of it. The problem with adding a new section of other versions is simply that there is already a section for that purpose. Beyond that, I don't think most of the data merits inclusion. The L&S list is meant to be comprehensive. In truth, I am grateful for your other discographical entries, as you may have provided some valuable data for the L&S discography. It would benefit me directly if you were to continue. However, I am mindful that the article doesn't exist to serve my needs, and that its discographical section has a different purpose from the official discography.

Beyond the discography, the edits have come at such a pace that it's been difficult for me to parse all the changes. However, at first glance, they seem to have improved the article; and, in any case, the nature of those edits falls well within Wikipedia's mandates as I understand them. I can hardly object to relevant historical info with citations!

In any case, I think further discussion about the appropriate size, scope, and content for the finished discography section belongs on the "Hound Dog" talk page. Perhaps we could copy this discussion there. It may be that most other editors disagree with me; but, either way, they should have the opportunity to weigh in. Pstoller (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hound Dog (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Track Record (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) 11:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hound Dog (song) may have broken the syntax by modifying 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hound Dog (song) may have broken the syntax by modifying 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:

1960; December 1961, #8: Parkway P-7002) ''Your Twist Party'' (December 1961, #2; Parkway P-7007))

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hound Dog (song) 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:

* [[Smiley Lewis]] "Play Girl" ([[Dave Bartholomew|D. Bartholomew) (1953: Imperial 45-5234)<ref>[http://www.globaldogproductions.info/
1960; December 1961, #8: Parkway P-7002) ''Your Twist Party'' (December 1961, #2; Parkway P-7007))

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hound Dog (song) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

* Various Artists ''Living the Blues: Blues Masters'' (1995: Time-Life R859-02 (MCA Special Markets & Products MSD-35882)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hound Dog (song) may have broken the syntax by modifying 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hound Dog (song) may have broken the syntax by modifying 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hound Dog (song) may have broken the syntax by modifying 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hound Dog (song) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Norris Fitkin

Cite error: The named reference autogenerated1932 was invoked but never defined >>> see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Norris_Fitkin&diff=493342056&oldid=493341644 Please fix it thanks --Frze ^{> talk} 14:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add refs

see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Norris_Fitkin&action=history thanks --Frze ^{> talk} 19:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carla Sunberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 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:

com/nphweb/html/ncn/article.jsp?id=10011381 "Glasgow conference commemorates Olive Winchester"], ''NCN News'' (May 16, 2012).</ref><ref>[http://www.ncnnews.com/nphweb/html/ncn/article.jsp?id=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carla Sunberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 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:

2009):6.</ref> Sunberg and her family relocated initially to [[San Francisco, California]],<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8hD2YfiFWM "

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carla Sunberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carla Sunberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carla Sunberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carla Sunberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carla Sunberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carla Sunberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John M. Nielson may have broken the syntax by modifying 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:

*[http://www.apnts.org/resourcecenter/mediator.php ''Mediator'' articles by Nielson]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Astor House Corner.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carla Sunberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theosis (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) 09:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (John M. Nielson) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating John M. Nielson, Smjwalsh!

Wikipedia editor Versace1608 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

To reply, leave a comment on Versace1608's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John M. Nielson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Minister, Administrator and Nazarene Theological College (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) 09:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion

Since you previously discussed an issue related to the Larry Norman article, I thought that you might be interested in a discussion about sources that is currently happening at Talk:Larry Norman#Malicious Edit Removal/Fallen Angel film recantations. Thanks for your time. There's no requirement for you to participate or respond. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used that previous comment on several other user talk pages so as to be fair and equal, but I feel the need to respond further and more personally to you. This is not an attempt to sway your opinion but rather a courtesy to a fellow editor.

Thanks for all the work you did on the Larry Norman articles. I realize that they were all made a long, long time ago. I also realize that I objected to some (much?) of the material. That doesn't mean that I didn't appreciate your edits. I was rather surprised when you didn't show up at the article when they were discussing pruning it. I was even more surprised by your absence after it was finished. I believe that you have extensive knowledge of the subject and, more than any of the other solicited requests, would appreciate your input. I ask that fully understanding your "bias", if it can be called that, in matters related to the subject.

Quite separately, I hope that you have been doing well. Thank you again for your dedication to Wikipedia and the subject of Larry Norman. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Astor House Corner.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Astor House Corner.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Only Visiting This Planet may have broken the syntax by modifying 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:

rock pioneer’s album added to National Recording Registry"], ''The Washington post'' April 2, 2014).</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:51, 9 April 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) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for History of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) since 1958

An article that you have been involved in editing—History of the Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) since 1958 —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Wishva de Silva | Talk 03:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hound Dog (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Parker. 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) 09:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Your addition to Hound Dog (song) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa (talk) I am at complete loss as to exactly what constituted an alleged violation of copyright, and why you removed edits that have nothing to do with the website you cite as having its rights offended: http://campber.people.clemson.edu/chess2.html. As an experienced WP editor, any edit I made using material from other sources would have been attributed. Further, the way you reverted the edits, makes it impossible for me to see exactly what was removed, and how I can include this material in a way that conforms with your interpretation of copyright violation. Can you re-post the deleted material here (or somewhere else) so we can discuss this matter to our mutual satisfaction? smjwalsh ~

Replied at my talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Smjwalsh. 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]

File:4th Ave Presbyterian NYC.jpg needs authorship information

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:4th Ave Presbyterian NYC.jpg appears to be missing information as to one (or more) of the following :

The author or creators of the work, (including information as to the author's lifespan).
Where and how this particular version was obtained.
When the work was created,

If you did provide such information, it is currently 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|Smjwalsh}} 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. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Smjwalsh. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Smjwalsh. 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]

Proposed deletion of File:Emma Whittemore.jpg

The file File:Emma Whittemore.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 19 June 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Phoebe Palmer Knapp.jpg

The file File:Phoebe Palmer Knapp.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Eliza E Hewitt.jpg

The file File:Eliza E Hewitt.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Ira A. Sankey.jpg

The file File:Ira A. Sankey.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Philip Phillips born 1834.jpg

The file File:Philip Phillips born 1834.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Sankey & Crosby.jpg

The file File:Sankey & Crosby.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Stephen Merritt.jpg

The file File:Stephen Merritt.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

File:Valentine Mott 1820.jpg

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:William Howard Doane.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:William Howard Doane.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]