User talk:AntoinePancakes

License tagging for Image:JM JJ Duplex handkiss.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JM JJ Duplex handkiss.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 16:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --  Merope  20:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pierce Turner, Josh Max, etc.

 * 1) Please only remove templates such as undefined when the work has been completed.
 * 2) Note also what the Manual of Style says about capitalisation of titles, use of bold, italics, and inverted commas, coding of dates, etc. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nightbench_combo_smile_and_serious2.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nightbench_combo_smile_and_serious2.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 04:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Josh Max
Hi there AntoinePancakes,

I am the 'wiki twit who apparently never heard of Google' that you referred to in your edit summary for your recent work on Josh Max.

I came across the article randomly and noticed that the two links provided were both for web sites that appeared to be somewhat self promotional, which can be a sign that the subject of the article lacks notability. As I feel that the burden of referencing the notability of the subject is on the creator of an article rather than on the reader, I placed the proposed deletion tag on it.

I did not write in my edit history, 'proposed deletion of article created by someone who has been around here long enough to have had a chance to read WP:NOTE, which spells out the criteria for notability,' as I think that would have been a rude thing to do and would show an obvious lack of class, however accurate it would have been.

I realize that the anonymity of the internet and the decline of civility in society allows one to say pretty much whatever one wishes, especially in venues such as this, but I still believe it worthwhile to be polite and respectful to others as a baseline behavior. This philosophy has a long tradition in our culture as evidenced in such things as the honey/vinegar analogy regarding fly entrapment. This philosophy is also alluded to in WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and rather succinctly put in the first sentence of the Fundamentals section of WP:DICK.

I truly do believe that for WP to have credibility and receive acceptance it must aspire to a high standard and that it is incumbent on the creators of articles to establish and reference the notability by putting credible, independent references on their additions to WP, and for that reason I will continue to propose deletion for articles that do not. Although I do not consider Mr Max to be particularly notable, he writes a car column, I do think that the reference you have now provided would minimally meet the criteria and I shall leave assessment to others at this point. Before coming here to write this note I also looked at your edit history and saw that you have made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and I want to thank you for the work you have done, we share a love for the music of the Beatles.

Have a nice day, --killing sparrows 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Josh Max


The article Josh Max has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * lack of notability, long unsourced BLP

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Milowent • talkblp-r 03:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Josh Max for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Josh Max 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 Articles for deletion/Josh Max 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Josh Max
Please do not revert a proper close of a deletion process, no matter how much you disagree with the outcome. If you believe you can create the page from scratch providing reliable sources, you are welcome to give that a try. Good luck. BusterD (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Dad circa early 70s.jpg


The file File:Dad circa early 70s.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned image with no foreseeable encyclopedic use."

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing 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. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Maxes


The article The Maxes has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Purely promotional article of non-notable topics, with no coverage of any kind in any sources. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Barely able to confirm this band even exists."

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Dad circa early 70s.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Dad circa early 70s.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add permission pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 11:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)