User talk:BobbyLee

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Welcome, !

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:
 * First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
 * When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
 * Learn about some of the Wikipedia landmarks by trying our Wikipedia scavenger hunt!
 * If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
 * Wikipedia has a vibrant community of editors. The village pump is a great place to see the goings on.
 * Remember to use a neutral point of view!
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!


 * Five pillars
 * Policy trifecta
 * Brilliant prose
 * Be bold in updating pages
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: &#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;.

Best of luck, and have fun! – ClockworkSoul 16:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BreannaLynn.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BreannaLynn.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 11:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (Picture of stillborn baby girl, Breanna Lynn Bartlett-Stewart, from a memorial site at http://www.sids.org.uk/fsid/bartlett.htm)


 * This photograph exists on many different Web sites, including one that Lisa Bartlett seems to have created, herself. So I think maybe the copyright would rest with her, if anyone.  Please advise.  Thanks, BobbyLee 16:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what the question is, I would agree the copyright probably resides with the publisher of that site. The problem is we don't have any indication that is is freely licensed so without that we can't use it on wikipedia. Hope that answers your question, if it creates any more feel free to ask on my talk page or on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags - cohesion &#9733; talk 18:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You uploaded the same image but tagged it as GFDL. Have you contacted the photographer, and have they released it under the GFDL?  If not, it's incorrectly tagged and not a free image.  I'm listing it at Possibly unfree images for review.  Thanks.  Chick Bowen 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw your note at WP:PUI--I've responded there. I'm sure it'll be fine; we just have to dot the i's and cross the t's--I'm sure you understand.  Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Abbeville horror
I'll definately look at this article within the next few days and get back to you! I look forward to reading it! Cheers! Chuchunezumi 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why we were SNOWing your RFA and why I re-instated your RFA
I admit that the first person who removed User:BobbyLee from WP:RFA should probably have provided at least a little explanation of why he/she did that. Being the second person to remove User:BobbyLee from WP:RFA, I will provide an explanation.

Please take what follows as constructive criticism. It is very possible that you could develop into a fine Wikipedia editor and eventually be granted adminship. However, there seems to be no chance that you would be granted adminship any time in the near future (1-3 months).


 * 1) The account User:BobbyLee has been around long enough (over 6 months) to meet the criteria of most RFA voters but has far, far too few edits to even be considered for adminship.  With only 180 edits in 6 months, you fall way under the 1500-3000 edits that many people consider to be a minimum number of edit counts to be considered for adminship.  Just as a comparison, I have been around less time than you (since 2006-03-27) and I have made 3900 edits in the that period of time.
 * 2) As you rack up edit counts, you may find it useful to analyze where you are spending your time.  At the present time, your low edit counts in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk suggest that you have very little experience in Wikipedia processes and policies such as AFD and RFA.  RFA voters look for this kind of experience in a candidate.
 * 3) With only 33% usage of edit summaries in your edits, you fail another criterion used by many RFA voters (near 100% usage of edit summaries).  I've seen some RFA voters say to other applicants "You don't get my vote because you used edit summaries only 80% of the time."  33% usage of edit summaries is so far from the standard that almost everybody would mention it as a failed criterion.
 * 4) Your answer to question #1 did not show any need for the admin tools as User:Chacor pointed out on your RFA discussion page.

For these reasons, it was obvious to User:Naconkantari, User:Chacor and myself that you had no chance of passing an RFA at this time, so User:Naconkantari SNOWed you. (At least, I assume that's why he deleted your entry.) It is why I deleted your entry for a second time. I just asked User:Chacor and he agrees that you would most likely be SNOWed eventually. However, on further discussion, he indicated that he stated that he would prefer to let your RFA run for a while longer so I have restored your RFA.

As stated above, you could very well pass a future RFA although it seems highly unlikely that you would pass one at this time. Moreover, insisting on going through the full RFA process is more likely to create a negative impression than a positive one.

If you insist on a full RFA process, we can't stop you but I think you'd be wasting a lot of people's time. I would urge you to withdraw if and when it seems obvious to you that you will not pass. If voters start calling on you to withdraw, I suggest that you do so and do so quickly.

To prove to you that my analysis above is objective, I will not post this to your RFA discussion. Nor will I pass this analysis along to anyone else. I would bet that most, if not all, of the criticisms above are raised by other RFA voters.

Finally, if you really want to become an admin, I would urge you to look into Esperanza's Admin Coaching program. With more experience and a little coaching, you might make a great admin someday.

--Richard 06:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that though you've wanted to keep your RfA open, I must mention that it no longer makes sense to do so. As one of the people charged with monitoring the RfA process I have officially closed your nomination. Due to your inexperience and nothing else, there is no chance that your RfA would be successful at this time, and therefore it is not helpful to the community to continue it now. If you would like editor feedback, seek that, but RfA is not the right place to do that. If you continue to make good edits and add productively to the project you will likely be successful in the future. Let me know if I can be of any help. - Taxman Talk 13:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say you're doing an excellent job
BobbyLee I just wanted you to know that you are doing a really great job here. Your articles are excellent, and you seem to have a great attitude. I can imagine your RfA wasnt fun, but almost everyone there said you're doing a great job, and just need a little more experience. So please keep up the great work! If you ever need an admin to give you a hand (until you become one) then please let me know. :) Thanks mate - Gl e n 16:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Acalculia RfD
Something odd seems to have happened with your attempt at submitting Acalculia for deletion. I fixed the problem (somewhat) by creating Articles for deletion/Acalculia, though you'll still need to list the AfD (and tag the article) yourself. EVula 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Wikipedia:Community portal
I did wonder about why an established editor would do that. Don't worry about it, but just try to make sure the kid doesn't get to it again. Badbilltucker 14:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Badbilltucker... you gave me a scare and I did press the button before I refreshed your contribs and saw your explanation. Kimchi.sg 14:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Abbeville Horror
An article that you created, The Abbeville Horror, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/The Abbeville Horror Thank you. SkierRMH 05:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Breanna Lynn.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:Breanna Lynn.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. 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 escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)