User talk:H Bruthzoo

--Merovingian 10:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC) That should be on your user page Hintss  talk 22:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wicca
Good morn, H Bruthzoo. Why did you revert your own edits to Wicca? Some of them were good improvements. In truth, I only had a minor problem with one out of the entire set (missionary efforts versus missionaries).-- P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)  15:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Norbertines
Why are you removing information about the Praemonstratensian order from pages such as Brendan Smyth, Premonstratensian and Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, as well as deleting factual information from aforementioned pages? It's starting to look like revisionism. I've reverted some of your changes. Please discuss first on the relevant talk pages before making such substantial deletions - Ali-oops&#9997; 21:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

History of North Dakota
Wow, I didn't actually realise that article was about a book and the history itself, thanks for pointing that out! What I have done is create a seperate article for the book, at History of North Dakota (book). Thanks again.--Commander Keane 13:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Colleen Shannon
Good evening, while I agree that in the broad scope of things, a legal battle in which Colleen Shannon is not personally participating may seem trivial, however, 1) she is not a major celebrity and does not have any substantial news or acheivements to overshadow it, 2) it's not necessarily a battle for only $750, as nowhere is it indicated that that is the amount for which Playboy is being sued, and 3) if "trivia" pertaining to the details of her foot tattoo is viable for the article, I don't see how a federal lawsuit pertaining to her image could be considered too "trivial" for inclusion.

Perhaps it's something to be commented upon by a third party. I seek others' opinions on the talk page. LeSaint 06:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Badonkadonk
I still think it's not encyclopedic. Even if it's mentioned in the New York Times, that's trivial coverage. I wouldn't object so much if the article itself wasn't written in its current tone. Leebo 86 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Handbra
Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. Valrith 21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're imposing a double standard. You added the maintenance notice without explaining why after I provided a solid reference (The Guardian quoting a lad mag editor). I provided my rationale both in the original edit summary and in the talk page immediately after removing  the maintenance notice.  Why is this article insufficiently referenced? The text about the SNL piece also includes an episode date, and Janet Jackson article linked to includes references about that image's importance. H Bruthzoo 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gellar_on_SNL2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gellar_on_SNL2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Handbra
Handbra is under attack again. Someone is insisting that Janet Jackson be removed. I cant revert anymore I need your assistance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 12:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Handbra
An article on which you previously commented has been proposed for deletion again, at Articles for deletion/Handbra (second nomination). You may wish to comment.DGG (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello H Bruthzoo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Arthur Granjean -

Proposed deletion of Smoke Signals (magazine)


The article Smoke Signals (magazine) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable magazine/website. Unreferenced for two years

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Mistake?
I very much hope was a mistake. At any rate, I have reverted it. Favonian (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)