User talk:Holyblankenship

The article Bent image lab has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what I meant. It looks much better now.  Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Biographies
I notice you have created several biographical articles and tagged them as. This is not correct: the biographies category is for articles about biographies, not articles that are themselves biographical. Biographical articles – articles that are about people, not about biographies – should be tagged with categories from.

For instance, an article about an animator, instead of being tagged with and, should be tagged with  (or one of the more specific subcategories thereof, such as .)

I hope this helps. —Paul A (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Randall Wakerlin
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Randall Wakerlin, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No reliable sources to establish notability of an individual. Google News wasn't helpful.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. tedder (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jun Seo Hahm
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jun Seo Hahm, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No reliable sources given to establish notability of an individual. Google News shows one interesting result, hardly enough to meet WP:GNG.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. tedder (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Jun Seo Hahm
I have nominated Jun Seo Hahm, 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 Articles for deletion/Jun Seo Hahm. 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. tedder (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Randall Wakerlin


The article Randall Wakerlin has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Nothing that indicates notability

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. Falcon8765 (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:The Brothers of the Lodge 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Brothers of the Lodge 2.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.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:The Brothers of the Lodge-.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Brothers of the Lodge-.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.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:The Brothers of the Lodge 2.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Brothers of the Lodge 2.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --(ESkog)(Talk) 00:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bucksville


The article Bucksville has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:CRYSTAL - unreleased future film of questionable notability.

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. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)