User talk:Huperphuff

A tag has been placed on Misa Campo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Finngall talk  21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The welcome template I've added above contains many useful links to help files, policies and procedures. I hope you'll check these over.
 * As for the article itself, my suggestion is to create a subpage of your user page to use as a workspace. You can then work on the article at your leisure, and then move it to the main article space when you are done.  (You can also request that the subpage be deleted if you don't need it anymore.
 * Sorry if the deletion seemed harsh. We try to be welcoming and to not bite the newcomers, but on the other hand, we're not psychic and can only base an assessment of an article on what's there, not on what's going to be there.
 * Let me know if you have further questions. Thanks, and take care. -- Finngall  talk  22:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Misacampo-small3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Misacampo-small3.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. 00:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Misacampo-small5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Misacampo-small5.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. 02:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Becoming a tagger"
Thanks for your message... what did you mean by "becoming a tagger"? --Dweller 08:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good on you! I guess you want to "patrol recent changes" or become a member of the "counter vandalism unit". Start by reading WP:VAND and WP:CVU. You'll need to get a good grasp of the speedy deletion criteria... they take some getting used to, I'm afraid - read them here WP:CSD. A small warning... if you tackle vandals prepare yourself for receiving abuse / vandalism to your user pages. It's best to handle such abuse in an irritatingly good-natured way, taking our WP:AGF policy to an extreme. It's no fun abusing someone who refuses to get angry, if you know what I mean. When you have more experience, I suggest you add some tools that'll make your "tagging" easier (WP:TWINKLE is excellent) but while you're still a newbie, I don't really recommend it. All in all, good luck! Just one last thing... what made you choose me to ask? --Dweller 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Other info, advice and suggestions:
 * I have exactly the same editing ability as you. No special sooper-sekrit powers are required for patrolling for vandalism and the like, just a good grasp of policies and procedures.
 * More suggested reading: Proposed deletion and Articles for deletion, which detail processes for dealing with articles that probably should be deleted but don't meet the speedy deletion criteria. Other permanent residents on my watchlist are Administrator intervention against vandalism‎, where vandals get reported, and Pages needing translation into English‎, since I always seem run into these every once in a while.
 * I'm enough of a cynical bastard that it's hard to Assume Good Faith at times, so when warning users, I usually start at a level below what I think is appropriate.
 * Some people will complain at you, some will just ask questions. Always be ready with the answers.
 * Keep tagged articles on your watch list until they've been deleted, an admin removes the tag, or the article improves to the point where you feel safe rescinding the tag yourself.
 * I've certainly been wrong before in my assessments of articles. If you're overruled, don't take it personally.
 * Some articles simply need improvement or cleanup. If you're not feeling up to doing it yourself, you can still flag them for attention with the appropriate template.
 * Sometimes you find something you can latch onto and improve yourself. Someone created a series on articles on various albums by Gary Numan (one of my faves)--I didn't do anything to the articles themselves, but I fixed or added links on other existing articles to properly link to the new ones.  I've copyedited articles on subjects where I'm not an expert, but where I could at least improve the language and organize the facts better.  Where else except Wikipedia can a nerd from Oregon make improvements to articles on a mosque in Iowa or a town in Pakistan?  That's what it's all about--lots of people getting together and creating the best encyclopedia on Earth.  :-) -- Finngall  talk  18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I keep a link to Special:Newpages on my user page for easy access. -- Finngall talk  18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Misa Campo -- How'd you do?
I'm not convinced you've done enough to establish that she's notable enough to merit an article in an encyclopedia. Anyway, I hope this helps. Thanks again. -- Finngall talk  16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lose the interviews. They don't add much to the article, and they don't really belong in an encyclopedia.
 * "Seeing as she is a fairly new model there isn't a lot of information available about her." Big strike against her, since all information in an encyclopedia should be verifiable from reliable sources.  Interviews with her don't carry as much weight as articles written about her.
 * " [S] he is a new model and her career hasn't exploded yet", "working on her growing career as a model while being a barmaid in California": If you start patrolling the list of new pages for any length of time, you will undoubtedly run into many self-promotional articles by bands who proclaim themselves to be "up and coming".  "Up and coming" equals "not notable yet", which in turn equals "not notable".  Believe me, sometimes I feel like I've speedy-tagged articles about damn near every crappy band on six continents (and I almost made it seven, but this band appears to have done enough interesting things to make the cut), and phrases like "up and coming" will usually prompt a sigh and an eye-roll from anyone experienced in this sort of thing.  The phrases I've cited here basically say she's "up and coming".  Not good.
 * "Supermodel": Okay, she's hot, but "supermodel" implies that she's achieved a high enough status in the modeling world that she'll never need to work as a barmaid again.
 * Pictures: You don't need this many. Also, we're justifiably twitchy about copyrights around here, and pix that are simply pulled off a web site and used without permission or at least a decent fair-use rationale are subject to deletion.  See Wikipedia's guidelines on non-free content.


 * General: The thing to keep in mind is that above all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not just a repository of random information. See What Wikipedia is not.
 * Interviews: Simply linking to the interviews is the way to go, I think.
 * Models: I think the link you're looking for is Model (person).
 * Popularity: Popularity certainly contributes to notability, but they're not necessarily the same thing.
 * I'm glad you're continuing to ask questions and reading up on how things work around here. I get a lot "Wah! You deleted my article!" messages on my talk page from people who Just Don't Get It, and instead of trying to understand why their article got tagged, they just stomp off saying "Those meanies won't let me have my article!"  Take care. -- Finngall  talk  17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I really like your article and the search term "misa campo wikipedia" is getting a lot of popularity as when you type "misa c" on Google suggest the first term that comes up is "misa campo wikipedia" or "misa campo wiki". This means people are looking for her profile and details. Also, I can licence Wikipedia any images of her. I have plenty on my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/attractivefemales/ just ask me, and I will allow it.Sonu27 (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Misacampo-small1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Misacampo-small1.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. 06:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your deleted "notes."
What was the link and I will be happy to have a look.  Jody B talk 13:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See my talk page. The undelete is done.  Jody B talk 21:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I substituted the speedy deletion templates on your notes page and removed the categories: now, you will see the templates but the page will not be tagged for deletion. When adding to the page, please substitute the templates and remove the categories they include. Nihiltres ( t .l ) 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Oh thanks for deleting accidental twin articles made on Rohrbeg and Kaltenbach. Delete at will. Cyberdemon007 15:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"My Articles" link/page
Hey, I don't recommend having a link and/or a page like that, since it implies WP:OWN. Thanks, ( [ →] vish win60  - is User:O in 4 days (possibly)) 17:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Misacampo-small2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Misacampo-small2.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. 06:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Images in general: some advice
It is wise to get permission first, before posting an image. Otherwise, you are creating a lot of extra work for everybody. Wikipedia cannot afford to get casual about copyright violations (real or potential) in this litigious era. -- Orange Mike 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cloverfield
Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's considered original research. It's a type of synthesis, bringing unrelated facts together to further an argument.  There is no official confirmation of Slusho in relation to this project, just "inside" reports that may very well be false. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, but you're adding on information that is not included in the citation and instead came from you. We've had a lot of discussion on the talk page about the verifiability of such information and how it should not be expounded upon by editors like ourselves.  The fact remains with what is said in reliable sources.  —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Cloverfield" and "Slusho" are reported names for the films, but it's reported as verifiable speculation, meaning that a prominent reliable source mentioned it as a possibility. The titles themselves are not verifiable, so to expound theories about the meaning of either one (despite the fact they may both be correct) is also unverifiable original research. Basically, there's a multitude of theories out there right now about the title or something in the trailer or images, but they don't warrant inclusion because it's not confirmed to be true. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of sites have reported their speculative coverage about this project, and the majority of them have been excluded. Instead, reliable sources like USA Today, The Star Ledger, and the news channel have been cited.  All the other analysis that's been done is not cross the threshold into reliability to be worth mentioning, including trailerspy.com. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, IMDb is disputed as a reliable source. Take a look at the argument presented at WP:CIMDB.  Since it's user-submitted, the verifiability of its information for a film before its release (and even afterward) is not certain.  Here's an example: Spider-Man 4 shows Raimi as the director (not rumored or in talks or anything), yet Raimi has not made a decision about if he will continue with the series. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded anal; it's just that a lot of people tend to add speculation, either from their perspective or unreliable sources, to the article, and I find myself explaining the same issue repeatedly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that another experienced editor has reverted you... there's nothing false about what I'm saying. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Slusho2.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Slusho2.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. EEMeltonIV 01:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Film
I know we got off to a rough start, but if you are interested in continuing work with film articles on Wikipedia, I have worked on them for a while now. I work on mostly future films, though I have a few pet projects (just nominated Road to Perdition for GA status today). You can find subpages of links and guidelines on my userpage, if you are interested, and you can reach me at my talk page if there are any questions pertaining to film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Slusho.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Slusho.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Slusho2.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Slusho2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One Nine Nine Four
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of One Nine Nine Four, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: :. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 22:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Misa Campo
An article that you have been involved in editing, Misa Campo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.

Okay I'm sending this to everyone who has contributed (or tried) to this article and its previous incarnations. I have plenty of pics of her and I think she's hot, but I don't see her career at the point of sufficient exposure for an article here. Now discuss! Kelvinc (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kei launcher.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kei launcher.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 Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:KEI test4.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KEI test4.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. 07:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Huperphuff/notes
For some reason this page suddenly showed up as a candidate for speedy deletion today, possibly as a result of some tweaking by the developers. Since you seem to be inactive I just went ahead and deleted rather than trying to fix it again, but should you return in the future it would be a simple matter to restore the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Sc2Betaload.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Sc2Betaload.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 website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sc2Betaload.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sc2Betaload.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)