User talk:Johnlumea

Welcome!

Hello, Johnlumea, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as John Howard (singer-songwriter), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! E Wing (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of John Howard (singer-songwriter)


The article John Howard (singer-songwriter) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. E Wing (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Unclear why deletion proposal persists, even after the provision of reliably sourced articles.Johnlumea (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Howard (singer-songwriter)


A tag has been placed on John Howard (singer-songwriter) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Zachlipton (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Specific explanation of "speedy deletion" requested, in light of provision of multiple reliable sources Johnlumea (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Howard (singer-songwriter)


The article John Howard (singer-songwriter) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. E Wing (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sources provided -- article in development -- please remove persistent immediate proposals for deletion, or provide specific explanations why current multiple sources do not satisfy the provision (above) that "[o]nce you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag." Johnlumea (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Please do not remove Biographies of Living Persons prods from an article unless it contains at least one reliable source or was created before 18 March 2010. If you oppose the deletion of an article under this process, please consider sourcing the article or commenting at the respective talk page. Thank you. E Wing (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sources now provided -- article still in development Johnlumea (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Ravendrop 05:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sources now provided -- article still in development Johnlumea (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, what we mean by "reliable source" are actually references for the article itself to establish the subject's notability. Any articles of living persons must be verified of notability or at least has one reference to have it stay at Wikipedia. Also those "multiple sources" that you said are all about the subject's works, not on the subject itself. Please provide verifiable third-party sources to back up your article. Thanks. E Wing (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Really not trying to be dense here -- but I've read Wikipedia's various definitions of "notability" and "verifiability," and it's not terribly clear and a little self-referential. Would you mind unpacking what you mean when you say that "'reliable source[s]'" are actually references for the article itself to establish the subject's notability"? Why is it that the two articles by Rob Cochrane -- which are about John Howard himself, not reviews if specific albums -- do not clear this bar? Can you give some precise examples of the types of sources Wikipedia is looking for? I understand that the article is not in any way complete -- but there certainly is more here than in any number of Wikpedia articles that are identified as "stubs." Thanks. Johnlumea (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please put atleast one footnote from a third-party source (not from the subject's official site nor from social networking sites) to support the biographical data of the subject to atleast mostly avoid being deleted due to new policies on BLPs. E Wing (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- I added a couple of biographical entries this morning, and that seems to have done the trick. The various proposals for deletion now have been lifted -- and I see that someone has tagged the article for three categories: British singer stub, Living people, and English singer-songwriters. Thanks again.


 * I've just edited your article to include those biographical entries as references, unfortunately one of them is just a copy of the other. Also please upload your photo to the Wikimedia Commons ([commons.wikimedia.org]) by logging in your Wikipedia username and password (photo must not be copyrighted, see intructions on the website) so we can add it to the article. Thanks. E Wing (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking for PRECISE info on how to add a Wikipedia Commons photo to an info box


 * Already done. E Wing (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

So many thanks!Johnlumea (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving
I would ask that some other editor re-insert the following as the 3rd sentence of the lede of Thanksgiving, in order to restore WP:NPOV.
 * The holiday has moved away from its religious roots to allow people of every background to participate in a common tradition.

(Omit the dash to make it ref name=) --JimWae (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Our 2 versions are very similar. I do think you will have difficulty sourcing: But the unifying value is gratitude for the abiding presence of that which is felt to make life meaningful and worthwhile. Also, people do not confine themselves to the previous year, though it is true that often that is the focus. I still think this is way too wordy: Starting with the modern establishment of Thanksgiving as an annual observance, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a variety of attitudes and approaches to the holiday - almost all of it can be removed with no loss of meaning. Also, various current traditions precede the modern, annual establishment. --JimWae (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Three revert rule
You are now on your third revert WP:3RR for the Thanksgiving article. According to the rules you should not continue to revert changes. Fnagaton 07:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving
Dear User:Johnlumea, I hope this message finds you doing well. I proposed Option One in the section you created and incorporated many of your ideas and found references to buttress them. Let me know if you like it. With warm regards, AnupamTalk 02:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Johnlumea, thanks for your message on my talk page. I didn't actually delete your comment! I just moved it to the comments section. You see, the section underneath the RfC banner appears on the RfC noticeboards, which is why I wanted to keep it short. Your comment is still there; it is now in the appropriate place. However, I do think that asking the entire Wikipedia community to propose their own version will lengthen this discussion from a few weeks to a few years! We've had a few editors propose some good versions and I personally think it's best if the community decides among these four. However, if someone does really feel the need to propose a new version, they are more than welcome to. I hope this clarifies the situation. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Thanksgiving". Thank you. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Robert E. Lee
As a recent contributor to Talk:Robert E. Lee, you are receiving this notice for an RfC at of a proposed restatement of a wp:primary source which contains more points than the existing block quote from the letter. The primary source is a 1856 letter of Lee’s to his wife from Texas as found at Alexander Long, Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history (1886), p. 82-83. Opponents have seen wp:original research in the proposal as drawing conclusions not found in the primary source. A rewrite of the first proposal follows an edit break. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo and tagline of The Emperor&#39;s Bridge Campaign Nov 2014.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Logo and tagline of The Emperor&. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Confederate Monument in Owensboro, Ky., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Emperor Norton
I have nominated Emperor Norton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 01:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)