User talk:Kigoe

Image copyright problem with Image:Hill.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Hill.png. 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 on Wikipedia 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. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 18:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Image provided by school for use on entry, and I'll work to get written permission to re-upload it. -- KiGOE | talk 22:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Michael Kight
Hi there, if you ever have any questions on Wikipedia's policies, I'd be happy to help. Just drop me a note on my talk page. Cheers. -- light darkness (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, you really need to look at WP:BIO and understand that criteria. Vegaswikian 02:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion is a policy that allows well defined types of articles to be removed without discussion. The reasons that are acceptable have been voted on with a consensus of editors supporting those reasons.  Vegaswikian 02:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I did read your reasons for not deleting on the talk page. Nothing that you wrote there provided any assertion of meeting the WP:BIO guidelines.  So, in my opinion, you were given a chance to justify keeping of the article and I believed that what you wrote still justified the speedy deletion.  Vegaswikian 02:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I stated no reason given since you did not provide a reason that justified keeping the article. If an article is nominated for a speedy deletion for a valid reason, then there is no need to use AfD.  In fact, speedy deletion is on of the tools usede to keep the number of articles discussed in AfD to a reasonable number.  Any administrator can delete any article, but that action is always subject to some form of consensus review.  When you reposted this article, the consensus review became the discussion on AfD.  Vegaswikian 02:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

B o Rts
Notice that the specfic rights you mention only come from the first 8, not 10. ;) John wesley 12:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Commoners think BoR are 1st 10 because elementary sch teachers tell me so, but they are not lawyers who have to sue the guvmint to protect indiv rts. :( John wesley 12:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Quizlet
An editor has nominated Quizlet, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

List of unboundedly long songs
I don't understand your logic. You didn't want the article to stay, either, but you removed the prod? Use   in the future if you support an article's deletion, but for another reason other than the one given. - Chardish 01:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

CNAD article
I'm not sure why listing affiliations for the Center for a New American Dream are not relevant to an article about the CNAD. How in the world does finding a link to the organization constitute "original research" when I found it the same way all the other information in that article was found--by looking on the Web? I won't re-correct it to add the link and reference back in, but I think you've got a rather idiotic double-standard here. (Whether you personally invented it is irrelevant: Where does finding stuff on the Web end and "original research" begin?  No wonder so many people think Wikipedia's a substandard source.) -Dseilhan and however the heck you do timestamps... yeah, I'm still a n00b...

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Kigoe! 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 insure 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) 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) N. Douglas Hunt -

Slogans or bylines
Hi, I noticed your vote on a similar AfD, and thought that you might support a couple of articules have just been put up for AfD related to slogans used by two leading Australian TV stations. The articles need refs and citations etc but I think they can be fixed. They are: Thanks. AWHS (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * List of Network Ten slogans
 * List of Nine Network slogans