User talk:Mainmiguel

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, 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   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 Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Passportguy (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of The (original) Rolling Stones
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The (original) Rolling Stones, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unencylopedic opinon/conspiracy theory

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. Passportguy (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The (original) Rolling Stones
An article that you have been involved in editing, The (original) Rolling Stones, 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

About your comments on Talk: The (original) Rolling Stones.
First of all, when a deletion discussion in under way, the right place to post your comments is on the project page dedicated to said discussion, so that every participant will see them. That page is linked to on the deletion template at the top of your article.

This said, I saw that you are requesting help, so let me point you in the right direction.
 * 1) You stated that the original band has no claim of notability. According to our policy on notability, this is the final argument against the existence of an article dedicated to that band. However, all is not lost: you may insert a short reference to that band into an existing article, provided that you can give a reliable source attesting to the band's existence, and provided also that such a reference does not unduly overwhelm the article in which you are inserting it.
 * 2) You also asked what about validation. Memorabilia and oral testimonies are not acceptable as references, nor are blogs, forums, or any website that accepts input from anyone. (Ironically, that means even Wikipedia itself is not accepted as a reference!) What we are looking for is something non-trivial from a source that is generally considered reliable. (Since you are in the UK, that would mean that if you have a newspaper clipping, if it is to be regarded as a reliable source, it would have to come from a newspaper that is known all over the UK, and preferably known in the US, Canada and Australia as well, such as the London Times, or even the Daily Mirror. Neighborhood newspapers are generally not considered reliable, since verification is always problematic, and, more importantly, they speak about topics that are only of local interest.) By non-trivial, I mean something that is more than just a passing mention.

If none of these criteria can be met, then I'm afraid the original Rolling Stones cannot be mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Rolling Stones at STV studios 1961 - 3.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rolling Stones at STV studios 1961 - 3.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still struggling!
I don't seem to have got off to a very good start! I recently had an article deleted (The (original) Rolling Stones) because it was not considered sufficiently 'notable'. I admitted that the band itself was not particularly notable in terms of its achievements but still felt that the subject matter - the very fact of the existence of an earlier band of that name - was worthy of inclusion. However, I was overruled and that's that!

Recently I have submitted another profile - that of the singer Neil Landon - who has been a member of several notable bands. I have referenced his chart success to the respected Guinness book of British Hit singles and have inserted several relevant links to other established wiki articles but once again have noted critical comments re the profile despite the fact that numerous other entries seem to me to be less worthy of inclusion. I am not annoyed, just puzzled and a little frustrated! It's clear I need help if I'm not to give up (p.s. I promise I'm not stupid - really).

Thanks in anticipation

Mainmiguel (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at 'your' Neil Landon article now ! Feeling better ?


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Mirkwood wiki photosmall.jpeg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mirkwood wiki photosmall.jpeg, 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. Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although you did the collage, you need to provide the source for each of the pictures therein. As the images appear to be professional headshots, you may wish to go through the WP:OTRS system to verify the (c) status.  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd be best to deal with the WP:OTRS people given the nature of the image(s).  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 06:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

joining
would you like to join our dicuion its here.User talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Walter55024--Walter55024 (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)