User talk:Missalusa

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 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 need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hi, I noticed that you created the page Paige Brooks. I've deleted it because all of the information contained on the page was copyrighted information which is already contained at www.paigebrooks.com. While it would be perfectly permissible to have an article on Brooks in Wikipedia, it's not ok for Wikipedia to contain copyrighted information. If you would like to write an article about Brooks, say, in your own words, this would certainly be acceptable... but cutting and pasting from web sites is pretty much almost always not allowed for reasons of copyright. Thanks, and if you have any questions, you can reply here or on my talk page. --- Deville (Talk) 04:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Paige Brooks
Your recent edit to Paige Brooks (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 23:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --After Midnight 0001 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you believe the information on the Paige Brooks article to be incorrect, please bring it up at the article's talk page. Simply reverting the page is not acceptable.  Please also be aware that this is an encyclopaedia and that articles must be written in an encyclopaedic tone. --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  02:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please also be aware that you have violated Wikipedia's three revert rule. As such I am entitled to report you and that you would likely be blocked.  However, considering you are new around here, I will act leniently in this instance.  Any further reversions, however, will inevitable see me reporting you. Please take heed of my comments above, and do not revert the article further. --  PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  02:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have now been reported for violation of the 3RR rule here. -- PageantUpdater  •  talk  |  contribs  |  esperanza  03:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. -- Waggers 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Missalusa! 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 ensure 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) 01:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Paige Brooks -

The article is currently well verified by multiple sources both externally and internally on Wikipedia. Missalusa (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion notice
It seems I have unintentionally created quite an uproar here. I just want to take this opportunity to straighten out a few misconceptions and issues.

Firstly, I am Ms. Brooks' biggest fan!

I do not work for PaigeBrooks.com and the Paige Brooks article that I created 10 years ago is in no way affiliated with PaigeBrooks.com. I created it because I thought it was appropriate for this forum due to her level of recognition and honors.

Ms. Brooks' management team has been very kind to allow me to post photos, awards, etc. with their permission, when I asked. If you have any questions or want to confirm this information that I am providing, you can contact them. They are very nice. I contact them through the email address that is publicly available on the official website.

I am certainly and obviously not an expert at Wikipedia (this is the only Wikipedia article that I have ever done). I am not at all familiar with the guidelines and hope this is the correct way to get in touch with other users and administrators who have been taking issue of late.

Only now, after a recent update, have I realized that the manner in which I originally wrote the article and subsequent updates are not completely within the guidelines of your community. Luckily, through the years, I can see some of your experienced Wikipedia users have corrected my many mistakes and vastly improved the article.

The newest improvements are especially impressive. After 10 years of the article having my incorrect-for-Wikipedia writing style, I am happy to see that it meets the Wikipedia standards now.

I want to apologize for any previous, although unintended, guideline missteps. I never meant to upset anyone, although I am afraid some of my actions may have done so. I did not realize that those actions were breaking the rules. Most importantly, I do not want my mistakes to reflect on Ms. Brooks in any way.

I hope this note helps clarify things and that the article can continue to be included in Wikipedia now that it has been so vastly changed and improved, despite my inadequacies at creating and editing. Even after a decade, it is never too late to get things right. :)

I vote yes to keep the Paige Brooks article with the new improvements and updates. It has lots of verification and supporting documentation from both external and internal Wikipedia sources.

Thank you for your understanding. Missalusa (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Paige Brooks for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paige Brooks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Paige Brooks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems I have unintentionally created quite an uproar here. I just want to take this opportunity to straighten out a few misconceptions and issues.

Firstly, I am Ms. Brooks' biggest fan!

I do not work for PaigeBrooks.com and the Paige Brooks article that I created 10 years ago is in no way affiliated with PaigeBrooks.com. I created it because I thought it was appropriate for this forum due to her level of recognition and honors.

Ms. Brooks' management team has been very kind to allow me to post photos, awards, etc. with their permission, when I asked. If you have any questions or want to confirm this information that I am providing, you can contact them. They are very nice. I contact them through the email address that is publicly available on the official website.

I am certainly and obviously not an expert at Wikipedia (this is the only Wikipedia article that I have ever done). I am not at all familiar with the guidelines and hope this is the correct way to get in touch with other users and administrators who have been taking issue of late.

Only now, after a recent update, have I realized that the manner in which I originally wrote the article and subsequent updates are not completely within the guidelines of your community. Luckily, through the years, I can see some of your experienced Wikipedia users have corrected my many mistakes and vastly improved the article.

The newest improvements are especially impressive. After 10 years of the article having my incorrect-for-Wikipedia writing style, I am happy to see that it meets the Wikipedia standards now.

I want to apologize for any previous, although unintended, guideline missteps. I never meant to upset anyone, although I am afraid some of my actions may have done so. I did not realize that those actions were breaking the rules. Most importantly, I do not want my mistakes to reflect on Ms. Brooks in any way.

I hope this note helps clarify things and that the article can continue to be included in Wikipedia now that it has been so vastly changed and improved, despite my inadequacies at creating and editing. Even after a decade, it is never too late to get things right. :)

I vote yes to keep the Paige Brooks article with the new improvements and updates. It has lots of verification and supporting documentation from both external and internal Wikipedia sources.

Thank you for your understanding. Missalusa (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions are appreciated, but, in this edit to Paige Brooks, you removed Articles for deletion notices from articles or removed other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. This makes it difficult to establish consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. I did not realize the Wikipedia guidelines. Missalusa (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The topic is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems I have unintentionally created quite an uproar here. I just want to take this opportunity to straighten out a few misconceptions and issues.

Firstly, I am Ms. Brooks' biggest fan!

I do not work for PaigeBrooks.com and the Paige Brooks article that I created 10 years ago is in no way affiliated with PaigeBrooks.com. I created it because I thought it was appropriate for this forum due to her level of recognition and honors.

Ms. Brooks' management team has been very kind to allow me to post photos, awards, etc. with their permission, when I asked. If you have any questions or want to confirm this information that I am providing, you can contact them. They are very nice. I contact them through the email address that is publicly available on the official website.

I am certainly and obviously not an expert at Wikipedia (this is the only Wikipedia article that I have ever done). I am not at all familiar with the guidelines and hope this is the correct way to get in touch with other users and administrators who have been taking issue of late.

Only now, after a recent update, have I realized that the manner in which I originally wrote the article and subsequent updates are not completely within the guidelines of your community. Luckily, through the years, I can see some of your experienced Wikipedia users have corrected my many mistakes and vastly improved the article.

The newest improvements are especially impressive. After 10 years of the article having my incorrect-for-Wikipedia writing style, I am happy to see that it meets the Wikipedia standards now.

I want to apologize for any previous, although unintended, guideline missteps. I never meant to upset anyone, although I am afraid some of my actions may have done so. I did not realize that those actions were breaking the rules. Most importantly, I do not want my mistakes to reflect on Ms. Brooks in any way.

I hope this note helps clarify things and that the article can continue to be included in Wikipedia now that it has been so vastly changed and improved, despite my inadequacies at creating and editing. Even after a decade, it is never too late to get things right. :)

I vote yes to keep the Paige Brooks article with the new improvements and updates. It has lots of verification and supporting documentation from both external and internal Wikipedia sources.

Thank you for your understanding. Missalusa (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Paige Brooks - L'Vegue Magazine - Las Vegas' 25 Most Beautiful People.jpg


The file File:Paige Brooks - L'Vegue Magazine - Las Vegas' 25 Most Beautiful People.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence the free license release is legitimate, uploader hasn't presented proof they are the creator of the book."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)