User talk:Mol01230

January 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. ''Wikipedia is not a place to reveal "spoilers", whether or not they come true. Please do not do it.'' [Jam][talk] 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. - The Crimson  A NTHROPOLOGIST 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Hello,. Concerning your contribution, Jack & Vera Duckworth, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. As a copyright violation, Jack & Vera Duckworth appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Jack & Vera Duckworth has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Jack & Vera Duckworth and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Jack & Vera Duckworth with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Jack & Vera Duckworth.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Icestorm815 •  Talk  17:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ladia Brown
A tag has been placed on Ladia Brown requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of 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.

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), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Rnb (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The posh totties
A tag has been placed on The posh totties requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of 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.

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), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mayalld (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Secrets at st judes"
A page you created, Secrets at st judes, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is nonsense or gibberish.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of JODIE WELLS
I have nominated JODIE WELLS, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/JODIE WELLS. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beth Harney
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Beth Harney, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * there is no indication that this fictional character is notable enough for an encyclopedia article.

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. JohnCD (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Beth Harney
You wrote at the bottom of this page: "PLEASE DO NOT COPY ANY IDEAS OF THIS PAGE AS A SEVEN YEAR OLD MADE IT UP AND MY LAWYERS COULD SUE." But by contributing it to Wikipedia, you have released it under the GNU Free Documentation License, which means that anyone can copy it and modify it and use it for any purpose. You were warned of this: on every edit page, it says: Also, it is a fundamental Wikipedia principle that nobody owns an article, anyone can edit it. On every edit page it also says: If you seriously want to protect this material, you had better delete it at once. Also, though I'm sure you meant the remarks about lawyers light-heartedly, Wikipedia has a strong policy of No Legal Threats - any contributor who is perceived to make a legal threat is automatically blocked from editing until the threat is withdrawn. To avoid any misunderstandings, I suggest you remove the comment. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL
 * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
 * Second thoughts: maybe the above is a bit heavy, but they are serious points. It occurs to me that your seven-year-old can learn two very useful things from this:
 * When you join a new group or find yourself in a new situation, take some time to find out about it and its customs and rules. The Welcome page, to which you were pointed back in Jan 2008, has a section "Our Rules" which in turn points to the Five Pillars which summarise what Wikipedia is and isn't.
 * (In regard to the warnings on the edit pages) Always read the small print!
 * Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)