User talk:Mymis/Archive 1

Untitled
Tonga Releford has signed on for season 3 of Married to Medicine. She's the wife of Dr. Charles Releford. He is colleagues with Eugine, and HuQ. Her and Dr. Jackie are sorority sisters. As well as her and Dr. Simone both have the same alumna (Spelman). Please stop you are not a Bravo reprenstative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelifepost (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that I am Bravo representative. If you find a RELIABLE source to prove the fact that she's actually joining the show, no one's going to undo your edits. And there is no need to be mean to me. Mymis (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
Why did you delete my paragraph for the Real Housewives of Orange County Wikipedia page? All information was valid. I find no reason why it should be taken out. -Powerpokmon

Hello. I deleted the information that you posted because it was entirely based on unreliable sources. Season 10 hasn't even confirmed by Bravo yet and I don't think that Wikipedia is a place to post news that are based on gossip sites. I am sorry I didn't make my reasons clear. Mymis (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay I get the sources but Natalie Williams and Mynique Smith did in fact make guest appearances. And did have conflict with the cast. It can be proved through reliable sources. They should be put in the table. Does it matter if they were under some sort of contract with Bravo or not? (Powerpokmon (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC))

The Real Housewives
A couple of days ago, I reworked all the "Timeline of housewives" tables in the various articles to make various fixes, including standardisation of column widths across the tables. (See a comparison here.) Unfortunately, acpurdy doesn't seem to get the point and keeps changing column widths for no apparent reason, without changing all of the figures that need to be changed when he/she does. This is something that you might like to keep a watch on. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Real Housewives of New York City
Please keep Dorinda Medley on the table! She is making appearances on the show most likely as a friend. According to multiple sources including page six of the "New York Post". I would greatly appreciate it if my work was not erased and deleted. It's very annoying. (Powerpokmon (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a gossip site! The cast has not even confirmed yet and you will be able to add her when the new season will start and she actually will be making appearances. Your suggested source tells that Dorinda was heard telling a group of women that she was joining the show during a ladies’ brunch. Clearly just a gossip and you're already adding her as a recurring cast member. Wait until Bravo confirms that she is actually hired. Mymis (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Right but the article also says A source close to the production confirms that they are shooting with Dorinda, but she’s not yet confirmed as a full-time cast member. I only put the source down because it was the New York Post, which to me is a reliable source, along with the Inquisitor. And we have always, or at least since I started looking at the Real Housewives Wikipedia pages put down people who were rumored and confirmed by multiple sources to be hired for the show either as full or recurring, with multiple sources to back it up. Or were fired. I thought this situation was no different. And by the way, no sources/websites are even claiming that Kelly Bensimon is going to have any role in season 7. But it seems it is completely acceptable to make that assumption because she's been hanging out with LuAnn. Which is why I put "TBD" in her slot for season 7. When in the meantime, Dorinda has been seen with the cast on the cast's social media accounts. With a cameraman in the background! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerpokmon (talk • contribs) 22:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"Page Six" is a gossip column of The New York Post so it is generally considered as an unreliable source since Wikipedia is not a place for gossip (see WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:QUESTIONABLE). Seeing someone hanging out with the housewives does not mean that the person is actually hired by Bravo, no matter how many cameras are there behing them, unless it is officially confirmed by the network. We cannot make any assumptions by ourselves. Mymis (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The Real Housewives tables
I've discussed the issue of column widths on Powerpokmon's talk page. I don't know why he/she keeps making silly edits to column widths. I adjusted all the tables so the column widths were were consistent but there seems to be a strange infatuation with fiddling with them. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills
It's really not in your best interests to continue reverting the IP at The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. I've warned the IP about edit warring but, if I was to report the IP at WP:AN3, it's likely that you'd be blocked too as you've both breach 3RR on that page. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Real Housewives of Orange County
The Real Housewives of Orange County has been semi-protected for a week. That should, hopefully, cut down on the amount of unsourced speculation about season 10. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the List of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills episodes page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=651101431 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F651101431%7CList of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills episodes%5D%5D Ask for help])

Orphaned non-free image File:Million Dollar Listing Miami.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Million Dollar Listing Miami.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Jamie Foxx Show, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orlando Brown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Repeat After Me abc logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Repeat After Me abc logo.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Why
did you revert my good faith edit with NO EXPLAINATION? Salt-n-Pepa is their common name, not the other way around. Also, might I suggest you follow H:FIES? 65.24.44.45 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, I do apologize for not explaining my edit. Secondly, your edit does not make sense because Salt-n-Papa did not compete like a duo, they competed against each other and Pepa won. That's why Pepa is listed first and in bold because she won. Mymis (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes zero sense, and goes against WP:COMMONNAME, and seems made up. Do you have a source for this reasoning?  If not, I ask that you please consider undoing your reversion because doing a Google search of "Pepa-n-Salt' doesn't come up with anything in that order.  65.24.44.45 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You did not get my point. Salt-N-Pepa is a hip hop trio and their name is not mentioned in the article. In Lip Sync Battle, two of the members competed against each other and Sandra Denton ("Pepa") won, that's why she was listed first. I made come changes in the Lip Sync Battle article so it'd more clear. Mymis (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, I did not get your point. The changes you made to the article makes things a lot clearer.  Thanks, and sorry to waste your time.  65.24.44.45 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Mymis (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dark Matter tv logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Dark Matter tv logo.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Real Housewives of Atlanta Departing and Casting
Hey how ur doing actually she hasnt departed from the Real Housewives of Atlanta and I did she the sources about it but Bravo or Claudia never actually said nothing and everything else. And if this happen again pray. So can I plz do my edit or wat u wanna do its not up to me but yes.

God Blessed You, Valleryking Valleryking (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. E! News has confirmed her departure. E! and Bravo belong to the same company, thus it is considered a reliable source. Mymis (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I stop reverting on the Real Housewives of Atlanta stuff about the but I wish u the best and God continue to u n ur family n everybody else. Valleryking (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

RHOA
No E! Hasn't conformed anything and we dont no if she is or when and first of all stop reverting and changing it because I'm telling truth they think that because of the rumors and some times it's not always true and u no I can report u for vanderilism. I know they have the sources but no one hasn't confirmed or announce anything. I am nice but I am not going to report you because Im nice and stuff. So I'm telling to now that I will make some changes in stet of doing beherind ur back. God Blessed & Thanks Valleryking (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stewarts & Hamiltons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Hamilton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Keeping Up with the Kardashians
I noticed you put on Keeping up with the Kardashians article (Reverted to revision 674268637 by RealityShowsKUWTK (talk). (TW)) on an edit I did not do (and adopted-sister Charlotte Clarke. Charlotte was originally raised by a pack of wolves & was taken in by The Kardashian Clan when spotted on a South African Safari Tour) just to let you know 80.0.219.133 did that edit. I wonder how did my name get on there when you Reverted edit? RealityShowsKUWTK (talk), 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I know that was not you who wrote that, your name automatically came up because you were the last person to edit the page before it was vandalized. That's why it says "Reverted to revision 674268637 by RealityShowsKUWTK". Hopefully it's more clear now. :) Mymis (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Now I understand, thank you. RealityShowsKUWTK (talk), 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Fab 40th, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bravo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The real housewives of Atlanta
It's confimpemed that Sheree is coming back Marcus.Brown.1 (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Who confirmed that? Mymis (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Bravo have confirmed the new cast look at their website!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.38.60 (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You must provide the source then. Mymis (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Blindspot nbc logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Blindspot nbc logo.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Real Housewives of Melbourne
Hello Mymis,

I am writing to you in regards to your edit to the The Real Housewives of Melbourne article. I see you have removed the details of the cast and am just enquiring as to whether this is truly necessary. Having the housewives details listed seems no different than to say the Cast section of a scripted television series which details the characters age, profession, family, etc. I admit I am not a viewer of the series but am an avid editor of Australian related television articles and am just curious as to whether your edit is based on Wikipedia guidelines or is purely personal.

Thank you,

Forbesy 777 (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's definitely not personal. None of the The Real Housewives articles includes their cast biographies because it is not directly related to the shows themselves. Their life facts do change constantly and not all their business ventures, children, marriages are shown during the show. For instance, The Real Housewives of Atlanta has "Storylines" section which includes housewives' life events that actually been documented on the show. Mymis (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Thank you very much for clarifying. As I said, I simply wasn't sure what the protocol was in this situation and figured I'd ask for clarification. Thanks again, Forbesy 777 (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Lip Sync Battle episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Usher. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Special Publications of the Geological Society
Hi Mymis, the special publications are volumes published by the society normally reporting the papers read during a specific conference. They are generally regarded as books, complete with ISBN numbers and all have titles and editors, so I think that citebook is the correct template to use. Mikenorton (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I was confused because the Wikipedia article was refering to a part of the publication and the name of that part is certainly not the name of a book. However, I believe that another user, who initially placed that reference, fixed it. Mymis (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That was me - I just thought an explanation would be good - it was my mistake to leave out the title when I added the citation. Mikenorton (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

unreliable sources for kim zolciak
What sources are you saying are unrealiable? CT newspaper? NY post ? lLease do not do whole article reverts. For exmaple you deleted my TIA information. 173.66.63.102 (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * dailymail.co.uk, starcasm.net, straightfromthea.com are not reliable. They are celeb gossip sites/urban blogs. Mymis (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * incorrect. they are reliable as they interview the cast, get exclusives, and break info. the better thing to do would be find a source you do like, or add a {cn} tag. also tmz is reliable.  they get court documents. they are owned by aol and telepictures so they are legit.173.66.63.102 (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not up to your personal opinion whether a website is reliable or not. Potentially unreliable sources includes TMZ, Dailymail.co.uk and other pages as unreliable. They do post fake news, over-exaggerate the newsreports and so on. There is nothing impartial that such pages post, just true-or-not-so-true headlines to attract more visitors to their sites. And this is an encyclopedia. Mymis (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, if you continue adding the same statements in the article before we settle this, you will be blocked. Mymis (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * People mag is legit because it is backed by time magazine. TMZ is legit because it is backed by TElepictures and Warner Bros The link you posted even says TMZ is legit. 173.66.63.102 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what companies own it, TMZ posts gossip news, which most of them turn out to be false. In some cases it may be true, but only when it is referenced in other reliable pages which approve the news. People magazine is a good source, I agree. Mymis (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chicago Med nbc logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Chicago Med nbc logo.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

KUWTK Logo
Although you do have some valid points, it is most important to have the content of the page only contain what is up to date. The particular section of the page we are referring to shows the title card of the show. Technically, the most updated version of just that is the one from Season 11, making it the most desired to be on the page. Yes, the old purple (it's not really pink (〃￣ω￣〃)ゞ) title card is most recognized, but it no longer truly represents the show. Additionally, the new logo can be expected to be adopted relatively quickly.

In this situation, it makes the most sense to leave the old title card in place until the new one has been fully adopted by the media, public, etc.

--Ace of Haste (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * They most likely to come up with a completely different logo next year. Also, when it comes to user talk pages, you don't have to go my talk page to response. Response to your own talk page where I initially left a message, I will get the notification. Mymis (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your revert to the most recent title card. I agree with previous comments that the most recent title card should be used in the infobox, with the previous kept for use further in the article body. While there may not be an 'official logo', it is widely accepted that the title card used in the television show is most representitive of the program, thus should be used in the infobox. If you continue to disagree, perhaps a discussion could be opened on the article's talk page to reach a consensus. -- Whats new?(talk) 08:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Kennedy Brice
Hello Mymis. FYI I'm working on a new Kennedy Brice article to replace the one that was (correctly) deleted previously. I won't put the red link back that you removed, but I wanted you to be aware that the article is on the way. Kennedy played the title character in a direct-to-DVD movie called "June" that was released in October, and has a major roll in the soon-to-be-released movie "Worry Dolls" (note: there have previously been other movies by this same name). Please ping when replying Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 08:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's a great idea to re-create the article which was deleted THREE times before, it will be deleted once again if you create it again. I'm pretty sure this child actress is not notable enough to have her own article; she had a few guest roles/cameos in a few un-important movies. Mymis (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The X-Files
Thanks for those interviews. Bummer that they weren't very good. I'm still holding out hope, though!-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   23:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe people were just expecting too much! However, only one episode was sent to the critics, there are five more. Also, you can alter the section, i added a bit just to start it. Mymis (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:The Real Housewives of Potomac logo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Real Housewives of Potomac logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Keeping Up with the Kardashians
The article Keeping Up with the Kardashians you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Keeping Up with the Kardashians for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Example -- Example (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Oscar page updates
Might want to check some of the other nominees also, and if you ever have time add pages for other years (which I've been trying to do for years but never get done with it!) One thing is I keep on needing to link some names to other pages that some people don't do-like I just had to link a bunch to the visual effects page. Anyway good job! Wgolf (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

List of English Academy Award nominees and winners
Okay of course this is huge for List of English Academy Award nominees and winners, but one I just added was for the film Ex Machina for visuals, thinking about it, all 4 might be British, so that is something to look up! (I also saw that the sound editor who won for Goldfinger was oddly MIA on the list so I added him). Oh on the Australian winners someone put someone was Australian who was nominated for visuals for Mad Max, yet I'm not sure if they are or not (for Tom Wood). Wgolf (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, it is very tricky, most of these behind-the-scenes people have very little information about themselves online, especially for very basic facts, such as birth date or nationality. Mymis (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pato Escala Pierart


The article Pato Escala Pierart has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Even if the film meets the notability guidelines, I see no indication that that notability extends to this person. An online search reveals no sources that support WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:FILMMAKER. There don't seem to be more than passing mentions among the 92 Google hits.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address 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 articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gabriel Osorio Vargas


The article Gabriel Osorio Vargas has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Even if the film meets the notability guidelines, I see no indication that that notability extends to this person. An online search reveals no sources that support WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:FILMMAKER. There don't seem to be more than passing mentions among Google search results for this person's name.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address 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 articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Ellen Goosenberg Kent) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Ellen Goosenberg Kent, Mymis!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Looks great - just added a few extra citations."

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Your GA nomination of Keeping Up with the Kardashians
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Keeping Up with the Kardashians you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Matt723star -- Matt723star (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Real Housewives of New York City season 7 cast.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The Real Housewives of New York City season 7 cast.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Last Day of Freedom poster.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Last Day of Freedom poster.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Here Comes Honey Boo Boo
said what I have to say in edit summary. No reason to rm content-if you want a source it is your job to look, and it was right there at the int link-good day2601:80:4003:7416:E88E:929F:3D5:8FD7 (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not my job to look for a reference for a questionable unsourced material. The statement included within the introduction of the Here Comes Honey Boo Boo article was unsourced and that's why it was removed. If you think it should be there, please do provide a source. Basically all the reality television series do get negative reviews. I cannot see any articles stating that Here Comes Honey Boo Boo is the worst show of ALL TIMES or somehow worse than any other possible reality television series you can think of. Also, welcome to Wikipedia and please do read Verifiability. Mymis (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * TY for the reply, but I am not understanding your objections to the material. There may be good reasons not to have the statement, or to change it, or to source it properly, but the reasons that you have given for removing the statement and internal link are contrary to the way that I understand things.
 * My position, is that the statement was fine, and added value to the article, because-of the internal link, (which was sourced). And that you are making statements for an article on a TV show, that are more inline with WP:BLP as far as sourcing, because as it appeared, the statement met all standards of verifiability, even-if there was no citation. I can see a few reason why you might want to take it out, and I'm questioning if this could even be considered a WP:REFLOOP? But you are stating this like it is policy in a TV article that all statements, (or all statements in the lede) must be sourced, which is not correct afaik.
 * I would be willing to discuss this on the TP, or change it to something like, (properly sourced), "Here comes Honey Boo-Boo has been named one of the "worst shows ever", but your outright demands for sourcing standards in a non-BLP article have me concerned. I was under the impression that verifiability is the standard, and that it is up to a challenging editor to try and source something properly before deleting it, AND that the sources were provided for you there at the int link. Maybe I'm wrong, and if-so I need to know. 2601:80:4003:7416:93F:594E:9F5A:75E9 (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The internal link also does not prove it. There is not a single source added anywhere that would say that the show is "worst show ever". Mymis (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Blue Bloods lead
You removed the broadcasting station based on the first paragraph should consist of basic information about the show, such as when the show first premiered, country, setting, genre(s), who created/developed the show, primary broadcasting station (typically the studio that produces the show), and when the show stopped airing (the first airing of the final episode). However your edit doesn't make any sense. It says that the broadcasting station typically produces, but that doesn't mean it does. There are exceptions to every rule. If the UK/Ireland stations are primary broadcasting stations, that you should reword it to show that CBS is producing it, and its also broadcasting elsewhere. The way you edited it, it in no way shows that CBS produced it. -  Galatz Talk  16:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The show premiered in America, produced by an American television company and aired on the American televison network. The first sentence must represent that. No need to add on what station it is aired in some random country in the world, which has nothing to do with the show itslef besides having bought rights to air it. And why should we add where it airs in the UK? Should we also add which channels air the show in Zimbabwe or Argentina? And put everything in the first sentece? Mymis (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The rules say: "primary broadcasting station (typically the studio that produces the show)". CBS is the primary broadcasting station and CBS is the studio that produces the show. British network is not the primary broadcasting station and does not produce it. No need to add it whatsover. Mymis (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Keeping Up with the Kardashians
The article Keeping Up with the Kardashians you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Keeping Up with the Kardashians for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski
I have restored content that you removed from Emily Ratajkowski. That specific content is at issue at Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3. That particular content was discussed here. Feel free to contribute to the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, one short sentence would be enough for the readers to understand the success of the song, in my opinion, not the entire paragraph. I was a bit surprised to see how long is the article. The only thing that she is famous for is appearing naked in one lousy music video, she barely worth having a separate article.. It definitely needs to be trimmed at least by half. Contains an extreme amount of overly excessive information and clearly written by a devoted and biased fan. Mymis (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Heartbeat NBC tv show logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Heartbeat NBC tv show logo.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks so much for reviewing it so quickly!  Toa   Nidhiki05  00:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not remove THIS section again. It is both relevant and properly cited. WikiWillKane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwillkane (talk • contribs) 03:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, the section that you're trying to add fails several Wikipedia policies, including WP:CRITS. If you keep reverting it back, you will eventually be blocked. Mymis (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Keeping Up with the Kardashians
Hello Mymis:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Keeping Up with the Kardashians has been completed. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

You will notice that I archived one of the article’s citations (#1). I suggest that you archive the rest of the URLs as time allows. This ensures that the article's references are available "forever" and that it doesn’t develop “dead links” over time. The site I use is https://archive.org/web/. Simply copy the URL in the citation and paste it in the “Save Page Now” box on the archive.org site and click save. This creates a copy of the original page and provides you with a new URL to add to the original citation. If you look at the URL I've archived you'll see the syntax. You add the new URL to the end of the original citation like this: |archiveurl=http etc|archivedate=13 February 2015}}. Not all websites allow archiving - CBS TV news and the NY Times are two I've come across, so there's not much you can do about that unless there is an alternate citation you could use.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, thank you for all of your edits, very much appreciated! And I will work on archiving more links in the article, thank you for the suggestion. And if you have any more comments on how to further improve the article, I have opened a peer review, any comments would be very welcome. Mymis (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)