User talk:UncleBobby629

Image:CoryWilliamsatPixelodeon.jpg
Hi did you take this pic?Genisock2 14:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Philip DeFranco requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb 19:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply
It will take more than YouTube "fame" to establish notability, and your article shows nothing. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. --Blanchardb 19:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted this article mearly 10 minutes ago and I wasn't even done with it. How can you delete everything I've done without letting me finish? That was uncalled for.

There are criteria by which articles can be deleted "on sight". Click here to learn more about them. Lack of reasonable notability assertion, (section Articles, number 7, was what killed your article. You did not show at all how your subject was notable, and there was no indication whatsoever that you were about to do so. You can restart your article starting with a mention of what makes your subject notable, if you believe your subject meets our notability criteria. --Blanchardb 20:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

so a porn star gets a wiki article but someone who gets 300,000 views on youtube in less then a 24 hour period per day doesn't interesting site you got here wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.74.134 (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Phil is a huge celebrity on Youtube, and if you say his name in a school many people will recognize it, i see that as notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.123.92 (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion
Hi. Regarding your question about Philip DeFranco, I suggest that, when you recreate the Wikipedia article about him, you state clearly, in the first draft of the article, what, exactly, does he do in his videos that made him so popular. That, and not just the mere number of hits he gets, is what will make him notable. You may also want to add the following text at the bottom of the page to alert administrators unfamiliar with the YouTube phenomenon that you are talking about something serious here:

--Blanchardb 22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:CoryWilliamsatPixelodeon.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:CoryWilliamsatPixelodeon.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Genisock2 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:PRESS PHOTO - CORY REMOTE.png
Thanks for uploading File:PRESS PHOTO - CORY REMOTE.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Kyle  1278  03:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)