User talk:Jerrysanders2009

The article Sylvia herpolscheimer academy of performing art has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Sylvia Herpolscheimer

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Sylvia Herpolscheimer, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.sylviaherpolscheimer.webs.com/. As a copyright violation, Sylvia Herpolscheimer appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Sylvia Herpolscheimer has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

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:Sylvia Herpolscheimer and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia: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:Sylvia Herpolscheimer with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold 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:Sylvia Herpolscheimer.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Gilo1969 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gothopotamus

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Gothopotamus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Protologism.

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 {{dated prod}} 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. — neuro^(talk) 18:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Lady Gaga. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Kirstie-alley--fat.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Kirstie-alley--fat.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. 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 per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Kirstie-alley--fat.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Kirstie-alley--fat.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Rossrs (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Kirstie Alley. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kirstie Alley, you will be blocked from editing. jæs (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours from editing for persistent vandalism. 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 {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, something seems very off about this whole Sylvia Herfelwhatever stuff. I'll look inot this a little more, but if this turns out to be an elaborate hoax, I'll change this block to indefinite. Can you point me to any reliable source that mentions this woman or this school? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is an elaborate hoax. Upgrade to indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jerrysanders2009. Thank you. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]