User talk:TheCoffinRobber

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello TheCoffinRobber, welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some tips:

Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Use the Show preview button
Provide an Edit summary
Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
Create a User page
Be bold
Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 06:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC) (This was taken from User:WAvegetarian's first edit on my talk page.) --Tim4christ17 ^talk 06:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted articles

I'm assuming good faith (the two articles have 360 deleted edits between them) and deleting to unprotect them. Note that you need to provide independent verifiable sources that they meet the notability guidelines, or they will be deleted and reprotected again. jimfbleak 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Creekwater still lacks independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. Myspace and the performer's own website are not independent. I'll hold off for now, but the article may be deleted by others if the criteria are not met. jimfbleak 09:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if you're more or less home and dry now, other editors appear to accept that the references establish enough notability that it's not been tagged again. jimfbleak 05:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. Ca$his was deleted at 14:50, 4 April 2007 by MichaelBillington reason given was (Criterion for speedy deletion A7 - does not assert notability). It's the same problem showing that the guy is notable enough. Although there are references, myspace doesn't count and the mtv ones, although prettily formatted, might benefit from being more obvious. Having said that, it's still arguable whether all editors would determine that the notability guidelines were met, esp considering the long and troubled history to this multi-deleted article. jimfbleak 06:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aplogetix07.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aplogetix07.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 06:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ApologetiX-new+used.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:ApologetiX-new+used.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wordplay.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wordplay.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bobby Creekwater

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bobby Creekwater, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Creekwater (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of New & Used Hits: The Best of ApologetiX Vol. 1 & 2 and other articles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the following articles to which you have significantly contributed, are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted:

New & Used Hits: The Best of ApologetiX Vol. 1 & 2 (authorship)

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zebraic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]