MrsSunDoesntShine

Welcome!

Hello, MrsSunDoesntShine, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Caucasian Black Cock

Hello. With this edit you removed an explanation I had put on a speedy deletion tag for this redirect, making it uncleaqr that I was asking for deletion as a hoax, not as vandalism. Please do not do this again. There are clear instructions on the tag as to what to do if you disagree with it, and altering the tag is not one of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. That was very kind of you. What's going on with Amy Chua? Can I help? Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Gem Spa

Hi. I've responded on my talk page and at User talk:Beyond My Ken#Re: Gem Spa. Stay calm, and we'll get through this. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Kershaw (writer)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on John Kershaw (writer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bluefist ^talk 22:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Sarah Silverman Program‎

Hi, do you really think it is original research to call a comedy program "light-hearted?" That is just about true by definition. If you are going to delete something, why not delete the second half of the sentence, that the show tackled issues such as abortion, racism, and same-sex marriage? That information is unsourced. If I add a reference to show it was a comedy, is it okay with you if I restore the statement that it was "light-hearted?" Logical Cowboy (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Herbert Midgley

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Herbert Midgley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ttonyb (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

St. Marks Place (Manhattan)

It looks like you were correct: the preponderance of the available evidence indicates that while both forms of the name are in common use – even the city uses both – the one with the apostrophe is somewhat more common, by a rough ratio of 2:1. I tried to move the article back to St. Mark's Place (Manhattan), but was prevented from doing so by the redirect, so I've requested admin assistance to do it. Good catch! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You should take a look at WP:OR to get a better handle on what is and isn't original research - it's a concept that new editors such as yourself often have trouble with. In the case of the "popcult" entries on this article, each of them is implicitly sourced by the media item mentioned, and do not require an additional source. For instance, if an item says that such-and-such is depicted on the back of so-and-so's first album, you can verify that by reference to the album, you don't need a third party source to say it, since there is no conceptual difference between verifying a fact with a book and verifying a fact from the the album. This is true for all the entries on the section you mistakenly labelled as "OR". (This is why we can have "plot" section for books and movies, since the primary source serves as the best source for what the primary source says.) This holds as long as the popcult entry is straight-forward description -- if it strays into analysis or interpretation, such as "So-and-so used this photo because they love St. Mark's Place", it would require a third-party source. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MrsSunDoesntShine. You have new messages at Redrose64's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Puffslime.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Puffslime.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use 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. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Monty-woolley-1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Monty-woolley-1.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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2011 (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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)