User talk:Kibadunno

Delilah films[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Delilah films, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://delilahfilms.net/about.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Bennett[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Stephanie Bennett, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.delilahfilms.net/about.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stephanie Bennett[edit]

The article Stephanie Bennett has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability with lump of copyvio

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Stephanie Bennett[edit]

I have nominated Stephanie Bennett, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Bennett. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Bennett[edit]

In regards to your question, a subject is notable if it has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable, third party sources. This would mean that, in the case of a biographical article, several reputable websites, newspapers, magazines, etc. have given her non-trivial coverage; i.e., a whole article about her herself, or at least with a large section on her. I have dug through Google, Google News and the like, and have found only trivial sources such as IMDb (which is user-submitted and therefore not reputable for Wikipedia), CD Baby (also trivial), and the like. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Thank you for your help. I do realise your points, but Stephanie Bennett is a big movie producer and feels that she needs a wikipedia article for general reference. If you would like to contact her, you may at [redacted]. --Kibadunno (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting her e-mail is a bad bad idea. Anyone could see it! Also, please explain to her that Wikipedia is for subjects that already are notable. It's not supposed to be an advertising vehicle. Unfortunately, she doesn't meet our notability guidelines — understand that we have to have some sort of cutoff, otherwise we'd have articles on everybody and everything. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I understand now, and will explain this to her. --Kibadunno (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reality[edit]

Your edits to reality were vandalism. If you wish to continue editing wikipedia, please desist from such behaviour. 1Z (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]