User talk:Marckd

Welcome!

Hello, Marckd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think an article can be referred to by two separate names, such as WSUS 102.3 and WSUS FM, creating a second article which is a copy of the first article is a bad idea.

Instead, you should create the second article as a redirect to the first article, thusly:

#redirect [[Name of first article]].

No harm done; this is just so you know for next time. DS 15:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC) == WCCT == Minor edit - format change in 1982 occurred April 10 to 12 from being NBC affiliate WATR TV to independent WTXX...The station was an NBC affiliate till the end of Saturday April 10, 1982. On Easter Sunday, April 11, 1982 Channel 20 was dark. On Monday, April 12, 1982 the station returned to the air as WTXX. My source is Hartford Courant Sunday April 11, 1982 on their archives. I was under the impression it was changed in March as well before reading this.[reply]

User:Mario500 has reverted your edits to the article above. He has reason to believe they do not reflect his research. Please respond where I have brought up a similar issue at User talk:Mario500, citing sources if you wish to stand by your version. Or, use Talk:WFGX. DO NOT simply restore your edits to the article, as that is not the Wiki way. If you don't wish to fight an edit war over your edits, ignore this message. Morgan Wick 03:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits and additions to television articles have been both poorly worded and redundant. If your writing style does not improve, then you should refrain from contributing. Rollosmokes 04:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed some speculative information that they will be 100 % conservative like Scalia or Thomas. Their rulings thus far have not given indications to their true ideology. Lets see how they vote on some more cases before dismissing them as possible swing votes. Keep in mind, when Anthony Kennedy joined the US Supreme Court in 1988, conservatives by 1990 said "Bork could not have done better". In fact his votings with Scalia were even higher than Alito or Roberts. He evolved somewhat. From rulings thus far it seems that Alito and Roberts could be closer to Anthony Kennedy than Scalia. There is evidence to argue both ways. Now lets see how this year goes before speculating too far. By the way I am a moderately liberal Democrat and anti-Bush.

You state that the LMA with WVIT was only in force from 10 p.m. to 1 a.m. This is an innacurate statement. When WTXX was sold to Catholic Counterpoint Communications on March 19, 1993, Renaissance retained the rights to ALL THE PROGRAMMING. Some of the barter cartoons were returned to syndicators and off the air in the market upon closing. They did want a full time LMA with WTXX. But COunterpoint wanted only part-time time brokerage agreements. SO in good faith Counterpoint was allowed to run Disney Afternoon, Cosby, and Growing Pains from 3 to 7 PM for free. WTIC-TV would sell ad time and give WTXX no compensation for it. In addition from March 22-26 and March 29-April 2, WTXX was also running the syndicated Wild West miniseries from 8 to 10 PM. This gave WTXX free programming and WTIC TV ad-time and money. Meanwhile, WTXX and WTIC-TV began trying to negotiate a long-term 4 to 8 hour a day LMA. WTIC-TV insisted on at least 15 hours a day. AT the end of June talks broke off and WVIT approached WTXX about an LMA including a newscast and family friendly shows. WTXX then broke off talks with WTIC-TV and in fact WTIC-TV tried to take Counterpoint to court for failing to negotiate in good faith. The court sided with Counterpoint. It was at that point that the Renaissance-owned shows WTXX ran would move to WTIC-TV. This was in July. (now this is a bit too detailed to include and your streamlined sentences are FINE).

In Mid July of 1993 Viacom began an LMA with WTXX. This would include a 10 PM newscast daily. Also it included cartoons that would be run 7 to 9 AM Monday thru Friday, 7 to 10 AM Saturday and Sunday, 3 to 7 PM Monday thru Friday. Yes cartoons ran until 7 PM on the station on weekdays. This was quite notable. WTXX was probably the only station anywhere running cartoons that late in the day. My sources include articles from Hartford Courant and TV Guides from that time period. Half the cartoons were previously aired on WTXX under Renaissance but truned into the syndicator the March before. Contracts on these cartoons did not allow resting. WVIT got the rights of these cartoons to run on WTXX.

WTXX did take UPN programming in March of 1995 but was NOT yet branded UPN 20. They did run it in pattern and skipped evening HSN programming on such nights. The LMA between WTXX and WVIT did not become full-time until March of 1996. That was when WTXX was branded UPN 20 and got stronger syndicated shows. They did NOT reacquire shows. These shows did NOT previously air on WTXX back in 1993 or before. At that point the cartoons ended at 5 or 5:30 PM. Also HSN programs did fall off the schedule.

In 1999 WTXX was moved from its Waterbury facilities into new facilities with new LMA partner WTIC-TV.

Now you insist the LMA did not include the 7 to 9 AM or 3 to 7 PM time slot when it did indeed. I think it was notable that cartoons aired until 7 PM on weeknights. But I am willing to just refer to the 3 to 7 PM and 7 to 9 AM as syndicated programming. But I insist on acknowledging that 3 to 7 PM weekdays be noted in the article.

I also insist it was not until the spring of 1996 that WTXX began to market itself again and run better programming. These things mentioned happened all at the same time in spring of 1996. Home Shopping Network prtogramming was a large part of WTXX scheduling for 3 years. The deal between HSN and Counterpoint called for at least half the day being HSN. So I insist that it was Spring of 1996 NOT Fall of 1995 such changes were made. I have TV Guides from these dates to Prove it.

I will give you a promise though. Other than the following words, I will not add anything more on this issue:

Here is what I feel must be included: 1. WTXX entered into an LMA with WIVT in July of 1993

2. Timeslots programmed were 7 to 9 a.m., 3 to 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. to 1 a.m. which inclued a 10 p.m. newscast and syndicated shows. (would prefer to state that the syndicated shows were cartoons until 7 p.m. but do not insist on that)

3. State that the LMA expoanded to full-time in the Spring of 1996 and at that point WTXX dropped HSN and ran stronger shows.

4. I believe that WTXX was not branded UPN 20 until Spring of 1996 but was a UPN affiliate prior to branding. I can prove dates they became UPN affiliated but TV guides had no articles with WTXX 20 graphics in any of the issues. WTXX was not marketed much until 1996. UPN 20 articles began to appear in TV Guide in May of 1996. Still this is insufficient proof as to when branding began. Therefore I will concede about excluding when WTXX was branded UPN 20. Fair enough?

In closing I am not looking to get into a longtime editing war with anoyone, but want relevant info included.

Either include the entire hours the LMA is included or do not include anything on it except for the fact it was part-time. Again you seem as emotionally attactched to these things as I do. Come on concede on something.

Once again, refer back to my last statement on this issue. I have already sought administrative assistance in hopes of avoiding an all-out edit war. Rollosmokes 03:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marckd,

Please do not engage in edit wars. Recent activity on WWOR-TV indicates you have reverted to your version four times within a 24 hour period, which violates Wikipedia's policy on reverting. Although it is clear you feel strongly about the data you're including, Wikipedia strictly forbids this type of behavior. Many administrators will block users for violating WP:3RR. As I don't want to block you, perhaps you can come to a comprmise with Rollosmokes? If no compromise if forthcoming, perhaps you could seek a second opinion? Whatever you do, be sure to keep a level head. If you plan to work on TV station articles, you're bound to encounter Rollosmokes often, so it just makes sense to try to work with, rather than against, other TV station editors, right? Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 07:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marckd. I've removed your trivia about Clinton being first President to serve two full-terms since FDR. You forgot about Eisenhower & Reagan. Clinton was the first Democrat since FDR to serve two full terms. GoodDay 15:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are RIGHT!!! I did mean the first Democrat President to serve. But hey if its innacurate ...AND IT IS...Removal is fine. Thanks

Initially I believed that when intellectual units swap frequencies that the history of both the broadcast license and the intellectual unit history should be included in both articles. For example when WQHT moved from 103.5 to 97.1 and when WYNY moved from 97.1 to 103.5, I had thought that WQHT's article should include both the history of the 97 license and the history of the WQHT unit. The 103.5 history I thought should include the history of the 1996 to present WKTU unit along with other history of wat aired on 103.5 as well as the pre 1988 history of 97.1.

But after some thought I began thinking that 97.1 New York should be strictly license history of that frequency while providing a link to 103.5's history to find out the history of the WQHT ubit prior to 1988. The 103.5 WKTU artcile should be strictly the history of that license but providing a link to the history of the original 70's/80's WKTU unit and a link 97.1 to find the history of the WYNY intellectual unit.

In most cases, therefore station articles should be about the license history rather than intellectual property history. But I feel there should be some exceptions. In situations 1.) where a frequency swap recently happened and 2.) at least one intellectual unit spent many years on one frequency, both intellectual unit history and license history should be included in both articles for about a year. This way people looking up information will not be confused.

Recently WCRB Boston moved to 99.5 from 102.5 while WKLB moved from 99.5 to 102.5. Because of WCRB's long history of classical music programming, the intellectual property history of WCRB should be included on the WCRB license history as well as the WKLB license history.

WKLB's intellectual unit had several originations. WKLB was the result of a merger of two different similarly formattted radio properties. It also included a previous frequency swap. On the 99.5 WCRB article, the license history of 99.5 should be included and the WKLB intellectual unit should be discussed after its move there in 1997. Previous WKLB unit history is not necessary. On the 102.5 WKLB article, the intellectual unit history of WKLB should be included prior to 1997 as well as after 1997, while 102.5's license history should be included. Eventually, when people get used to the new frequencies, the articles should be respective license histories. Just my thought for now.

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article United States network television schedules (Sunday morning), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Would love to see this information included but unfortunately have no time to do this right. Maybe eventually" I would not terribly miss the Sunday lineup article if its deleted."

Hey, thanks a lot for finally making that last season into a table. I did the rest of them, just never got around to the last one. ;) —MrSomeone ^{( tlk • cntrb )} 23:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"That was quite a task...I did a load of cutting and pasting and violated the three edit rule to get it done. But the end hopefully justified the means. Still its nice to have that article complete.

The article was still under construction and was in the rpocess of being expoanded during deletion. So it was a bit premature to delete the artcile at an hour old

A tag has been placed on Dark Knight (Six Flags Great Adventure) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 10:00 Get the Message
• Noon Newsreels
• 12:15 Modern Almanac
• 12:30 Cartoons
• 12:55 Weather/News
• 1:30 Movie
• 3:00 Best of Groucho
• 3:30 Mickey Mouse Club
• 4:00 Captain 11
• 4:15 Rocky and Friends
• 4:30 Rocky and Friends
• 5:00 Superman
• 5:30 Huckleberry Hound
• 6:00 77 Sunset Strip
• 7:00 Basketball
• 9:00 Untouchables
• 10:00 Pioneers
• 12:15 News —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.48.32 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On June 30, WNNJ (AM) 1360 changed its call letters to WTOC along with a format change. Therefore, WNNJ (AM) is no longer the name of the radio station. I think that WNNJ (AM) be deleted and redirected to the new article.

WNNJ-FM now has the WNNJ call letters because no AM station shares the letters anymore. I made some changes to these articles to reflect recent changes. Any info on WNNJ (AM) can be fornd on the WTOC (AM) article.

Hello. Your contributions to many of the Our Gang related pages violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy against biased, loaded, and opinionated writing in articles. Please review this policy at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and help to revise and rewrite many of the articles that this issue has affected. Thank you. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contributions to may of these articles also violate Wikipedia's policies against copyright violations, as many of the synopses are copied and pasted directly from the New York Times website. Please refrain from doing this in the future; all Wikipedia content is to be original work by its authors, and doing something like this creates more work for editors who have to now correct over a hundred articles. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give WFKB a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. RobDe68 (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marckd! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 298 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Bill Brown (radio personality) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WYAH bgan very little secular shows in 1967. It was not until 1969 that even off network sitcoms like the ones mentioned were added. The station was still on only about 12 hours a day in January of 1971. They gradually expanded over the years of 1971 to 1974. By 1974, they were a conventional independent station.

Now I think some more shows on the station should be mentioned. There has been some edit wars over the past months for some reason. One thing though; about 8 months ago, the article DID include innacurate info station that this station aired shows like Ultraman and Speed racor. This is innacurate and was corrected. I tried to correct this bakc then and my article was reverted. Then many accurate shows were also deleted from the article. But its true that this station never ran Japanese animation. One reason wah that there was an abundance of other programming to choose from.

One reason why many think that syndicated shows on a station should not be listed in an article is that often times people use their memories and list some innacurate information. Other times there is dispute on what shows aired on a station. Sometimes a show only airs several month and many stations go through over a hundred syndicated shows in their years on the air. Then the dispute is what should be included and what should not be. So perhaps we should be careful to not get too deep with shows on a station except notable locally produced ones maybe. I still emotionally like to see lists of shows on each station to give people an idea of what the station was like. But I will not attempt to expand this article with tons of shows.

This kind of information is trivial, at best. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a depository of useless information. Articles will get too long and tedious if every show a television station presently/has broadcasts is included in the text. One other thing to remember is that not everyone is "into it" as you may be. There is such a thing as having too much detail--even if it is factual. 72.68.192.10 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learn how to spell, idiot. Possability is spelled possibility —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.127.97 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Deno's Wonder Wheel Amusement Park 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 an organization or company, 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. WWGB (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Deno's Wonder Wheel Amusement Park. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. WWGB (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Deno's Wonder Wheel Amusement Park. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. De728631 (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Deno's Wonder Wheel Amusement Park requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate 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 {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, 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. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Deno's Wonder Wheel Amusement Park is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deno's Wonder Wheel Amusement Park until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

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 template from the top of the article. De728631 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Makecat. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to WFME (FM), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Makecat 13:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Makecat 13:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying and pasting its content into WNSH. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes.

Unfortunately, we will have to temporarily delete the new article you created under speedy deletion criterion G6, so that the page you intended to move may be properly moved in a way that will preserve its edit history. To avoid this problem in the future, please use the "Move" tab at the top of articles in order to re-title them.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RobDe68 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Brown (radio personality) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Brown (radio personality) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lil' Thunder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil' Thunder until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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.

~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Big Fury is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Fury until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

 // Timothy :: talk  18:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, WUVN, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at WCNC-TV, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jim Bakker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PTL. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]