User talk:Ivymike21

Harvard

Hi! Thanks for contacting me. If the Harvard article is, in fact, public domain, it needed to be listed as such. I'll make a note on the copyvio page. Chances are it'll be reverted back to your original version as a result. Best, Lucky 6.9 17:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Simpsons

I'm glad you made your "conservatives like The Simpsons now" addition to The Simpsons. I was just watching it today (the "rancho relaxo" one) and was just thinking "this show really is incredibly conservative, deep down". The article could use a quote or a link to a reference of some notable conservative or conservative group praising The Simpsons. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Public domain

Hi. In response to this edit of yours, and noticing the above conversation, I wonder if you are confused about what public domain means. It does not mean "made widely available". Please refer to linked article for more information. If you actually have proof that those press releases have been released into the public domain, please provide it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems instead of removing the copyright-violation warnings. Jkelly 19:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to work on an article that has a copyvio notice on it, you can do so by following the copyvio-notice's link to the Temp subpage. In this case, it is at Hannah_Teter/Temp. I have already moved your contribution there. Jkelly 21:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Teter

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jkelly 21:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Jkelly 21:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for beginning to discuss the matter, even if that beginning wasn't a stellar model of assuming good faith. As I noted above, I have raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Please feel free to chime in there in an attempt to convince other editors that I should break with process and not wait a week before removing the copyright infringement. Jkelly 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy for other editors on Wikipedia, please sign your talk page and user talk page posts. By adding four tildes (~) at the end of your comments, your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added. Jkelly 22:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiality and The Simpsons neologisms

List of neologisms on The Simpsons is a pile of crap, isn't it? AfD it and I'll absolutely vote delete. In regards to your notions as to my motives, well, you're wrong, but your assertion is largely non-falsifiable so I won't waste much time trying to refute your opinion. JDoorj a m Talk 19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I suppose I misunderstood your point about the Simpsons neologisms. Wikipedia doesn't keep a list of "The Word" subjects; why would we start with this one? What makes this one stand out? JDoorj a m Talk 20:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely wrong. People add things all the time, and they're deleted all the time. Have you seen WP:AFD? or [WP:CSD]]? Just because people add a thing, or because a group swarms an article, does not mean a subject is worth including. Notable secondary sources need to comment on anything for its inclusion to even be considered on Wikipedia. If they don't, it's grounds for removal from the project. Anything not rising to that standard should have citations added to it, or should be removed altogether. It's not up to a small, dedicated mob to decide whether something is notable. That's why we have WP:CITE. If you want a site where anyone can enter anything they want because they found it interesting, put it on antiwikipedia.com. JDoorj a m Talk 20:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ivymike21 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. BostonMA ^talk 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the sock puppetry notice from your user page. Please reread the "notes for the suspect" where it states:

If the accuser has listed evidence against you, you are not allowed to remove the notice from your page for ten days. You are allowed to respond to each and every accusation on the evidence page but are not allowed to remove accusations.

I am restoring the notice. --BostonMA ^talk 06:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 12 --BostonMA ^talk 13:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Nov 12 then. Though that seems silly. The matter is settled and they've blocked my other account indefinitely. I'm pretty aggrivated since I didn't break any rules with the other account.

The rules that you broke with the sockpuppet account are:

sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes ... using more than one account in a discussion at ... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, ..., or on talk pages.
Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail.
All users, ... are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of policy violations or disruption.

You used a "good hand" account to make safe edits, then used your "bad hand" account to remove an AfD tag.

You stated an untruth with your alternate account in this comment

"I categorically deny that I am a sock puppet or meat puppet of utzchips, or any other wikipedian." (emphasis added)

I hope that you will reflect on these issues so that you may improve as an editor of Wikipedia. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godspot

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Godspot, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. Bryson430 16:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Cold Generation Y

I have nominated Cold Generation Y, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Generation Y. 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. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Ivymike21! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 88 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Constance DeFotis - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Constance DeFotis

The article Constance DeFotis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet notability for people. The entire article relies on information presented through her place of employment.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Undead Never Die (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Albino Code

The article The Albino Code has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film with nothing to support it having its own article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Albino Code for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Albino Code 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/The Albino Code 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.

Donaldd23 (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]