Billsimmons7

Billsimmons7, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Billsimmons7! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Explaining

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Links to Oklahoma Legal Group blog that you added to various articles

I notice that you added links to a blog by "Oklahoma Legal Group" to the articles about various films that appeared in their list of "best legal films of all time". I don't think that's appropriate, as blogs are generally considered unreliable and there is no evidence that this law firm is widely accepted as the world's authority on the evaluation of the quality of films about law. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear BarrelProof, Thanks for your note. A big fan of your work and it's an honor for you to have a look at some of mine. Not sure how closely you looked at the infographic but it actually uses 12 or so lists of best legal movies and combines them together to form one aggregated weighted super-list. So it's not that he is the world's authority of legal films - not at all, that's actually the exact opposite of the point of it. But as a result of it, one can objectively claim 12 Angry Men is a quality legal film, so on and so forth Billsimmons7 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the kind words. I'm rather surprised. No, I'll admit I haven't studied what was on that site – I just saw that it was a law firm blog site instead of a well-recognized authority on films. I'll try to take a look, but I'm not promising anything. In the meantime, you have my permission to look through my contribution history and revert my removals of that material (from six articles) until I get around to studying it more closely. But I'll warn you that two different people thanked me for those removals (one on The Caine Mutiny (film) and one on Paths of Glory) and that citing blogs is generally frowned upon. There were also some other articles that I looked at that had the same kind of information that you had added that was removed by other people some time ago. Also, I suggest that if you restore that material you should add some improved context information to describe why that list is worth paying attention to. If you do revert those edits and I later decide I still don't like it, I will come back here and talk to you again before acting. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey BarrelProof what are you surprised about? Well why don't you have a look and then we can revisit it. No point adding the links if they will just be deleted. Billsimmons7 (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm?

You need help with something? DS (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If a pagemove has been screwed up, typically you need to get an admin to fix it (which I've done). Thanks for bringing it to my attention. DS (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adam Banner

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 Adam Banner 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 real person or group of people, but it does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of UNICEF Kid Power

Hello, Billsimmons7. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, UNICEF Kid Power, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

 --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -  07:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)