Tomaca

Welcome!

Hello, Tomaca, 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Top Jim (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Daryl Hayott has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bmyspace\.com (links: http://www.profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=409348366).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of T. Rodgers

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on T. Rodgers 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 is notable: 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 this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. De728631 (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of T. Rodgers

A tag has been placed on T. Rodgers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (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 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. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Billy Nichols

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 Billy Nichols requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Top Jim (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andre Saunders was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright, involvement with article subjects

Hi. I've responded to your note at the talk page about reverse copying. There doesn't seem to be such a note currently at the website, which claims to have been authored by staff in August 2008, when none of the content of concern was in the article on Wikipedia. If you wish text from the website to be usable, you'll either need to clarify that there or to donate the content; see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

That said, as you've identified yourself by e-mail as the publicity and marketing director of this individual, I need to make sure you are aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. While all individuals are held to the same policies and guidelines in terms of developing articles, there are some special challenges for those who are closely related to subjects. I have flagged the article for review to ensure that those policies and guidelines are met. I have also requested some additional references to bring the article in line with our policies requiring verifiability through prior publication and forbidding original research. Generally speaking, magazine, newspaper and unconnected industry websites are preferred, though the subject's own website can help substantiate some material, such as the nickname he has been given by his friends. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that while some Wikimedia projects permit you to request e-mails when your talk page is changed or when pages that you tag "watch", Wikipedia does not. I'm not sure why; it may be related to the size of the project and the number of contributors we have.

In terms of the tags on the articles, they are to invite uninvolved contributors to review them. Unfortunately, it can take quite some time for volunteers to get around to it! I see that Billy Nichols has been waiting for review since November 2010. I'll see if I can get somebody to take a look at it. Likewise, Daryl Hayott really needs to be read over by somebody not involved with him.

The Andre Saunders article was declined because it lacked "reliable sources." I note that you offered up several other Wikipedia articles, but I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source, because anybody can edit it. Reliable sources would be like those I describe above: magazine, newspaper, unconnected industry websites. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize what those kinds of sources say about "notable" subjects. In terms of musicians, "notability" is defined at Wikipedia:Music. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Tomaca. I'll post more info for you about the Daryl Hayott and the Billy Nichols articles here soon, probably within 24 hours, but I just wanted to briefly let you know that I've also posted some relevant information for you on Moonriddengirl's talk page, in reply to the questions you asked of her there. If you'd like to reply to me, either about the info I posted on her talk page for you, or in response to this current message, it'd probably be the least confusing for all parties if you just do so immediately below, rather than on her talk page or my own. I've temporarily added this page to my "watch list" so I'll see if you respond here at all, and will thus be sure to notice any reply you post. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, again. Just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about this; I'm working on it right now. Will report back soon. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've spent quite a while researching the Daryl Hayott article, and have left extensive comments on its talk page that you'll want to review. Most of the comments I made there also apply to the other articles you've created, e.g. the Billy Nichols article. I'd forgotten how time-consuming it is to research the notability of not-yet-famous musician, though, and I don't have another six hours I can devote to looking for sources for the Nichols article. I note that the edit history for that article shows that you spent about half an hour, so far, in actually editing that article. If you want that article to "stick", i.e. to avoid eventual deleteion you'll need to spend much longer to research the claims you've made, and to provide reliable sources to support those claims.

If you'll do that, if you'll take the time you need to, to support those claims from legitimately reliable sources ( no blogs, no sites that anyone can contribute content to, and that don't have proper editorial review, no self-published sources, no sites connected with you or the article's subject, etc. ) then I'd be happy to review the Nichols article. As it stands now, however, it's completely unsourced, and is thus a perfect example of an article that's likely to be deleted. Anyway, I hope you can make good use of the extensive comments I made on the Hayott article, and that you can find genuinely reliable sources to support the claims made therein. Oh; I just found another policy that may apply, that has to do with notability for films. I'll have more to say, below, about related policy issues that apply to your participation on Wikipedia. As with the Hayott article, I'll wait a few weeks with the Nichols article to see whether you've been able to provide any reliable sources to support the claims you've made there. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

About the question you asked on Moonriddengirl's talk page, viz.

• "T. Rodgers was another page I had submitted to wikipedia. He is well-known as one of the founders of the Los Angeles bloods gang. He has also done film work and has film credits on his IMBD page. This page was deleted. If I re-add him as an actor, would that be acceptable?"

I answered there, on Moonriddengirl's talk page, that entries in IMDb aren't sufficient to support inclusion of a film professional in the encyclopedia. I'll say just a bit more about that: Since you're the one who's interested in (re)creating an article about him, it's really your responsibility to search for reliable source information about him that could be cited in an article here, and to compare what you find to our overall notability criteria, to our criteria for people, and especially the specific section of our guideline for people that applies to entertainers. Without the least disrespect intended, you need to remember that we're all volunteers here, and it's a very time-consuming process to track down reliable-source references for a subject who isn't already broadly famous. People don't mind helping out a little, but no one really wants to do the bulk of that work for another contributor's article.

In other words, I think you need to go a little further to try to answer your own question about the potential re-creation of a T. Rodgers article. Look for sources, and compare them to the relevant policies, including WP:RS, and the others I've mentioned here. If, once you've done some of that groundwork, you'd like to ask for other's opinions as to the admissability of the sources you turn up, and as to whether Rodgers is notable, based on those sources, then you can ask here. But you'll get a better answer there, one that's more likely to accurately predict whether such an article will avoid deletion, if you'll first do the groundwork I've suggested as being necessary here. Otherwise you'll just get relatively uninformed guesses. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Your uploads

Hello, thank you for uploading images and releasing all copyright claims on them for free use throughout the world. However due to the fact you have stated you are a publicist for the label inclusion of the record labels logo in the images can be considered spam and a form of self promotion. As such your uploads have been listed at a deletion discussion. You may wish to comment at the disucssion.

You may also wish to become more familiar with Wikipedia's Image use policy as well as the NPOV policy, the Conflict of interest guideline and the Single-purpose account essay. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I am still learning my way around in wikipedia and am not sure where to comment when people leave me a note. Thank you again. Tomaca (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Billy nichols wiki.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Billy nichols wiki.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. 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 or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources versus writing what you know

Hi again, Tomaca. New editors can't really be expected to understand this, but no one is allowed to just "write what she knows" in a Wikipedia article. Every single claim that's made has to be properly "sourced" or (same thing) "cited". By that I mean that it has to be attributed, by a footnote reference, to a reliable source like a magazine or newspaper ( that has sufficient editorial oversight of its reporters, and is independent of the performer ), or a book published by a mainstream publisher, for example. If such sources to verify the claims made in an article don't exist, the performer is said, in Wikipedia's very specific meaning of the word, to not be notable. It doesn't matter in the least whether you personally know something to be true: If it's not documented in an independent, reliable source publication, it cannot be claimed in a Wikipedia article.

The policy I referred you to just above by creating the blue hyperlink for the word "notable" deals mostly with what we call our "general notability guideline". We also have more specific guidelines for specific kinds of articles, as you can see here. If you click on that link you'll find we have separate and quite detailed notability standards that apply to book, events, films, and (as I imagine will be of most interest to you) bands/musicians, and just people. It's very easy to create an article on Wikipedia, but the standards that must be met to keep it here are actually much more difficult to satisfy by far than most people realize.

As an illustration that's relevant to most of the articles you've created or edited substantially, please take a look at the talk page for our article about a flutist named Nina Assimakopoulos. The woman has played in Carnegie Hall, she's released an album on a notable label, and she's a professor of flute at a University. As you'll see from the very detailed analysis I wrote there ( when I was still learning my way re the applicable policies ), she barely passes our musician-specific notability guideline and, even then, it's a very close judgment call. ( That article needs a lot of work and careful attention, by the way. ) Finding reliable sources to support the claims made in an article about a performer, and making sure the relevant "notability" policy is satisfied, is usually a very time-consuming process when that performer is not yet widely famous, and it often can't be done at all. Further, it can and often does take much longer than merely writing the text of the article itself. I'd estimate that I spent at least 20 - 30 hours on the research I presented on the talk page for the flutist I mentioned, for example.

No one here likes the idea of lots of rules and bureaucracy; in fact I think it's safe to say that the great majority of experienced volunteers here dislike rules and bureaucracy very much. The problem, though, is that if we didn't have these kinds of fairly strict rules, Wikipedia would be absolutely overwhelmed with articles about things that aren't of much interest to the general public. It would become a kind of free web hosting service, in other words, or an alternative to MySpace or Facebook, rather than an encyclopedia. This is not to cast any aspersions on any of the subjects you've written about, of course; I don't intend that at all. But you do need to become much more familiar with the policies that I, and others have directed you to before you create any more articles; without doing so it will be extremely likely that articles you create will be deleted. No slight intended in saying that; my motivation is rather to try to make sure that you don't waste your effort or, frankly, generate work for other volunteers by creating articles that don't meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

COI Policy, and Disclosure Example

As others here have also informed you, you badly need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. More particularly, you should look at this section of the guidelines about declaring a conflict of interest and especially this example in order to understand how best to make such disclosures. I notice, for example, that on your user page you describe yourself as "just a singer" without mentioning that you also run a PR firm and work in that firm as a publicist. I'd strongly encourage you to disclose this on your user page, and to restrict yourself to only the talk pages of articles about any of your paid or unpaid clients.

So far everyone here has been pretty polite about this but, to be candid, I should tell you that there's a very strong dislike among established Wikipedians for editing articles when one has a conflict of interest. We even have a dispute resolution area, here for dealing with conflicts of interest. The problem we have with people editing Wikipedia for money, or to promote their own interests or that of their friends, is that it's not really compatible with the uncomplicated motive of just wanting to improve the encyclopedia.

I've included a note about this same matter on the talk page for the article about Daryl Hayott, with whom I understand you have a close personal relationship, based on on comments made in this blog post. Here's a "permalink" to that comment; please don't edit that permalinked version, if you click on it, though; it's a link to a "snapshot" or "historical" picture of the article's talk page, and if you were to edit it and save your edit you would be deleting all comments made subsequently. If you want to respond to anything I (or anyone else) wrote on the talk page for that article, you should do so at the "live" version of that page, here.

By the way, if no one's mentioned it to you before, you might like to take a look at the helpdesk. The friendly volunteers there are very knowledgeable, and depending on what time of day you post a question there, you'll usually get a first response within at least 30 minutes ( and frequently in just five or ten ), and may get several responses from different users as time goes by over the next day or two.

I hope you won't let any of this discourage you, but you really do need to spend some time learning the applicable policies before you continue editing, especially where you have a conflict of interest. I'll close by saying that I have no particular authority to tell you so; I'm just another volunteer editor like you are, albeit a somewhat more experienced one, perhaps. I do think, though, that it would be very productive for you to do so, and that it would certainly be of benefit to the encyclopedia, more generally, if you'd follow up on that recommendation. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick follow-up: That COI policy page is pretty long and dense. This section of that page provides a quick summary of what to do to avoid problems when you have a conflict of interest with respect to a given subject or article. You certainly need to read and understand the entire page, but that section is particularly relevant. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for all of the information and advice. I am interested in being a "good" contributor and someone who is working within the guidelines as I add people who have made substantial contributions to society.

Billy Nichols' page - I actually wrote the page quite some time ago and thus spent time on it today adding links to other places. That's why I did not need to spend a great deal of time editing.

Daryl Hayott - that page existed before I edited it. I can understand deleting any contributions I may have made to the page, but not deleting the page itself. And though there is an interview that states that I am involved with him personally, that was a misunderstanding, I was merely his driver to that interview. I will contact the interviewer and have them correct that. And at this point, there is no longer a conflict of interest because of the mistakes I made here. Which means I no longer have that position.

Verifying things via links on the internet, one thing that we have to keep in mind is that the internet was not around 30 or even 20 years ago. So if someone has done things in that time, it might not be possible to make references as links to those things.

I am interested in learning the ropes for wikipedia and am very serious about the contributions I will make to here. There are notable people who have done things for the rest of us that need to be noticed, perhaps applauded, appreciated and definitely known for those of us who follow. I will do my best and again appreciate the feedback and all the information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomaca (talk • contribs) 21:55, 4 March, 2011 (UTC)

The internet wasn't around 20 or 30 years ago, as you say, of course, but everything that gets added to an article nevertheless has to be cited to a reliable source. You cannot simply "write what you know to be true"; that's absolutely not the way Wikipedia works. Besides, all the proprietary databases I mentioned ( on the talk page for the Hayott article ) that I'd searched include newspaper archives that go back to 1900 and earlier. Almost all major newspapers and magazines, and thousands of very minor ones, too, have had their article contents copied as either full text or abstracts to these databases, and indexed for retrieval via the internet. You can't link to those directly, but you can pull brief quotations from them (as long as you cite them properly) and can use them as references even though they're offline or online but behind a paywall, again provided you cite them properly. It's the same with books, of course. The full text of every book ever published isn't (yet?) online, but you can cite books that aren't online, too, provided you don't misrepresent their contents in any way, of course. Online cites to free sources are preferable, of course, because they're easier to verify, but cites to offline sources are not disallowed, nor are sources behind a paywall. If you don't have a public library membership, you might think about signing up. Most of the proprietary databases I searched for the Hayott article will probably be accessible to you, from your home computer, through a gateway provided by your library.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, there's no need, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, anyway, to ask the blogger to correct what she wrote,

My boyfriend and I drive two hours on Sunday out to Northampton, MA to meet up with Daryl Hayott and his girlfriend, Tomaca...I found Daryl through another interviewee, nothing unusual there. However, his connection to reality show contestant Alan Corey is a super unlikely one. Daryl and Tomaca answered a Craigslist ad, not long ago, to adopt Alan and his wife’s dog, Max, when they couldn’t care for him anymore.

I understand that the blogger got it wrong about the nature of your relationship - an understandable mistake - but her blog interview isn't admissible as a reliable source on Wikipedia, anyway. And even though you're only Hayott's driver and publicist, rather than having the romantic relationship that the blogger inferred, you're still too closely connected to him to edit articles about him.

On that score, I wasn't quite sure what you meant, above, when you wrote, "And at this point, there is no longer a conflict of interest because of the mistakes I made here. Which means I no longer have that position." Were you suggesting that if the Hayott article were to be returned to a version that was in place before you began editing it, then any need for a conflict-of-interest disclosure would be resolved?  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your final question. Yes.

I will also update my profile to clarify my reason for contributing to wikipedia. It's about making sure the history of notable people is documented.

Image question

Hey Tomaca. I have a question about an image you uploaded, File:Daryl hayott webcast.png. I just want to confirm that you're the sole creator and copyright holder for that image, correct? I cropped off everything but Daryl Hayott's head and uploaded it at Commons, here. Since the original image looks promotional, Commons OTRS needs an email to confirm that the image is in the public domain. Would you be able to do that? Otherwise the image will be deleted. See Commons:Commons:OTRS for instructions on what you need to say in the email and who to send it to. It would be a shame for the picture to be deleted, so if you could send that email it would be appreciated. Anyway, let me know if you have any questions and whether you can send that email or not. Regards, Swarm ^X 02:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, if you don't plan on doing this, just tell me here and now. Swarm ^X 08:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andre Saunders concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andre Saunders, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Andre Saunders

Hello Tomaca. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Andre Saunders.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andre Saunders}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Tomaca/Vickilyn Reynolds

User:Tomaca/Vickilyn Reynolds, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tomaca/Vickilyn Reynolds and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Tomaca/Vickilyn Reynolds during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)