User talk:Hollin

Hello, Hollin. Welcome to Wikipedia. The content you posted for Phyllis Curott appears to be copyrighted. Do you have permission to post the material? If not, is there a claim for fair use? If you do have permission, the content can be restored through the history page. Thanks -- Kjkolb 07:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm still not sure how everything works. I got all the information off her official website, and copied the link in the external websites section.

It's a common mistake. Most people are unfamiliar with copyright law. I didn't know much about it until recently and I'm still learning. If it was just a short quote, it would be okay as long as it was attributed properly. However, the whole article is from the other website. Posting content on the Internet does not mean the owner is giving up any claim to copyright. If you could use the source to write an article in your own words, it would be great. A few websites do allow their content to be copied. Check the bottom of the page for a copyright notice. I look forward to your future contributions. -- Kjkolb 07:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, A Witch Alone, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Witch Alone (2nd nomination). Thank you. --B. Wolterding 08:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Emma (play), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma (play) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article A Witch Alone, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Livna-Maor (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hollin! 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 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Lynn Picknett - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article A Witch Alone has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability for books

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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Witch Alone 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/A Witch Alone (3rd nomination) 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]