User talk:Hippomuse

Image copyright problem with Image:PhillipSandifer.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:PhillipSandifer.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shinerunner (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the association of Phillip Sandifer with significant labels such as BMG, EMI, Disney and his writing and performing contributions to such artists as Jennifer Warnes and Glen Campbell make his contributions significant enough to have his information listed in Wikipedia. Further, his chart topping status in the Christian Music field make him an historical part of the genre. (Hippomuse (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Phillip Sandifer

A tag has been placed on Phillip Sandifer 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 band or musician, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Persian Warrior----Contact Me! 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Phillip Sandifer

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created, as you did with Phillip Sandifer. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Netalarm 03:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Phillip Sandifer

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Phillip Sandifer. 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. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Phillip Sandifer. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Phillip Sandifer

Hi there Hippomuse! I saw that you added a {{hangon}} tag to a page which you created, Phillip Sandifer. This is good, but in the process you removed the tag requesting deletion under CSD A7. Even though there is a hangon on the page, the deletion template should remain there. But don't worry, this doesn't mean that the page is going to get deleted. Make sure you edit the talk page of the page nominated for deletion, located at Talk:Phillip Sandifer, administrators will look at your reason why the page should remain before they decide what to do. Thanks - SDPatrolBot (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Hippomuse, 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:

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! --B (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to remove the messages above from bots if you want to clean house. One thing to keep in mind in regards to Phillip Sandifer - Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability for all articles. What this means is that claims made in articles need to be confirmed by reliable sources. For example, if his songs were recognized by CCM Magazine, a link needs to be added to the article using the reference template. (You can see an example where I added the reference to the piece from The Victoria Advocate.) I did a search on ccmmagazine.com and couldn't find any hits for "Sandifer". These claims need to be attributed to reliable sources, independent of the subject. --B (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Phillip-Studio-1.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Phillip-Studio-1.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 14:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The leftorium 14:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account is blocked indefinitely because it solely appears to be misusing Wikipedia to promote a topic closely connected to the editor. Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hippomuse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

every stich of information on the Phillip Sandifer wikipedia page is accurate. It is possible that some literature sources are now out of print or that certain companies referenced are now owned by other companies but each piece of information on the site is factual

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What is your relationship with Phillip Sandifer? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the owner of Urgent Records and Wider Sky music I work to maintain and keep up to date the historical and biographical data for artists associated with Urgent Records and Wider Sky Music.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hippomuse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

a. I understand the block was due to the belief that our organization is too close to the subject. b. All information posted to the subject's site has been correct and factual and "damaged" caused has not been pointed out. c. All contributions have in fact been useful as factual, not promotional updates to what the subject has been doing.

Decline reason:

From your response, it sounds as if you understand the conflict of interest guidelines, but are not interested in improving the encyclopedia in areas in which you do not have a conflict of interest. I do not have any grounds for overturning this block. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nomination of Phillip Sandifer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phillip Sandifer 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/Phillip Sandifer 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. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hippomuse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I really don't understand why I am blocked. I am just trying to accurately keep this biographical information up to date. It is accurate and correct

Decline reason:

You are blocked because you are believed to be violating WP:COI. Yamla (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.