User talk:Maddyfan: Difference between revisions

Thanks for uploading Image:Madonna-confessions-remixed.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I'll start moving things back to how they were..... do me a favor and get these stories and the references put into the article - otherwise it's gonna keep getting switched back! - eo (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's two links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7132227.stm http://madonnalicious.com/ "Licorice catches out Larry Flick"

The fan site, DrownedMadonna.com which posted the news to begin with, has contacted Larry Flick, and he won't reply back nor reveal where he got the story from. They now believe that he took the fan cover design with the title, and released it as the album's title name. Talking about f-ing up!

The official listening party thrown for the Warner Bros. executives had Madonna revealing that the tentative title for the album was in fact "Give It To Me". I believe this was reported on Wiki. Let's keep it as it's tentative title for the TBA page.

Thanks again.

Maddyfan 17:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got the article and Talk Page moved back and I removed all references to Licorice and I'm pretty sure I caught all the double-redirects. Let me know if you need anything else! - eo (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main Madonna page ;)

I did stick a new ref tag in the first sentence that someone posted in the Talk Page... it's directly from Reuters... although I suppose the whole confusion and subsequent news errors are notable enough to be placed in the article, right? btw I have placed a semi-protect on the move function, so hopefully we won't see it going back and forth. - eo (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe we were both working on it at the same time. Anyhoo, I've combined stuff you wrote with some stuff I put in also.... I kept getting edit conficts!  :-) Add/subtract whatever you need to... - eo (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I noticed that. You made the perfect summary, which I why I totally let it go when I saw that it was you that was updating the page. ;) Thanks again! 01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Rolling Stone and All Music Guide reviews of Blackout. They are added for consistency within the article. All of her previous 4 studio albums have 2 reviews mentioned in the article. Do not remove them without a proper explaination. Oidia (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're on the album page. We can't be seen as non-biased if we don't start posting negative and positive reviews which are already contained on the album page. We didn't need it before, we don't need it now. Maddyfan (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, for ...Baby One More Time, Oops!... I Did It Again and Britney albums, the reviews shown in the article are from Rolling Stone and All Music Guide. Second, 3.5 out of 5 stars are not totally positive, it's called a mild reception. Hence it's not "selecting only positive reviews". Last, like the previous sections in the article, reviews of the album make a good addition to the article. Do not remove it again. Oidia (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own the page, and the album page's reviews are sufficient and balanced. Maddyfan (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am exercising common sense in this matter. Britney Spears is a different article to Blackout (Britney Spears album). Like all her other studio albums, 2 reviews for each album are mentioned in Britney's page. It is therefore common sense to have the 2 reviews (from the same critics) for Blackout in Britney's page. Non of the other editors have a problem with adding the album reviews in Britney's page. Lastly, one of the comments you gave in Talk:Britney Spears is a personal attack on an editor. WP:NPA states that you should only comment on the content, and not comment on the contributor. Any more personal attacks from you will be reported to an administrator. Oidia (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oidia, just because you don't agree with me not agreeing with you, doesn't mean that you have to exaggerate other matters. I'm going to see what Kraft. thinks. Then we'll see if the reviews shall stay or not, and what the consensus is. The two reviews you published, are there for one reason and one reason only, to make the album sound better than it seems. No way are those reviews adding a non-biased overall review of the album. They are both extremely complimentary. The main album article states just the opposite. Your name adds to the non-non-biased effort. You are a Britney fan. I'm not saying you're doing anything underhanded or purposely to make her look good, but people are going to begin wondering about that very issue, and these reviews are not helping you. I appreciate any person who tries to help putting a page together, but if you think these reviews give a "balanced" assessment from critics, you really are blinded by fandom.

BTW, Oidia, what comment are you referring to? There is not one thing I said on there that is a personal attack. You have people on there who wish her dead. If you referring to my, "You must be joking or at least insane. lol." I AM referring to what the person wrote. Read their comments. They are completely insane, or are totally joking. You also would be failing to see my "lol". I know you take this personally, me not agreeing with what you see as "your page", but you don't have to start making up ridiculous accusations, looking for anything to use against me. It simply isn't there.

Maddyfan (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews I've posted are not biased. In the "Professional reviews" table on Blackout (Britney Spears album), there are these positive reviews:

• Digital Spy gave the album 4/5 stars
• Candid Review gave it 4.5/5 stars
• The Guardian gave it 4/5 stars
• Times Online gave it 4/5
• Associated Content gave it a positive
• AP gave it a positive
• BBC gave it a positive
• The observer gave it a positive

There are these negative reviews:

• Billboard gave it a negative
• NME gave it 4/10 stars
• The Star gave it 2/4 stars
• Newsday gave it a D

Therefore, the Rolling Stone and All Music Guide reviews (3.5/5) are mild reviews, they are not positive nor negative, they are in the mid-range when compared to the other reviews.

Part of the comment from Rolling Stone that I've posted in Britney Spears said "but Britney's stubbornly holding on to her freakness". They said she's stubborn and made a remarked on her "freakness". All Music Guide's comment said "the album is overpraised". As you can see, I'm not selecting positive reviews in her article.

And lastly, your comment in the talk page is obviously not referring to what the editor wrote, you are referring to the editor himself/herself. You can also get Kraft, or a Request for Comment to determine whether or not it's a personal attack. I am not exaggerating this matter. And on the note of exaggeration, let me show you this message you wrote a while ago, [1], noticed how you said we don't need three billion of them? So please have a think again before saying I'm exaggerating matters. Oidia (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but their comments had nothing to do with the page, and I responded as such. The Discussion page is not suppose to be for personal chit-chat. You are over exaggerating and you know it. You will also be treated as such, if you continue to make up such blatant nonsense. Shall I check and see if you wrote messages on the TALK pages of those who want bad things to happen to her? Give me a break.

If we're going to post a positive review, then we're going to post the opposite--negative review. Choose the most positive, I'll choose the negative, then we can balance this out. Those two contain no negativity, not like the ones who said it sounded like a blow-up doll album, or how Paris Hilton sounded unplugged compared to this. Maddyfan (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind other editors saying bad things about Britney, this just goes to show that I am a non-biased fan of her. You have commented that a contributor is "either joking or insane", and then went on to "laugh out loud" about your personal attack on that contributor. That is violating Wikipedia's policy of No Personal Attack. The history of your very own talk page have shown you were conducting personal attacks on editors [2]. If you insist that this is exagerrating, or blantat nonsense, then we should have a Request for Comment on this matter.

I completely disagree when you said the 2 reviews I've posted have no negativity. Read it again, for your convenience, I'll post them here, and bold all the negativities in their comment.

It received decent reception from critics. Rolling Stone gave the album 3.5 out of 5 stars, stating that "Blackout is the first time in her career that she's voiced any real thoughts about her life. The old provocation game is still afoot, but Britney's stubbornly holding on to her freakness — it's the only form of rebellion she's got left."[73] All Music Guide also rated the album 3.5 out of 5 stars, noting that "Blackout is an easy album to overpraise based on the lowered expectations Britney's behavior has set for her audience, as none of her antics suggested that she'd be able to deliver something coherent and entertaining" and also that "it holds together better than any of her other records, echoing the sleek club-centric feel of In the Zone but it's heavier on hedonism than its predecessor, stripped of any ballads or sensitivity, and just reveling in dirty good times."[74]

Those comments have both positivity and negativity within them. And finally on Blackout (Britney Spears album)#Critical_reception, the very first sentence states "The album has received generally positive reviews." So have a think again before saying it's "to make the album sound better than it seems" and "No way are those reviews adding a non-biased overall review of the album." Oidia (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"this just goes to show that I am a non-biased fan of her." You have to be joking with this. You're not making any sense no matter how hard you try. They're chit-chatting. That's against the rules. I responded as such. Get over it. You need to have some perspective and stop trying to bully people when it's completely not necessary. It's like running to the teacher every five minutes. Any person with a lick of sense can see what I was saying.

Review is pretty good review. Maddyfan (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reviews on Britney Spears are "pretty good" reviews, just as Blackout (Britney Spears album)#Critical_reception says "The album has received generally positive reviews." Just like the reviews on Britney Spears for her previous four studio albums. ...Baby One More Time and In the Zone have positive and negative, while Oops!... I Did It Again and Britney have only positive reviews. When other editors discuss non-article-improvement-related materials in talk pages, you need to be polite, be welcoming, and certainly not conduct a personal attack in informing them not to chit-chat. The way you responded is inappropriate in relations to the guidelines and policy I have wikilinked in the above sentence. Oidia (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke, and anyone reading it would see how nuts the poster was to begin with. The picture isn't her? She will be Marilyn Monroe, etc. My reply was spot on. It was a crazy posting. Maddyfan (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have blanked sources, removed uncopyrighted images when they are supposed to replace copyrighted ones and also falsely accused 3RR. Vikrant 13:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did break the 3RR. Go look at the history. Blonde Ambition, and the Reinvention image ARE copyrighted. They have been removed. Live8 happened in 2005, so I moved it to that section. I saw that you added sources, as I looked at the discussion page. Thank you. Maddyfan (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the history. Images are free see their pages. Vikrant 13:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the person put Self-made when they in fact, are not. The Blonde Ambition photo is official. It is agency released. The Re-invention photo is an infamous shot back from Getty/Corbis/etc. I have these photos. They are not unofficial. Users do this all the time.

Check out every Commons image. Publishers of magazines etc may choose a license of their choice. OK? Vikrant 07:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And both pics that you showed me have been cut from the free one. Vikrant 07:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they haven't. People do this all the time. It's is NOT free. Maddyfan (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maddyfan. The "3 edit rule" is actually a "3 revert rule". Some editors may try to get around this by using the basic edit function and manually making their edit identical to the one previous.... you can read more here: WP:3RR. If you feel that someone is absuing this you can submit an issue to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I am less familiar with the image issue you have as I am not as well versed on what is available in Commons. HOWEVER, it is my understanding that images found there are to be free images. There is a policy section in the Wikipedia Commons article. If you feel that an image was incorrectly tagged (i.e. editor claimed they are self-made when they clearly are copyrighted), you may want to check out Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. - eo (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Againsample.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:EveryTimesample.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:ThatstheWayLoveGoessample.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should go here and oppose this person's request for Adminship. Take a look. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vikrant Phadkay Vonita (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wrote something... special. lol. He's been denied already. Thanks for contacting! Best! Maddyfan (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maddyfan what Vonita has just done is canvassing. Please do not respond to such messages. Or warn the canvasser. Cheers Vikrant 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current image in Madonna seems to be a false licence. Is it copyrighted? Vikrant 15:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:WhenIThinkOfYousample.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1ST WARNING - You continually revert information on other articles that put other artists in a better light than madonna. You have done it on both the Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson article (and that just what ive noticed). Please stop. Realist2 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is a POV edit. Maddyfan (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2ND WARNING - Dont say that, you have just removed more sourced material about Michael Jackson. If you continue you will be blocked. Realist2 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not able to block people. Saying Michael Jackson outsold Madonna in 2006 or 2007, is irrelevant. Madonna put out one dvd during that time. It's a sentence to trump up Michael Jackson. I hope that you can understand this. Maddyfan (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RD WARNING - Do not remove fact tags from Janet Jacksons Discipline album. If you dontinue with these disruptive edits you will be blocked. Realist2 (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be fact tags, due to the fact that statements are clearly backed up by the content in the article. You have the writers listed, and producers. No Jimmy Jam or Terry Lewis. Janet didn't get writing credits. It's not something that needs a source. The info is there. Maddyfan (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC),[reply]

4TH AND LAST WARNING - Again you have removed material that is sourced from janet jacksons article. This is your LAST warning. Realist2 (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's POV. Maddyfan (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am know reporting you for continually asserting your own biases. Realist2 (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I don't have a bias. I'm removing biased material. You seem to have a history with threatening users. That isn't going to work on me. I've calmly and rationally explained my edits to you. I think you need to either familiarize yourself more with the Wiki service, or cease trying to edit. Your comments are not appreciated. Sorry, we couldn't work this out. Maddyfan (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi looking at your edits on the michael jackson at least they were from a fan site, once i was aware of your position on this particular edit, i reverted it once again so that i could go to the link and read the web site. The web site does provide a source for its findings but they have not given a link to it, therefore there is no way to verify there claim. Please explain your edits from the outset, mis communication can lead to these things. Realist2 (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you noticed his remarked above, in RfA, lol. It was not canvassing. You are right he knows nothing about Wikipedia policy. I think you'll enjoy this [3]

Vonita (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't read my message earlier. lol. Thanks! Maddyfan (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you noticed how he comes on your talk page and deletes.

Vonita (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that. Maddyfan (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Gtigsample.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Please come over Madonna discussion. Need your opinions and input. Golden Raspberry Awards have been added to the lead. No significance at all. But R2 is opposed to addition of 3 plays, Gosse and Tom-Tom, very much publicized Speed-The-Plow and Up For Grabs to the lead. Please put your input in More than sales section. Thank you. Israell (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a little more specific? I'm looking, but I can't find this in the Discussion page. I fixed Up For Grabs, which was in 2002, not 2004. I also added back Madonna's Political Views. It's not some rare instance in her career. It's been throughout her entire career and deserves it's own section. Let me know more about what's going on with the page and the disagreement. Maddyfan (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was uploaded again on May 22 and the details of the image licence seem fine, its been vetted. If you have concerns about the picture its best to do to the appropriate noticeboard. Cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just proven to you that the image is copyrighted. Sorry, cannot be used. If you have a free-licensed image you wish to replace it with, by all means upload it. Maddyfan (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:TracePoster.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes This is copyrighted. Ultra! 07:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political views is discussed at GAR.

Please do not delete revert edits without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your revert does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Ultra! 16:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made a correction up, delete --> revert. So please stop GAMING (reverting full edit if you oppose a part of it). Trimming Kabbalah as recentism was planned at GAR. Ultra! 16:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one owns Wikipedia. If you feel something should be edited or added, anyone is free to do so. I already explained this issue earlier. You are abusing the system, and how dare you say that I'm making edits in bad faith. Please refrain from telling people what to do. Thanks. Maddyfan (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Trailertales.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Janet Jackson Rock With You.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hirschshow.gif. 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, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 13:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Charactrace.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:220549.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies concerning images before you begin talking out the side of your neck! It clearly states:

• Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose.

The images are justified as encyclopedic as they are images of the artist performing during the tour in which the images are placed within (the articles).All three images clearly state who the copyright belongs to and where the image was obtained. Thus, it is protected under the "Fair Use & the Internet" Additionally, I clearly stated that when an editor uploads a free image, then the non-free image can be replaced and deleted. As I am sure that you know, a promotional poster are viewed as non-free content as well. These "conditions" that you are continue to mention in every edit summary can also be applied to these posters as well. If you continue to reverts edits, you will be in violation of 3RR and I will forward this situation to an admin. KM*hearts*MC (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in violation of the 3RR rule. Furthermore, using a copyrighted image from a photo agency is a big no-no. A public promotional shot is way safer than going through not on People.com, but also a paid image company like Getty, Corbis, Wireimage, etc. I will contact a moderator if this issue continues to intervene and ultimately make a decision. You do not own Wikipedia. Maddyfan (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do you. You obviously are not clear to Wikipedia's policy nor the "Fair Use & Internet" criteria. I have tried to be patient with you, however, since you are choosing to act like a child, I will treat you like a child. I have revert your edits and I am forwarding this matter to an admin. KM*hearts*MC (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. I bet they will just love your personal attacks. Maddyfan (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I care less if you see this as a personal attack. As previously stated, if you choose to act like a child, I will treat you like a child. KM*hearts*MC (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sticky & Sweet Tour. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. KM*hearts*MC (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't revert. I added the file back in manually, not from a previous edit. Maddyfan (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Rubero.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]