User talk:Thegingerone

Tawkerbot2

The reason it put that warning on your talk page was because you removed a large amount of comtent, although since it is a bot it couldn't tell it was a legitimate edit. It looked like you were trying to make a redirect. To do those, you type #REDIRECT [[Name of the article you want to redirect to]]--Shanel 05:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Thegingerone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Tawker 05:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I can post a link to the info about the fake album. On the page it states it was the fake album. Just let it say!

Message 2

I understand. I was just informing people that the album is fake! And I think deleting the section is worthless. I said the album was fake! Wow.

Edit Summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--Abu Badali 22:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External link in Victoria Beckham

Hi, Thegingerone. Regarding this edition, do you believe the addition of that link to Victoria Beckham is in accordance to WP:EL? Don't you think it's better to first ask about the link inclusion in the article's talk page? Best regards, --Abu Badali 22:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Victoria Beckham. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links as long as the content abides by our policies and guidelines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Abu Badali 15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for vandalism. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of our neutrality policy are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. - Glen 02:56, 8 September 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

I just want to work on pages; not put up pics anymore...

Decline reason:

Repeated uploading of unsourced issues poses significant legal issues for you and the Wikimedia Foundation. Come back at the end of the month, and do not contribute unsourced images. Thanks. -- alphaChimp^(talk) 05:09, 20 September 2006 (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.

Your edits to I5 (girl group)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Thegingerone! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 10:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. Shadowbot 10:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbot

Shadowbot reverted your edits because you inserted a link to an Angelfire site into the article. In the future, please use their official site rather than linking to a fansite. Shadow1 (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection template

Putting the template on the top of the page doesn't mean that the article is semi-protected. You have to be an admin to semi-protect the article. mirageinred 23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Vandals in Natural and Ben Bledsoe

If you put the articles on your watchlist, you can see keep track of the changes that have been made to them. (There will be a tab called "watch" at the top of the article, and on the top right of your screen there's "my watchlist".) If the vandalism continues on a very large scale, you can request that the page be protected from edits by anonymous users - see the page WP:RFP. I will put the pages on my watchlist as well and keep an eye on them. Hope this helps. ... discospinster _talk 16:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Ben Bledsoe

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ben Bledsoe. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Cheers, Lig hts 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up Lou Pearlman

Pretty good job for a start, kudos. --SooperJoo 14:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are confused about what BetacommandBot is looking for...

Hey, I saw your edit summary at Image:Tid 02.jpg (which you might consider reuploading with a better name) and check wanted to point you to this discussion. There's quite a few people having fun with BetacommandBot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD template help

A quick tip for when you want to AfD an article: Go to the article you want to delete and put {{subst:AfD}} at the top. There are then further instructions on what to do at the bottom of the template and that will help guide you through the rest of the process. Hope that helps. violet/riga (t) 13:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haifa Wehbe born in 1970?

I think that it is very probable that she falsely claim that her birth year is 1976. However, there are sources that also indicate she was born in 1976. mirageinred 22:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Pickford & Olive Thomas

WikiThanks

Hi! I just wanted to thank you for referencing and expanding the Jack Pickford and Olive Thomas articles. I tagged them and got a bit behind and forgot about them. Aside from a few copy edit errors (no biggie, we all do 'em!), they're very good. Thanks again! Pinkadelica 06:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, after reviewing the Olive Thomas page, I had to make some edits. Mostly spelling and sentence structure errors, but some words were POV and can't be used and, while quotes are great, too many can be distracting. Also, IMDb can't be used as a reference. You can use the filmography section as a reference, but you can't use the trivia or biography section as they are they are not fact checked. If I've removed anything that you think should remain in the article or you just have a general question, please let me know. Pinkadelica 06:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oop...I just got your last message as soon as I sent my last one. You're totally welcome :). You really helped me out. I was putting off doing the articles because I was having a hard time finding sources. You seemed to have no problem! lol As I said, anything I removed (didn't remove much, just a few words and at most, lines), isn't done out of spite because you did a bang up job. I just know that eventually, someone will come along and make drastic edits or tag the article without saying a word. That's to be expected because that's what this site is about, but it can be a bit disheartening when you first start writing or overhaul an article and get a massive edit out of the blue, especially if you took time writing and sourcing it. Anyhow, I agree about Olive. She was fascinating. Have you seen the documentary by Hugh Hefner on her? It was great. That would certainly make for a great source for the article. Pinkadelica 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Pickford

Hi. I've reverted your edits to Jack Pickford again because "disastrous" is POV, and there were tons of misspellings ("through" for "threw") and bad grammar ("seen to it" instead of "saw to it"), among many other examples. Corvus cornix_talk 00:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now please go back and fix all of the broken reference tags I had fixed before you reverted me. Corvus cornix_talk 02:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You razed the last 3 or 4 edits in People to People Student Ambassador Program

You completely eliminated the additional information that I included in the edits, surprisingly, even on non-controversial facts such as price. I am puzzled. I am also puzzled why you undid the simple move to put a criticism into the criticism section. Regarding your comments: (1) People to People International is indeed a non-profit. Please see this http://www.ptpi.org/about_us/ and note that the clause I inserted is modifying People to People International; (2) I think "scam" is an overamplified portrayal of the link you provide and it certainly is a non-neutral POV. Your acknowledgement that it is "alleged" further supports the notion that we are not dealing with non-controversial fact there. Let me suggest that we alter the description to "Report on People to People Complaints". (3) I did not remove a reference. Footnote 1 is used elsewhere in the wiki entry and remains cited. However, as I provided a more current source of pricing information, I replaced the older, less-detailed price info and of course cited the newer reference. In the future, please make selective changes to the new edits that need correcting rather than making wholesale reversions back to your last text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloombergy (talk • contribs) 01:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna May Wong

Hi, Thegingerone. I notice you did quite a lot of work on the Anna May Wong article yesterday! The filmography and references were not showing, and, as I suspected (through hard experience) the Ref tags were the problem, and I've fixed them. Unfortunately there was a bigger problem-- one of the main articles sourcing the article (I can't even link it on your talk page now) has been blocked as spam. At first I thought this was a mistake, but it turns out to be basically a Wiki-type site, so it's not usable here. Anyway, great job on the article so far! If you plan to continue working on the article, I recommend using the "<ref name=>" tags, and the

{{cite book}}
{{cite news}} and
{{cite web}}.

(Also, the quotes need not be in bold. Maybe some quotes from Wong herself can be put as blockquotes?) Feel free to ask me for help on using these. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Thegingerone. Yes, I noticed your little Valentino difficulties. All I can say is... wow... I'm lucky enough to work in a library, so I've got access to all of those sources. I'll start adding what I can next week. Take care... and don't let the trolls bite you! :-) Dekkappai (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valentino

Thank you for editing the sandbox article of Valentino. Great job. I'll go back & fix the citations, etc. I honestly didn't mean to sound like a task master or jump down your throat because I can understand your frustration especially when no one is around to help or compromise in the slightest. It seems you're willing to compromise when it comes to your edits and since I've encountered you before with the Olive Thomas article, I do think you have some valuable information to present to articles. It looks as if the other editor involved in the dispute is going to be blocked for some time so, I think after the Valentino article is up to par, we can request it be unlocked and put the new version up. If any "new" users or anonymous IPs pop up to make the same sort of changes, we'll deal with that as it comes. Again, thanks for the great effort and if there's anything else you'd like to add or take away, please feel free to do so. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to note this here, rather than on the article talk page. The page was locked due to the contentiousness between the two of you, and it's likely to happen again too soon if the both of you don't try to conform to the discuss and requests that Pinkadelica has asked of you. I'm approaching as a friend to the article and asking you not to start in the with back and forth reversions again and when you do make edits to the article, to use the edit summary to note what the changes and rationale are for your edits, without editorializing. As I've looked over what has gone on with this article recently, there are many issues regarding the improper use of edit summaries, violations of WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:TE all around. This has to stop or someone is going to end up requesting an admin look at not the content, but the behavior of the editors. If you guys can't work together, then I would suggest taking a step back and taking a break. Pinkadelica has graciously offered to help work this out, please abide by her requests. One of those requests was not to carry out discussions regarding your dispute under more than one heading, which is being ignored in order to repeat the same things that led to the current situation. Replying as you did under the new heading is also ignoring her request and is counter-productive. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more note. It doesn't do your case well to try and bargain or argue this way about the article being locked. This is what I was warning you about. If you don't turn your attention to working out the dispute over the page, you're going to end up blocked. I warned you that this would happen, and your action of completely reverting the article was wrong. When a dispute resolution is ongoing, neither of you are supposed to keep on editing the article. Also, the administrators who lock articles aren't the ones who work on content disputes. He locked it when the request was made, on whatever version is on the page at the time and that doesn't endorse any given version. In fact, the tag on the article page says no one version is endorsed. What you don't seem to to grasp here is that the dispute resolution Pinkadelica is trying to work out is what is going to determine what ends up in the article. You both are only doing yourselves damage by continuing the nitpicking and tantrums over who is right and who is wrong. There is often no right or wrong, and only through collaboration and compromise will the article go forth. You won't get an adminstrator who locks an article to take something out to suit you. He told you to work out your differences first. One thing you really need to drop is the mindset that one published book is arbitrarily better than another. Work it out with Kevin j and quit trying to bargain. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, be that as it may, when a page is locked, no one tries to discern what is or isn't "the best version." That's a matter for resolution. I really don't want to try and deal with this over a variety of articles. If you feel this is a problem, then perhaps you need to take it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for violations of WP:Harassment and WP:Wikistalking. If you do, you need to express your problem without being too excessive and try to present it calmly and matter of factly. You'll need to have diff examples to show what is being done. You can get instructions for making diffs here. Good luck. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Pickford comment would really need a source to support that it was a career defining moment. That it isn't even mentioned in her article may be a problem in supporting this addition. However, that fact doesn't take away from the tenditious stalking case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 24 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pollyanna (1920 film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim_(talk) 19:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Question

If someone is posting personal information about you, you can report that and I suggest you do so as soon as possible. If you also suspect someone is using an account that doesn't belong to them or is creating sockpuppets, you can report that as well. Instead of engaging in an argument with people you don't get along with, I suggest you ignore them completely instead of answering them on their talk page in a vain attempt to get the last word. It's the internet...no one wins and as long as someone's keyboard works, you won't get the last word. I also suggest you stop editing the articles that are causing this drama for a bit. If someone is on here solely to promote themselves or, as you said, to slander others, report them and let the administrators handle it. If a COI is brought to someone's attention, other editors will look into it and maintain the page. Getting into petty arguments on a talk page is not going to solve anything and when you finally do seek help, it doesn't exactly help your case if you're dishing out the insults too. I strongly suggest you stop communicating with these people completely. If you're done with a situation, you're done. There's no need to announce it or to tell someone to "get a life". That's uncivil behavior too, so watch yourself. :) Pinkadelica (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Thomasmeighan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Thomasmeighan.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, then 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, then 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:Fair use, 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 14:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 14:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikia.com

All of your links to www.xxxxx.wikia.com are links to sites that mimic the content here on Wikipedia. As such, they will certainly fail to provide further information. Please revert your additions of such links. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links to the silentfilm.wikia.com website is a violation of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, see #12, which refers to links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. A new wikia site with 48 articles and 3 editors is exactly what this policy is prohibiting. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

You need to learn to:

1) cite sources for un-sourced material

2) learn how to format your references properly

Wikipedia:Citing sources and also Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style

IP4240207xx (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Band

The cite tag means you need to add a citation or reference, please do not removed the tag without providing a verifiable source. - WikiDon (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Awesomealbumcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Awesomealbumcover.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:B00005IBGN 01 SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ V1116087749 .jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:B00005IBGN 01 SS500 SCLZZZZZZZ V1116087749 .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) 14:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:B000JMJUU0 01 SS400 SCLZZZZZZZ V35540342 .jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:B000JMJUU0 01 SS400 SCLZZZZZZZ V35540342 .jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Benalbumcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Benalbumcover.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Jaydon

He's back, and needs discussion. Kww (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you were right all along - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (3rd nomination). Neıl 龱 21:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna May Wong

Hi, Thegingerone. I thought you'd like to know Anna May Wong just passed FA review. I think it is your work on the article which inspired the push to get it through FA. Thank you, happy editing, and cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Greek Female Artists

Template:Greek Female Artists has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Garion96 (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Alexcropped.jpg

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Alexcropped.jpg, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://flickr.com/photos/16448000@N03/1773273018 all rights reserved, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Alexcropped.jpg and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Alexcropped.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Alexcropped.jpg.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Alexcropped.jpg saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Musamies (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wanted to notify you that the notice above is slightly incorrect, in that the image was tagged with a template used for text. Obviously, there's no way to begin working on a new version of an article that doesn't exist. :) The question is valid, though. If you are the photographer, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on how to verify that so that we can utilize this image. (The easiest way is to change the licensing at your flickr page.) Meanwhile, it's been moved to the proper forum at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 December 30. If you have any questions about this, please let me know at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you left a note at PUI. The quickest and easiest way to address this problem is to change the tag at flickr. You've uploaded it there "All rights reserved" and released it here into public domain. If you change the release terms at flickr to agree--public domain--just make a note saying you've done so at PUI and all should be resolved. Otherwise, you will need to send an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation from an address associated with the flickr account verifying that you are the photographer and granting release. The procedure for that, again, is at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Heatbetweensheets.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Heatbetweensheets.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Lovetobelovedbyu.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Lovetobelovedbyu.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Cantbreathwithoutyou.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Cantbreathwithoutyou.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Youcompletemysoul.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Youcompletemysoul.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Les Henderson

The article Les Henderson has been listed for deletion. As you have in the past been involved in editing the (recently also deleted) section Talent scouting scandal on Lou Pearlman you may be interested in the deletion discussion. If you are, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Henderson (2nd nomination). Thank you. --WeatherFug (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of I5 (girl group)

A tag has been placed on I5 (girl group) 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. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Vanityfair07 01.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vanityfair07 01.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olivet.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Olivet.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion [1] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Thirdship (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Arabic Pop

Template:Arabic Pop has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Mybestgirl.jpg

The file File:Mybestgirl.jpg has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the file should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mybestgirl.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mybestgirl.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sarah & Marc in Love

The article Sarah & Marc in Love has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]