User talk:Cheeseypooofs

Image Tagging Image:Bensonbusch.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bensonbusch.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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 media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Muchness 08:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muchness, you know damn well that that image had the appropriate tags. Do not presume to warn or lecture me. It has just as much source info as the other image of Benson in the article (the one where's she's alone), but you haven't warned or wiped that image. Your bias against any info which reveals she is with a boyfriend -- which you fangirls insist on denying -- is transparent. Go find someone else to have a crush on.Cheeseypooofs 18:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion is ridiculous. The image is obviously a promotional image, and therefore falls under fair use. The images you keep trying to push are candids, not promotional, and do not have the same fair use facility. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are ridiculous. I am not "pushing" any images. I included a notable image in an article, from a notable public event, with notable celebrities, cited it, and sourced it as per Wiki policy. If you think that a so-called "promotional" picture somebody found somewhere online (but didn't cite the source!) falls under "fair use," but a verifiable cited image from a public event that was posted with express permission does not, then you clearly have no understanding of fair use. Admit it. You just don't want people knowing that the subject has a healthy heterosexual dating life. It just burns you, doesn't it. Cheeseypooofs 01:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less. The only thing I am concerned about is legal use of images, which you and your buddies keep trying to ignore. Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright violations, no matter how many people you attack and how many names you call people. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone please calm down and above all else, remain civil about things. Can I ask everyone to please call a cease-fire on the revert war at Amber Benson (let's stick with the June 17 23:31 edit by Hazel, the article seems fine at that point) and take this dicussion to the mediation page? Please assume that everyone is acting in good faith, and please refrain from acting rude or calling each other's points nonsense, etc. I think this issue can be very easily resolved if both sides remain calm and communicate. BrownHornet21 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threats of blocking

You are not an admin, you may not threaten to block people, since you have no authority to do so. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morwen's RFC

I was disappointed by your decision to certify the RFC on Morwen, since it doesn't appear that she's done anything wrong. Since you're still a fairly new editor, you might want to re-read some of our policies and guidelines (particularly WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:IUP). If you do, you'll see that a lot of the things that are upsetting you are just being done "by the book". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism

This edit[1], which I am assuming is an attempt at a joke, is not particulary amusing IMHO. Creationism is a frequently vandalised and edit article; please try to keep your edits there productive. Please confine your jokes and/or personal belief system to talk pages or off-Wikipedia. Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks/Vandalism

This edit[2] is vandalism of a user page consisting of a personal attack. Cease and desist your actions or you will be blocked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Naconkantari 22:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Naconkantari 22:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism spree

Your vandalism spree is pitiful. All this, after I supported your motions? Thanks a lot. Cuthbert11 00:49, 24 June 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. Your block will expire in 1 week. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]