User talk:Ericorbit/Archive05

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ericorbit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Night Fever (single)

Help, please. I have moved the page that was (wrongly) previously titled - 'Night Fever (album)' to Night Fever (single), which went off fine.

However, I am struggling to understand the [1] help page (it does not help me at all!) I am keen to ensure that no 'double redirects' remain, so that I can stay a good boy (kind of). Could you oblige me, old boy. Thanks again,

Derek R Bullamore 17:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

50 cent album covers

how would the covers not be free if they are used in other articles and not deleted --Peterm1991 20:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

Thanks for your message. The policy still says that they're not allowed; there's discussion of it, but nothing has been decided — so I think that the images have to go. It's difficult to see how their use in these articles fits the fair-use rationale given at the images themselves, in fact. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up Wet Wet Wet

Hi again
I was wondering if you could please cleanup the Wet Wet Wet discography as I am capable but unsure on how to layout certain tables and images so that they are acceptable. If you could, I would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. DuranDuran 08:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC) (Duran Duran navigator)

Hi

I was wondering if you would know how to clean up the singles section so it has a table or grid type of look like all the other discographies you have done. thanks.ˉˉ^DuranDuran╦╩ 18:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. Regards. ˉˉ^DuranDuran╦╩ 20:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries, etc.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This is partly because you're one of the increasingly few editors who actually explain, in edit summaries. what they're doing, and partly because your common sense at popular-music articles makes a very refreshing change. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't cry...

...it's done. Fifty some edits in the deleted history; you might want to take a look at whatever was in there now that I have restored it. Jkelly 17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hip to be an admin

Done. Jkelly 22:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Released from bad capitalisation

Released. Jkelly 19:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

LeToya

Hey Eric. Can u please come check LeToya's page. there's some fan User:Eduemoni who adds irrelevant sections that doesn't belong on wikipedia. like a "The Collaboration/Feature TAKE OVER" chapter that doesn't means anything. He also adds some random unsourced infos on the trivia. And all that with lots of grammar errors. He keeps reverting. U can also clean the page if you have time. Letoyabrigade 06:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

about LeToya revision and update

First of all Talk to me, I'm not adding things without source, as you can see, anything I add is linked down to an source, into the reference section, if you are making me wasting my time on reverting your vandal action, I'll revert your and everyone else edition that doesn't match with wiki standard, you are or helping to corroborate the wikipedia rule of any good informations are welcome.

Any artist can have any sections that have an relevance, Toya's one is about that she is doing a lot of collaborations on music world, if you look out an make an research you 'WON'T find anybody that matches with her, just to make it clear, I'm not being fanatic, I'm talking about insertion or not of sub sections, I'll comunicate Wikipedian Moderators to review about it

Eduemoni 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please go to the edition section on this discussion page and take a look at the article sub section I've created, the source code is hidden below

Please STOP

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to LeToya, you will be blocked from editing.

Eduemoni 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In instead of reverting the article, why don't you manually don't make the changes needed

If you continue to revert the article to an older version I'll contact the moderators

Nothing was removed from the article except repeat information that was stated twice. It is filled with misspellings, awkward grammar, incorrect wikilinks, incorrect formatting (such as headers and subheaders) and other statements needing citations. I've added wikilinks and removed excessive categories and properly formatted album and song titles. What you're doing is clearly disrupting the article, including the hidden text you've left here - it is very poorly written and filled with speculation. I have already MANUALLY gone through and fixed it. It is you who keeps reverting everything I did. If you feel this is vandalism, go ahead and contact an admin. - eo 20:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I already reported you for vandalism action

The article will be semi locked and you have to discuss about it to enter on consensus There is no speculation in whatever I added, if you follow the guidelines, and enter in the links, and ready carefully, as I did, you'll then see, what I'm, doing, and any other non-relevant informations are present on the prior article, if you want to continue this. Eduemoni 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First, you put a 3rd warning vandalism tag on my page, which is not the proper way to report vandalism. As I told you before, I have already manually gone through the article and cleaned things up and you have reverted it. I only went to the article in the first place because another editor asked me to step in due to your unwillingness to accept anyone's changes to your edits. - eo 20:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You aren't any new user

To use lvl2 or 3 tags, neither you nor I are unwarned users that make an edition by mistake, and if you look I already mentioned about vandalism, you didn't reverted the article manually and YOU unwillingness edited it, I haven't the power to accept or not someone editing my editions, but I'm editing something to make the article as clear as possible. If someone add something that will give many informations to the article, this would be very welcome, I'll repeat once again, follow the article guidesline and YOU will see how the article is more useful to give someone else informations about this artist. Any questions of doubts I have, and I'm not sure, I don't add, there is not speculations on the article, coz I've added the reference links needed. regards Eduemoni 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If your article prose is as jumbled as the messages you're leaving on my Talk Page (it is, actually), then I don't know how you can think your additions make any sense. You obviously haven't looked at the diff from the first edit I did and all you want to do is revert any changes made to your edits, as I can see from the article's history. Your attempt to report me for vandalism wasn't valid either. People who do not agree with your edits are not "vandals". - eo 21:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You removed all the guidelines and reference links I've made. Cmon Eduemoni 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed no sources from the article. Why in the world would I remove a source? What i did was format references using the ref tag. I also added a "citation needed" tag to a statement that needed one. I have no idea what you're talking about. - eo 21:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You make me wanna laugh, take a look at the article right now, and another thing, in my revision version the reference list had 12 guidelines on your version, has 4, ok? Eduemoni 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Guidelines"? What guidelines are you talking about? I already told you I did not remove sources from the article. - eo 21:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the reference links in the order I've edited, to don't make links all over the article, I just made them into an reference list. You just removed it.

Now we gotta an Edit War, and I'll be blocked if I continue to revert the article, so lets be polite, lets talk about what is or not useful to the article, reviewing and revisioning the whole article right?

LeToya article

As I explained in my edit summaries, I will tell you what I manually did to the article. You'll see that most of what I did was not about content but more about formatting:

I added wikilinks where necessary and removed repeated wikilinks as they are not necessary.
I corrected misspelled words and incorrect grammar, punctuation marks and capitalization.
I corrected informal tone, such as referring to the members of Destiny's Child and Anjel by their first names.
I quoted song titles as per proper formatting.
I italicized album and television show titles, as per proper formatting.
I removed POV such as "Shocking the fans..." and other speculative/unencyclopedic remarks.
I added one ^{[citation needed]} tag.
I removed "trivia" items that were already stated within the article. There is no need to list them again.
I removed unsourced non-free images.
I corrected date formats (i.e. "May 8th" is wrong, "May 8" is correct).
I utilized the ref tag for external sources that were already in the article.

In one single edit, you reverted everything I did and reported me multiple times for "vandalising" the page. I don't think I've done anything to harm your article. You do not own this article and it is not a fanpage. - eo 21:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mine article? LOL Ok, lets talk about my contribuition

I inserted all links through the article to the reference guideline.
I removed, Luckett joined the group Girl's Tyme which later became, LeToya joined Destiny's Child, not before that.
I removed the trivia that told about Beyonce's Cloth line is still sell on LeToya's Boutique, what is not true anymore.
I corrected LeToya's Boutique name, that is called now Lady L.
I corrected 2006 Pantene Tour, what is The 2006 Pantene Total You Tour.
I added all links in the subsection related to her solo carreer that should have notoriety, named Feature Over Taken, if you have any other word that suit it, you should edit, not erase all sub section and whatever within.
Overall none of edits you made, affected my adds at all, only about the date, that I took from the source, but while you edited, you removed informations I gave.

Any apologies if I gave you any incovenience, I don't threat an wiki article as an fanpage. Eduemoni 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

and I

just revisioned, reviewed the article

I do this all through wikipedia, I look for article with non truthful statements, make a research and edit it, not the other editions with grammar, wiki errors, and etc...

No, no

I didn't removed any corrections you made, I just removed some unfactual informations and added links, please stop reverting the article. I can't revert it right now, so you have to read it carefully and see WHAT I've made. right? I didn't add any broken wikilinks LOL Show me one broken wikilink

regards

Eduemoni 20:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh

Sorry, I'll revert this, this is not my fault, I found in a prior version

Eduemoni 20:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll put here the changes I've made

and has since pursued a successful solo career, topped the Billboard 200 albums chart in her first week, achieved records on BET's top 10 countdown, 106 & Park, and has been certified platinum by the RIAA. I don't see any problems about adding an complete description, because it is an fact. Not POV or speculation
Each link in the article I added into the {{cite web}} template, and make a guideline to the reference section,
I added the link source to the Lawsuit that LeToya Luckett and LaTavia Roberson Pursuit in 2002
I added the link source that talks about her research for a girl group called Anjel.
First, it is no more House of Dereon, it is just Dereon, but this is not needed coz, it is no more for sell in Lady L Boutique, it is how it is called now
I added a link about her co hosting Soul Train Awards
I added the source links to the featuring tracks needed, without removing any text of yours
I added the Jon B part, because you removed it no reason, it has the link to source,

If you take a look at your article and my prior version there is a lot of changes, coz there I was revisioning the article, here I'm just make some arrangements.

Thanks, regards

Eduemoni 20:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, anyway, sorry for any

incoveniences I brought you, I think we have an agreement now =) regards

Eduemoni 20:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

TY =)

Eduemoni 03:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Pet Shop Boys Corrections

All the changes I made to the Pet shop Boys page were valid corrections. As for the comment about what I put in the text being hearsay, there is already hearsay included there being a comment about the chart fortunes of a few singles that never got airplay. I have a long knowledge of the Hot 100 and Number Ones in particular. The comment placed there about Power Pick award is valid and at that time Michael Ellis was questioned as to why suddenly the Power Pick was no longer accurate and then suddenly went back to being accurate again. Please do not send me nasty comments about something I added to the Pet Shop Boys Page or any other. I do not make changes unless what I add or change is valid. Next time investigate the information before you attack someone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MoovieStarz (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

The comment you made to me about the fact that the songs are arranged in the order of how they charted in the U.K. speaks to why a comment about when it was released in the U.S. was necessary. I have seen these comments placed on other pages when a song was released later or befor in another country. I have even seen other comments about the fact that was only released in a certain country. Based on the rest of your page it is obvious you have a habit of attacking other peoples edits, especially if you feel they have edited your comments to a page. From your own admission you obviously don't know everything you think you know about the Pet Shop Boys. The information I added was factual. Always on my mind was a Power Pick Two Weeks in A Row. All songs winning the Power Pick up till that time had gone to Number One. Considering the amount of Information on Wikipedia about artists that I found to be incorrect or incomplete, I have only now begun to add changes. I will return and change this information again as it is factual. I would hate to see what you would do if I added the groups Austrailian or Canadian Chart perfomance. The World does not revolve around The U.K. or U.S. so stop acting like it does. Unless you know what you are talking about, do not attack others who do. Based on what I have read you have a very bad habit of attacking other who add information that is factual.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MoovieStarz

Changes Made To Pet Shop Boys Discography

My comment about the world does not revolve around the U.K. or the U.S. does make sense because you seem to think that all information provided must flow from the United Kingdom. I am quite aware of where the Pet Shop Boys come from and that Chart Chronologies will be based on that. That does not mean that information relating to other countries can not be added. There is a certain arrogance in your reply that seems to imply that you believe you know everything and everyone else knows nothing. In The Chart Beat Section of Billboard magazine both the former writer (Paul Green I believe, but I can't remember for sure) and the current writer (Fred Bronson) both repeatedly commented on the Power Pick and that it was going to hit Number One. Till this time all songs winning the Combined Power Pick Airplay & Sales Gainer Award went to Number One. At the time of "Always On My Mind" Hitting Number Four on the Hot 100, I was regularly subscribed to Billboard magazine. I read these comments weekly and they ARE IN PRINT! My comments about you attacking me and others is based on what is already placed on your user page. I am obviously not the first person you have angered or had this problem with. I checked the rules and you are not supposed to revert information automatically back to the way you wrote it or the way it was previously. You are supposed to write the individual first or add commentary. As for my footnote not belonging on the discography page, if it does not belong there, then none of the remaining information belongs there either. The comment about the recordings not getting airplay but sales is again in your terms, pure speculation. I am not trying to fight here. I just added information to the discography that I felt made it more accurate and informative. The idea behind the edit format on Wikipedia is to be able to update and add information that others feel is inaccurate or missing. I added information that can be confirmed by contacting Billboard magazine. Writing me and telling me not to rearrange comments implies that you believe you are the only one allowed to do so. Just because you added information to this discography, does not mean other can't also add things, nor does it mean what you have added is 100% correct. Please if you continue to remove information I have added I will report you. Not all the information listed under The Pet Shop Boys pages is correct. Or many other pages either for that matter. But I don't go in automatically and change them. I go to investigate to see if all the information is correct first. Just because you do not know about the combined Power Pick Airplay & Sales Gainer Award at one time being a 100% accurate indicator of a song hitting Number One, does not mean it isn't true, nor does it give you the right to remove the information from the page. You say you will go back and remove any changes I make. That is a violation of the rules here. Continue to delete my edits and I will report you. There was no reason for you to change things nor to reply to me with a rude comment. This is the Pet Shop Boys Discography Page. Not the Ericorbit page.MoovieStarz 23:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message

I've left a message on his Talk page, which I hope will bring peace, love, and general shininess to the affair. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Girlfriend is #1

Although Billboard has yet to publish their charts, they have said in their update for the Billboard 200 that Avril's single and album are both number one. Check here.

It says: Avril Lavigne scores her second No. 1 on The Billboard 200 as her third album "The Best Damn Thing" bows on top. The RCA set moved 286,000 copies in the United States, according to Nielsen SoundScan, short of the 381,000 that greeted her first chart-topper, 2004's "Under My Skin." Sales were fueled by her current single, "Girlfriend," which ascends 3-1 on tomorrow's Billboard Hot 100.

-24.92.43.153 18:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep - I checked your link and read it. Thanks for adding that (Billboard does not normally reveal/confirm the #1 song til the chart is actually published, but this week they did). Just as a heads-up, be careful with your edit summaries.... someone may find a comment like this to be a bit hostile. See ya! - eo 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Volta

I'm curious to know if English is your primary language? "Barefooted" is an English word. There are many online resources for you to check before stating that it is "no such word". Just because you haven't heard something before doesn't mean it doesn't exist.76.22.74.67 19:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Volta

Sorry for taking a pot shot earlier; that was unnecessary and I apologize. Here is the link from Wiktionary which shows in what context the word is used: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/barefooted; I actually think that just 'barefoot' sounds weird but I think it's just because I've always heard the word "barefooted". The sentence can even be reconstructed in a way so as to avoid this conversation.76.22.74.67 22:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Red Hot Chili Peppers Discography

The sources are all charts worldwide, want u all links??

Sweden http://swedishcharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Red+Hot+Chili+Peppers&titel=Stadium+Arcadium&cat=a

BTW peak:1 wks:27 Place on best of all time:379 (915 points) S.A. peak:1 wks:39 Place on best of all time:158 (1327 points)

New Zaeland

http://charts.org.nz/showitem.asp?interpret=Red+Hot+Chili+Peppers&titel=Stadium+Arcadium&cat=a BTW peak:1 wks:34 Place on best of all time:116 (1041 points) S.A. peak:1 wks:50(still on chart) Place on best of all time:18 (2078 points)

Norway

http://norwegiancharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Red+Hot+Chili+Peppers&titel=Stadium+Arcadium&cat=a BTW peak:1 wks:18 S.A. peak:1 wks:19

Germany

http://www.musicline.de/de/chartverfolgung_summary/title/Red+Hot+Chili+Peppers/Stadium+Arcadium/longplay http://www.musicline.de/de/chartverfolgung_summary/title/Red+Hot+Chili+Peppers/By+The+Way/longplay both are 52 wks on chart but S.A. have a really better chart-run, just look on graphs

Austria

http://austriancharts.at/showitem.asp?interpret=Red+Hot+Chili+Peppers&titel=Stadium+Arcadium&cat=a BTW peak:1 wks:20 Place on best of all time:772 (1098 Punkte) S.A. peak:1 wks:50 place on best of all time:79 (2988 Punkte)

Swiss

http://hitparade.ch/showitem.asp?interpret=Red+Hot+Chili+Peppers&titel=Stadium+Arcadium&cat=a Both have 51 wks on chart (S.A. is still on chart) but for position on best of all time BTW have "223 (2902 Punkte)" and S.A. "94 (4022 Punkte)"

Italy (M&D)

http://www.musicaedischi.it/classifiche_storico.php?tipo=&speciale=&autore=Red+Hot+Chili+Peppers&titolo=Stadium+Arcadium BTW Peak :1 wks:18 S.A. Peak:1 wks:32

Only In UK and France is the contrary.

practically in all Europe S.A. do better in charts than BTW..so why S.A. sold 2,7m in EU and BTW sold 4,6m (consider also that in first week S.A. sold 1,1m and BTW 700k)?? a little for UK for sure (BTW 1,8m, S.A only 750k) but the rest??the rest is becasue of illegal donload that are killing music industry, all sales are falling..just go on ifpi.org site to have the prove. an album that sold 5m in 2002 maybe now is difficult to sold 3..3,5m..

an other point in my favor is the fact that S.A. is the best seller of 2006 with "only" 6m to end of the 2006..in 2002 a lot of albums sold more than 10m...

make your considerations ;) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagozagozago (talk • contribs) 07:34, 4 May 2007

RE:Red Hot Chili Peppers Discography

could you do that (write the citations and in a better english)?? i'm not so good with wikipedia and my english sux. thanks a lot. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagozagozago (talk • contribs) 07:34, 4 May 2007

Your message

With regard to the protection, that's OK; I can't understand why the anons were so intent on removing references. With regard to the inverted commas — rather than removing the correct use, the other article should be brought into line. I'll lend a hand. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're right — I've made a start, though (I'm working my way forward from 1940 in the Lists of number-one hits in the United States if you'd like to work back from 2005...). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid not — just fingers and a mouse. Albums would probably be quicker; highlight and click on the I. If only there was something similar for inverted commas. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel thoroughly ashamed that I left most of the work to you; the real world (mainly panicking finalists needing extra tutorials/marking etc.). Sorry. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Source

the sources is http://www.radioandrecords.com/Formats/Charts/Alt_Chart.asp i know is "radio and records" one but for "modern rock tracks" Billboard use this chart and is released on late wednesday instead of thursday

Thanks!

Thank you for the speedy revert [2] on my talk page! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

US Dance Charts

[edit] U.S. dance chart articles, as IP address and logged in as WClarke619 Stop adding misinformation to these articles regarding Donna Summer. She is credited with 12 dance chart number-ones, not 15. When allowed by Billboard in the 1970s and 1980s, full length albums, EPs and double-sided hits that charted count only as one entry. Summer's correct total is 12. - eo 16:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I only edited it because on another Wikipedia page it says 15, Don't worry I wont ever change anything else again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Summer_discography

Our blattle has led to a beatiful and peaceful (not at all) decisions

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I'd like to give you this award, for a recognizable person that I had a lil' conflict, but through it all we made it, and I think that our attitute was so beautiful, that I SHOULD GIVE you this, what I think is the most wonderful thing I could do. Regards Eduemoni 00:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A favour

Hi there Eric. I was wondering if you could do me a small favour. I'm going away for a few weeks where I won't have access to a computer, and I was wondering if you could keep your eye on "Celine Dion" for me. The article gets a lot of traffic (that seems to do more harm than good) and, based on your work on the Billboard-related pages, I think that you are one of the best editors here, and one of the most proficient at dealing with vandalism and unruly IPs. Thanks in advance. Orane (talk • cont.) 14:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Play Dead - Directed by Danny Cannon not David Arnold...

Why can't I modify this? The info is wrong and yet you keep undoing my rightful change... Here's the source for the right info... http://unit.bjork.com/specials/gh/SUB-14/index.htm

re: Hot 100 number-one hits of 1966 (USA)

dear sir, there must be some confusion. of the several articles i experimented with, that particular article was not one of them. i have checked the article's history, and have no idea how my ip address got credited with the changes. at those paricular times (18:12 and 18:13) i not only was not on wikipedia, but was not even at my computer. i am 100% sure that noone else in my household used the computer at those times. my anonymous edits are limited to, what i think is, hilarious misinformation, and i do not vandalize with malevolence, merely with a playful heart. please excuse the mixup, and am looking to hear your antivandalism crusade notices in the future. yours truly, 77.107.203.93 12:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

as for the westlife article, i can't even find a history of my edits. -- 77.107.203.93 12:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

i do apologize, sir, those edits are rather old and may have escaped my memory. i only now noticed the dates of your messages. it seems that i may have, in fact, vandalized those articles. i apologize. -- 77.107.203.93 12:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Eduemoni has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: Removing album image galleries

I'm just doing it by hand, so the ones in "gallery" tags take a bit of time. Thanks for letting me know - I'll italicize the ones I fix from here on out. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You're in Love

Hi, could you put in request for me to have the article that "You're in Love" directs to changed to the Wilson Phillips song? I think it is a more significant song and it was a Billboard Hot 100 #1 hit (even though it was 17 years ago). I'm working on expanding all of the articles of billboard #1 hits and I think you have a similar interest. I appreciate any help you have to offer. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwasblueonce (talk • contribs) 23:39, 30 May 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Garth_Brooks_Scarecrow.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Garth_Brooks_Scarecrow.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation 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. Bigr Tex 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Garth_Brooks_Fresh_Horses.jpg

I have tagged Image:Garth_Brooks_Fresh_Horses.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Bigr Tex 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Garth_Brooks_Sevens.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Garth_Brooks_Sevens.jpeg. 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. Bigr Tex 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)