User talk:Lexxa.xo

Reese Witherspoon

Hi there, I have some concerns regarding your recent addition to her personal life section. As I can gather, the cited sources do not assert that she's "currently in a relationship with Jake Gyllenhaal", it's just some kind of speculation by the media. Besides, the chinadaily doesn't appear a reliable reference to me, and it looks like their assumption that the couple is going out was based on some holiday images, thus the veracity is questionable. I've left out this material temporarily for this reason, sorry if my action seems rude, but I'd like to discuss this material further with you (if you don't mind, please? :D), rumours like this should only be added with careful consideration (WP:BLP applies). I've been thinking about reporting this information in the article for a while, but I'm not sure how to write it effectively so that the readers understand that this is the media speculation and has yet to be confirmed. (perhaps we may discuss some rewording of the information you added?) Looking forwarding to hearing from you. Take care, PeaceNT 14:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S Hey, I notice you're fairly new, yeah, I know you've been here for a good month, but still... I just wished to say Welcome! :) Love your userpage, btw, just do not understand the world domination part...PeaceNT 14:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, it's lovely to hear from you, Lexxa (do you mind me calling you that? ;)) I've read the People ref, too, but it doesn't say they have confirmed the relationship. it is therefore only a speculation. Popular rumour I know, but it's still unconfirmed rumour nonetheless. Do you think we should add to the page something like, "the media has consistently linked RW with JG, but neither of them have said anything about the relationship. (I know the wording is awkward, just want to hear your opinion about the idea :)). Later! PeaceNT (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit about the rumours. (Does it look okay?) The dinner at LA seems trivial, but I included the Rome vacation as it appears to have claimed much media attraction. (Big event so it seems :)). Thanks for your kind assistance, much appreciated! Take care, PeaceNT (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noes! what's wrong? pls tell me you're not leaving... PeaceNT (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheHillsTitleScreen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheHillsTitleScreen.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 (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:GeorgeNozuka.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:GeorgeNozuka.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]