User talk:Stargtr

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did to Vice Squad, makes it harder to read. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nardman1 18:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Beki Bondage, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. Thank you. Nardman1 18:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Beki Bondage. 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. Thank you. Nardman1 18:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note if you have an issue with the content of an article that is relating to you or a member of your organisation or family, you ought to contact the wikipedia foundation via email. Simply altering the articles in question will just get you blocked and the changes reverted, which won't help you at all, will it? :) SGGH 19:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beki Bondage/Vice Squad

Hi,

I've been watching the activity on these articles with interest and thought it would be prudent to give a neutral view on these things.

As previously mentioned, you have a Conflict of interest here. Your main issue seems to be the inclusion of a full date of birth. Unfortunately, a precedent is set with the existing articles of many musicians, or actors, or people of any profession. It is a vital part of any biography. Your reasoning that this causes fraud is confusing...in my experience any fraud would require much, much more than a full name and date of birth.

However, if you truly feel and have reason to believe that somebody is being put at risk by information available here, do as the advice above states, and contact the wikimedia foundation. Doing as you are at the moment will only put you in violation of the three revert rule.

As for your question "why should the initial article be allowed and the people involved have no control ?", well, the subjects of the article have no more control over it than anyone else. Nobody "Owns" an article, and claiming to do so is seriously frowned upon on the encyclopedia.

Please feel free to respond with any questions or suggestions to resolve this. Gekedo 19:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Again, in the event you have due reason to believe there is a serious problem with these articles, please look at this page and act accordingly. Gekedo 19:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop reverting your edits on this article. It's been pointed out to me that Beki Bondage is no longer quite the public figure she was in the 70's. If I might ask, what was the response from the Wiki folks? Nardman1 11:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your understanding Nardman1 - Wiki emailed and said that any articles that caused us offence and or distress would be removed as matter of priority - That Wiki foundation do not in any way wish to upset any persons or families by allowing personal details to be published.

If you knew the crap we had from sicko's 'out there' you would understand exactly how I feel. It seems everyone ( including you ) have a right to anonymity and privacy yet artists and musicians are not. I do not want mine or my partners personal details banded around the web no more than you or yours. As for the, 'well known people ask for it' type argument, well,believe me we are far from being Rich and Famous hence our previous album being sarcastically dubbed just that ! Hope you read and understand this. Best wishes - stargtr.

Image:Vice Squad 2006.jpg and others

Thank you for uploading images to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, non-commercial use only images are not compatible with Wikipedia's goal of providing free content. Truly free content allows re-use. Please read Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for information on properly tagging your images. You are encouraged to license your own images under the GFDL. Otherwise, use a WP:Fair use tag and possibly template:Withpermission in conjunction with it. Thank you. Nardman1 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auto

Also please see WP:AUTO when you are writing articles about yourself or something you are affiliated with, it's important reading! SGGH 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about this image

You do understand that by uploading Image:Vice Squad 2007.jpg under the GFDL license, you have given everyone in the world the right to redistribute the image, modify it in any ways that they wish (including disparaging ways), and sell the image, or reprint it in commercial publications, without asking your permission or even notifying you, correct? You're okay with that, right? Just checking. — coel acan — 01:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's one of the people in the photo I think. Nardman1 02:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes from what I understand he's a member of that band, see my WP:AUTO comment above. SGGH 07:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vice squad

When you say things like "Beki is often cited as a major influence by up and coming female punk rockers" you need to cite it... :) SGGH 08:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest, MUZE, etc.

Stargtr,

I'm sorry all of this has caused you distress, and equally so if it's caused Ms. Bond (or anyone else) the same. I'm hoping we can all come to come kind of resolution on this matter that's satisfactory for everyone. I have a few thoughts, and I hope they'll be helpful:

1) It might be helpful if you join the conversation regarding the Bekki Bondage article on the COI noticeboard, [1]. If you do, and I hope you will, please try to be constructive and civil--I don't say this because I expect you not to be, but only because I know you feel strongly about this, and it's difficult for any of us to keep a cool head when that's the case.

2) Pertinent to the above, an editor at the COI board has suggested one solution might be to propose the Bekki Bondage article for deletion. That would be one way keep other editors from adding content back in--as long as the article exists and the contested information remains in the public domain, it will likely find its way back some way or another, even if all the editors currently involved were to abandon the topic. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this.

3) With respect and sympathy for your position, Ms. Bond's personal information is "out there". Not in abundance--no one's posting her home address or digits--but (however MUZE came by it) it's part of the public domain. If you can persuade MUZE to take down the information, and eradicate the source, you might have better luck than if you attempt to confront the myriad of places citing that source, one by one. (Google her full name--that's a lot of fronts to fight on).

4) If you can't persuade MUZE to unpublish the information, I'd refrain from having them correct the incorrect DOB therein--if identity theft is a concern, misinformation can be your friend.

5) I don't think there is a five >.> So... there. That's that.

I hope things go well for you and that you can enjoy the community here.

Best wishes,

Wysdom 01:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Beki Bondage page

Thanks - hopefully, it's neutral enough that nobody will be offended whilst having enough information about her to be interesting. I can take off the Category:1963 births, but I don't see a problem to be honest - anyone interested in her is likely to also have done a Google search on the name, and most articles have the sentence "she joined VS in 1978 at the age of 15" within the first paragraph, (or they'll remember her from first time round and likely assume she was 18-19 at the time) so the maths isn't rocket science. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Paul solo 2B.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Paul solo 2B.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, 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 01:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 01:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission problem with Image:Beki 2006.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Beki 2006.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beki Bondage revisited

Per the discussion at User talk:Little grape, it has been confirmed that there is no need for a date of birth to be provided at the BB or VS articles - and I have noted same at the BB article. If there are any more "mistakes" regarding this issue, either I or User:Iridescent can be contacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God Bless Ya......

Stargtr 14:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Paul Rooney for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Rooney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Rooney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JMHamo (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Paul Rooney.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Paul Rooney.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]