User talk:WikiArtifact

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Russellbritney.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Russellbritney.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia 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 under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. Rossrs (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the image caption tag from this image at 2008 MTV Video Music Awards. It is normal practice when an image is tagged for review, that it also be highlighted in the article. This is even part of the instruction contained in the tag on the image description page. This is not aimed at you personally. This is done as a courtesy to advise any interested editor - bearing in mind that you are not the only editor that might look at the article - who may wish to take action. It may even work in your favour as another editor may come along and fix the image for you by adding a suitable rationale. In any case, please stop removing the tag. Rossrs (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Britney Spears. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing blatantly false information as you did here and attributing it to a reliable source is complete vandalism. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It?

In your message to Bookkeeperoftheoccult, you refer to an edit as "it". Which edit is this?--Thanks, Ain lina (box)? 15:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears

The headings are fine as is. They give an adequate description of what the section contains, without being overly vague or overly specific. See Michael Jackson as an example. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

warning

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Britney Spears, you will be blocked from editing. The source is a music review of Spears's concert performance of the Oops!... I Did It Again World Tour. She is a music critic and therefore her professional review is encyclopedic documentation. All critics have an opinion, be it positive or negative. Removing a critics review based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is vandalism. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]