User talk:030891posts

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tyldumphoto.png


A tag has been placed on File:Tyldumphoto.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Suki waterhouse cover.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Suki waterhouse cover.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Gobōnobō + c 13:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Suki waterhouse cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Suki waterhouse cover.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item 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 creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media 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 the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

PLease explain revisions to Katia Elizarova
You seem to be making up current status based on assertions. Why not accept the latest statements from a brand - since nothing to the contrary exists? DO you have a reason to believe otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.52.20 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Latest statement, you mean the 2011 press release? We are not disputing she is brand ambassador! all we're trying to say is that in the recent campaigns, there is no indication of her involvement thus the only recorded in this article is recent work where we can see, HARD FACTS that she actually was involved. You are the one asserting that she is still involved.030891posts

Jeeze - if you can be bothered to research - just follow her blog on Facebook and look in the windows of the store. She is clearly in her role, and doing much more than Wikipedia shows - I think I'll update more now based on recent articles. When something has no end - it is deemed as current, we should assert our view, it should have a legitimate reason to justify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.52.20 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's simple. She is ambassador and indicated in this version is her past work. That's fair enough. When new work from her surfaces, then it will be added. She did not "front" the winter '13 campaign so you can't say she still "fronts" for the brand.030891posts

Of course you can - she is its ambassador - that is silly. She clearly fronts it every time she steps out, talks about it and appears in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.52.20 (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reported for Sockpuppetry - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.52.20 (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
Lady Lotus • talk 17:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)