User talk:Basinger19

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --Yamla 15:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

M!ssundaztood
Your recent contribution(s) to are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Jessica andrews.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jessica andrews.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Be Not Nobody, Ordinary Day
Firstly, it has been suggested that songs that may not be considered notable, such as "Ordinary Day" (which flopped in most countries), should not have separate Wikipedia articles dedicated to them until the album article is of a decent length, and the Be Not Nobody article isn't long at all in terms of text. See Notability (songs). Secondly, when you created the "Ordinary Day" article all you did was create a partial duplicate of the A Thousand Miles page under the wrong title, so I deleted it. Thirdly, please remember to include information on the copyright holder of an image, the copyright status of an image (using an image copyright tag) and (f the image isn't under a free license) a fair use rationale explaining why the inclusion of the image in a certain article meets the fair use criteria. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 21:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've redirected Ordinary Day and Pretty Baby (Vanessa Carlton song) to Be Not Nobody. Look, as a Vanessa Carlton fan (like you are, I'm assuming), I'd like it if there were articles on all of her singles, but I'd also like them to be of a high standard. Instead of creating lots of articles, we should be aiming to create comprehensive, encyclopedic and well-referenced articles, not very short stubs that merely duplicate information already present in another article. For example, the A Thousand Miles is quite long, mostly because it's a very famous and notable song, so it may be unwise to only discuss it in the main article on Be Not Nobody. "Ordinary Day" and "Pretty Baby" aren't very notable, so they should probably be discussed in the Be Not Nobody article until that one is long enough for us to start thinking about splitting off articles about the singles. I hope you understand what I mean. Extraordinary Machine 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nickelback
Please note that the RIAA is the certifying authority for album gold and platinum certifications in the U.S. They claim that All the Right Reasons is 3x platinum in the U.S.  Billboard is not the certifying authority. --Yamla 01:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vanessa carlton ordinary day.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vanessa carlton ordinary day.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vanessa carlton ordinary day.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vanessa carlton ordinary day.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. When you use a generic fair use tag such as or , 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 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. Yamla 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vanessa carlton pretty baby.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vanessa carlton pretty baby.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vanessacarlton.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vanessacarlton.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vanessa carlton.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vanessa carlton.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jessica andrews.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jessica andrews.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nickelback Certification
You said: "Okay I do understand the whole riaa certification thing but if you have not noticed there have not been certification updates since September 2006, and actually billboard is a reliable source for certifications because they get there certification info from the riaa, why do you think christina aguilera's back to basics is certified platinum, which is stated on her own website as well as on billboard but not on the riaa, as well as justin timberlake's futuresex/lovesounds, it is 2x platinum but since the riaa has not been updating anything on their own website your saying its not reliable? thats just very ignorant and naive because we both know that billboard is just as relevant as riaa. so therefore i strongly suggest that "all the right reasons" be left at 4x platinum because that is what it is, and if you must insist on continuously changing it back to 3x platinum fine then you should go to carrie underwoods page and change her cd to 3x platinum since the riaa.com doesnt have her as that yet although billboard does, christina and justins pages you might as well go take off their certifications since its not up on riaa.com as well as john mayers new cd "continuim", and rascal flatts new cd is 3x platinum on billboard but oh its only 2x on riaa so you better change that too right as well as beyonce's "bday" shes platinum but since riaa.com doesnt have it billboard must not be reliable enough right? anyways hopefully you see where im coming from because all the u.s certifications i change are correct and you telling me they are not is ridiculous."


 * If you can provide a reliable source that indicates that RIAA has not been updating their web site, I'll most certainly accept that. Note that I do not live in the U.S. and so Billboard is not as relevant to me.  You could, however, be right but I would need this verified.  It's worth noting that the people who have been changing the Nickelback certification to 4x have not agreed on the month it was certified which initially caused my doubts.  Note that without a citation that shows the RIAA has not been updating their website, WP:RS indicates that we need to continue trusting their web site over that of Billboard who have been known to make mistakes in the past (and anyway, get their information third hand).  --Yamla 22:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You may also want to check out WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. Being correct is not sufficient on the Wikipedia.  --Yamla 22:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You said: "Is their own official website reliable enough because i sure hope so and here is the link to the 4x platinum album from there site http://www.nickelback.com/nb/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=420&Itemid=3 "
 * "oh and also on billboard when you go to the charts whether it be singles or albums and under the peak/weeks on #'s if it is certified it will give a circle for gold shipments and a triangluar shape for platinum with an additional # beside it if it is more than 1x platinum and when you put your mouse on the shape it will say "RIAA certification for net shipment for 1 million units(Platinum), with additional 1 million units indicated by a number following the symbol" this was the example for carrie underwood's "some hearts cd" which is at #10 this week on the billboard 200 chart."


 * No, sorry, their website is not reliable as it is the RIAA that issues the certifications. Similarly, Billboard is not reliable unless you can provide a citation that shows the source of this information, RIAA, is no longer updating their site.  We've had examples before of artists exaggerating their certifications and of Billboard providing incorrect information.  --Yamla 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You said: "go here: http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/111506.asp and then when you are done reading it why dont you search some of those artists mentioned for all there certifications and you will notice the certifications posted in the article have not been updated under the artists certifications, so it does not say that they are not updating their site but these certifications were from october, it is now december and they havent updated them"


 * Okay, if you can provide a similar citation for Nickelback's albums, that would certainly be acceptable. Remember, the RIAA takes into account more than just albums shipped which is all some other sources use when calculating certifications.  But it is the RIAA certification that we care about here.  --Yamla 22:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Obviously I cant provide what you want because what you want is something right from the riaa which i have no contact with so this is just getting tiresome, so why dont you provide me with a citation that billboard has been wrong with its album certifications since you quoted "We've had examples before of artists exaggerating their certifications and of Billboard providing incorrect information""


 * Please see WP:RS and WP:CITE. Also, WP:V.  It is your responsibility to provide a suitable citation.  I have done so already, RIAA's own site.  While I have no doubt you are telling the truth, Wikipedia requires that information be verifiable.  I can provide evidence that Nickelback's album is certified triple-platinum straight from the certifying authority.  You can provide a less reliable source indicating that it is certified quadruple platinum.  However, since RIAA is the certifying authority, we have to use their figures.  Once again, it is entirely possible that you are correct.  In fact, it is likely that you are correct.  But Wikipedia's criteria is verifiability and reliable sources, and so I'm afraid that we need to stick with that source barring anything better.  --Yamla 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, please sign your comments as this keeps the bots from getting confused. two minus signs and four tildes are all that is required, let me know if you don't understand what the heck I'm talking about (many people have no idea what a tilde is).  --Yamla 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 22:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Stand Still, Look Pretty
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Basinger19! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule proboards\d{1,3}\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 02:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of terms in Charmed
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of terms in Charmed, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of terms in Charmed. Thank you. Corpx 07:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

January 2008
Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Spellcast (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The same applies to Heroes & Thieves. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And to Stand Still, Look Pretty. Please read Verifiability. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)