User talk:BeAwareX1

Welcome!
Hello BeAwareX1, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Striker force Talk Review me! 10:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

COI noticeboard thread
This is a courtesy note to inform you that a discussion has been started at the administrator's noticeboard for conflict of interest that you may be a party to. Please feel free to add any necessary information to the discussion. Thanks! Striker force Talk Review me! 10:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
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 could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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. --SineBot (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

My bad
Sorry about changing the official Black Veil Brides website; I didn't check up on the websites very much. Also, in changing their official website, you left the official site at the bottom the page at the External links section as officialbvb.com, so I changed it to their facebook page as well. As for their origin, why don't you think it should say that they originated in Cincinnati, Ohio? I've always thought of it as a legitimate origin for the band back in the Sex & Hollywood days (or maybe even before then, but I'm not sure exactly how/when the whole transition from Ohio to California happened), so why shouldn't it say Cincinnati? I'm not criticising, I'm just wondering why it shouldn't say so if they did indeed originate in Ohio. You can reply here on your talk page or you can reply on my talk page.

Thanks!  That emo over there (Talk)  22:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, not sure if i'm using the Talk function right so please excuse me if its wrong. Thank you for changing the website. For the origin it should say based out of Hollywood, CA because the band itself as we know it was not formed until Andy moved to LA. While he might be from Ohio, the band members are from all over the country and what they have in common is that they live in Hollywood. It would be the equivalent of saying Motley Crue is from Indiana. Hope this helps. Thanks! :)

BVB info
Hi I work for BVB. I can help you update the Wiki with the most accurate info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeAwareX1 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You work for BVB? In what way? And if you really do work for them, I would LOVE to help you guys out! I am probably the most dedicated editor of BVB's Wikipedia pages! &mdash;  Tha† emo over †here (talk)  17:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * email me Dan@mercenarymanagement.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeAwareX1 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Done—under the email Kevin Benoit kevinbenwadawadawada@gmail.com and subject "Wikipedia BVB" &mdash;  Tha† emo over †here (talk)  04:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Official web site
Thank you for adding the official web site to Black Veil Brides. I removed the Facebook and Twitter links as they are generally not allowed (although in some cases one such site can be used in place of the official web site if it is the primary official internet presence of the band AND there is no official web site at all). See WP:LINKSTOAVOID for details. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  20:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BVB promo pic 2014.png
Thanks for uploading File:BVB promo pic 2014.png, which you've attributed to Possibly own work but as this appears to be a professional photograph so WP:OTRS or Commons:Commons:OTRS should be used. 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 Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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 on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  21:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk) the band owns all rights to this photograph and it's publicly available on their Facebook page, website, and press releases. Again, the band has full 100% ownership of this picture to do with what they please. Thats why it would be the best option since it does not infringe on anyones rights. The previous picture being used from the "Rebel Love Song" music video is owned by Universal Music Group and can not be used without their consent. This current picture is the easiest option and is the most up to date available.
 * I wholeheartedly agree that a "free" image is better than a "non-free" one. However, it's up to the band, not you (unless you are speaking for the band - see below) to make the decision to release this image under a Wikipedia-compatible "free" license.
 * The band can either publish it on a web site they control with a Wikipedia-compatible "free license" then the File: page can be updated to show that it was previously published as a "free" image, or the band can use the OTRS process to go "on record" that this image is released under a free license. In either case, freely-licensed files should be hosted on the Wikipedia Commons rather than on the English Wikipedia.  If you plan on uploading the image to the Wikimedia Commons, see the Commons OTRS page.
 * I assume that you are not editing "on behalf of the band" and that this Wikipedia account is your personal account, not a "professional, role" account. If I am wrong on either count, please read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline and username policy and edit accordingly.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Casualties
Not sure why you reverted all the changes, since you put nothing in the edit summary. The changes were well sourced and copy edited. What was your reasoning? Onel5969 (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Your information wasn't accurate and it had multiple typos. Due to the high amount of vandalism the page has received any unneeded edits will be undone.

All information was cited, so not sure where you're coming up with the fact it wasn't accurate. Also unsure about the typos, don't remember any (except for one where I had put the word causalty instead of casualty, and I corrected that). The page, according to others, not me, needs a huge amount of work. But if you want to leave it in the crappy condition it's in, no worries. Have a good day. Onel5969 (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I returned the edits, since the page was still showing up on numerous "needs edits" pages.  I see the page was having a problem with vandalism, as you stated, so I understand your impulse to simply revert changes, however, take a look at the citations.  There are no typos.  If there is an issue with the underlying facts on the source pages, that's one thing.  I'd like to improve the page, not trash it.  Onel5969 (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding copyrighted images without evidence that you own the work
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

As the previous warning on your talk page said, you need to provide more OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Black Veil Brides. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Second Skin (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Who are you to decide to that the factual tour information shouldn't be there? I have been helping maintain this wiki for years. You think you can just come in and push people around and impose your views on everyone else. My edits are well within the guidelines.

Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andy Biersack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IV. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Black Veil Brides page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=673828532 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F673828532%7CBlack Veil Brides%5D%5D Ask for help])

File permission problem with File:Marty 2015 photo owned and shot by Kelly Walsh.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Marty 2015 photo owned and shot by Kelly Walsh.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 Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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 on 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.

Lecrae
Why did you restore this material? It was sourced material that has been removed twice by a self-admitted COI editor, with inaccurate edit summary used. It is up to the editor to take it to the talk page to explain. Your restore of this material is questionable. Meters (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Lecrae, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Meters (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)