User talk:Bonjovi332

List of best-selling music artists
Your recent edits to List of best-selling music artists have been reverted as they constituted vandalism. Please refrain from making similar alternations to the article. Bear in mind that all estimated figures at List of best-selling music artists are supported by reliable sources; therefore, any further inflations in sales figures will be considered vandalism and will be reported which may result in you being blocked from editing altogether. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. Your edits to the RIAA certification article have been reverted. You've made similar edits to related Wikipedia articles that contradict information verified by reliable sources and continue to do so. You must have legitimate reason to alter article information backed by sources and being a fan of Bon Jovi does not qualify. Your edits suggest that you're serving a personal agenda, which violates the NPOV and POV policies. If you continue these edits in the future, they will be considered vandalism and you will be reported to Wikipedia Administration.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2010 (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 may 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) 18:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
TN X Man 20:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to RIAA certification, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. &#124; Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  02:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Jaguars kicker.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jaguars kicker.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, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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 Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See 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 created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 17:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)