User talk:Cindamuse/Archive 1

Image permission problem with Image:Anniegirltank.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Anniegirltank.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL 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 [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org 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 did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

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, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 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 uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Accurate permissions provided. Problem resolved. Cindamuse (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Heather Veitch
We've received an OTRS complaint from Veitch; apparently her husband and family have been the subject of death threats, which is why she's loathe to have his place of business posted. Would you mind removing it? Ironholds (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. In the future, you should simply make the change yourself and note reasons in the summary detail. Thanks! Cindamuse (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup; just wanted to check in with you first. One of the risks one runs at OTRS is getting one side of the story, making the change - and then getting shouted at because the complainant "conveniently" forgot to tell you something. Ironholds (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop harrasment
We are requesting you do not edit Annie Lobert's Wikipdia page. Your information is misleading, incomplete and incorrect. I am personally keeping track of all of your actions for legal action if you do not comply. Sincerely, Oz Fox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirozfox (talk • contribs) 05:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You may want to review the Wikipedia Terms of Use. If information is misleading or incorrect, make corrections and back it up with reliable, secondary sources. If incomplete, by all means, make additions and back it up with reliable, secondary sources.

It is important to avoid Conflicts of Interest, violating a Neutral Point of View, and presenting speculative text regarding issues or actions yet to take place. This is not harassment, but a community effort to present the best possible article according to the Terms of Use as required by Wikipedia. It would be to your benefit to familiarize yourself with the process of editing through Wikipedia prior to making threats. The solution is at your fingertips, as provided within the Wikipedia editing guidelines.

Additions made by Oz Fox represent a Conflict of Interest in violation of Wikipedia Terms of Use. These comments present biased and speculative information inappropriate according to Wikipedia standards. Additionally, this information negates a neutral point of view. Unless something has actually taken place and is indeed "fact" this information does not belong on Wikipedia. For example, stating that Annie is an author, when in reality, her work has never been published. Once her work is published, the notation of "Author" should be included. But not until that point. Speculative information regarding approval of tax exempt status is additionally not appropriate for Wikipedia. Once status has been confirmed and presented with references and citations, then at that point, it should be included within the article. But not until these facts have been shown to be true and verified. Additionally he has removed notations stating that a citation is needed. Wikipedia content must include citations and be verified with reliable, secondary sources. Statements presented by the subject's husband lacking documentation and citations are not appropriate in this forum. Verified COI and NPOV. Continued revisions will result in escalation to the Administrator and/or editorial response team. CatGirl 05:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind the 3-revert rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_war Cindamuse (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Issue resolved. Please see: User_talk:Sirozfox Cindamuse (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)