User talk:Falsewords333

File copyright problem with File:Briavalentepricneclivedavis2.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Briavalentepricneclivedavis2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bria Valente
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. dissolve talk  20:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. dissolve talk  21:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
I was warned by Falswords and there seems to be a "conflict of interest" as they continue to censor legitimate reviews on a public figure whos words were not created by me, merely posted. I dont understand how this is negative to the subject matter at hand?

Falsewords333 does not accurately or convincingly state their positioning. --Xcentrex (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse me...but what are you talking about? Schnitzel MannGreek. 23:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is it: then I see no vandalism...I am a rollbacker that was reverting obvious vandalism from another vandal(i don't know who you are, i never reverted your stuff). While your opinion counts more than you think, I have removed the warning you posted as I see no misdoings unless you can point some out. Schnitzel MannGreek . 00:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you're saying:you are talking about this--when you refer to "Vandalism/no neutral point of view. reason = editing with intent to damage reputation with libelous comments on a Biography. This site has biographies of public figure's that are written with a neutral point of view and based on personal facts, not rumors intended for personal attacks. Listing any product reviews to encourage or discourage sales on a biography is not neccesary! You are not adhering to the policies and guidlines of this site. I have edited to correct this problem.".If you look closely...you'll see that is the work of user:Xcentrex whom I failed to rollback. I rollbacked the IP user after him but failed to rollback his edits so they still showed under my revision. Yet, it is not my work. I'm sorry that you misunderstood but please take back what you said(though I could delete it myself).I don't like being mistaken for such work while I spent my whole day vandal fighting. Schnitzel MannGreek . 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Falsewords333 (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)falsewordsFalsewords333 (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I apologize, and am sorry I did not mean to send this to you. I tried to send you a message earlier but it did not go through so i am attempting again. Thank you for your help in keeping this site clean. These editors are here to try and ruin this girls reputation and it is obvious in their hateful edits. Negative media reviews and personal attacks are not warranted on this type of site and are best kept on internet gossip blogs. This information i have edited is based on credited facts about her and her career. Plain and simple. Its sad that people spend so much time trying to maliciously hurt others reputation. Thank you for your time.
 * Thanks, and I'm glad you're helping keep this site clean too. Happy Editing Schnitzel MannGreek . 01:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A word of advice--there are certain warning templates you could use on some users without typing it all out-starting with or  for short, and working up to  . Level 1 warning "assumes good faith" so if it's obviously not a mistake, you can start with level 2. Look at the talk page, and if there are already warnings go to the next level - so in this case you could have used level 4, as I had already given #3. If vandalism continues after a #4 warning (allowing a minute or two for him to get it), make a report at WP:AIV - if you click "edit" beside "user-reported" on that page you will see the format to use. "Vandalism after recent final warning" is a good enough reason to give.-- Schnitzel  MannGreek . 01:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Nice star, but why this edit, which messes up the opening sentence that I had edited so it would accord with Wikipedia standards? You also managed to introduce a punctuation error (look at that first comma). That kind of edit makes no sense to me, and since you and that other editor are at war I can't correct it. Y'all should start using the talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning
With this edit you removed another user's comment from an article talk page. This is against the WP:Talk page guidelines. Please be aware that attempting to silence others is not good behavior, and you could be blocked if this happens again. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you doing at Talk:Bria Valente? If you forgot to sign, leave a note that you are making a change. It seems that you could be removing others' signatures. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please sign at the *end* of your posts
Hello Falsewords333. It will be easier for us to follow your comments if you add your signature at the end of each post, not the beginning. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BriaValentepromo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BriaValentepromo.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the 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 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 [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 file'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. Files 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. Rettetast (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:BriaValentepromo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BriaValentepromo.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.

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 uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bria valente image permissions, need help to see what the problem is and how to fix it.
I got a otrs notification regarding the permission email i sent. Not understanding why there is still a problem?? Can you help me figure this out please? I am doing my best to give you all the permissions necessary but it has proved to be very confusing. Thank you

The image file name is Bria valente promo jpg

The ticket link is; https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=3291684

Falsewords333 (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)falsewords333Falsewords333 (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The image page is missing some information. Where did you get the image? Who created it? Stifle (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the image from the owner and creator of the image. Bria Valente. What information is missing? I can provide you with any information upon request or a new version of the image in the format you require. Please advise. Thank you. Falsewords333 (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)falsewords333Falsewords333 (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:BriaValentepromo.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:BriaValentepromo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 01:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bria v 2.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bria v 2.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 are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Polly (Parrot) 02:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)