User talk:Masta P

References/Sources
Hello, Masta P. I removed your additions to the Whoopi Goldberg article and the Sherri Shepherd article because we aren't usually allowed to use forums as a reference/source. I'll see you around. Flyer22 17:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded to your reply here, of course, as my talk page suggests that I will. And as I always say here at Wikipedia, I'll see you around. Oh, and welcome. Flyer22 21:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoopi Goldberg, et al.
Hi, and welcome to WP. I've added a few minor edits to Whoopi's page along, so I noticed the work you've been putting in on it. You're doing a great job in watching the WP policies and guidelines with your edits. I did a little bit of editing on the references tonight, as well as with my pet peeve - the overuse of the words "also" and "then" in articles. (Not saying those are yours, just making my comment :). I wanted to show you a page that I use as my guideline when I'm adding references so that the style is good and we aren't just putting up url links. It's the references attached to the Tom and Eileen Lonergan page. Someone else pointed me to it once and it's a huge help to me. Again, welcome and keep up the good work!! Wildhartlivie 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo! Answers
As noted on the talk page, the OR and references templates that were flagged on the restored and shrunk criticism section are still relevant due to the lack of any Reliable sources and the presence of many links to specific posts to Yahoo! Answers rather than third party criticism remains a rather straightforward example of WP:OR. Don't give up just yet - Your edit summary that read "I removed the section that those tags were there for. I think I am dealing with some obnoxious editors who want a revert war tho, so this will be my last edit regards to this nonsense" seems to misunderstand two points. One, this section was flagged for cleanup long before the torrent trolls arrived. Two, the flags were not put in place as part of an edit war, but based on the status of the article at present, per my points on the talk page. You will note that the section as you reorganized it was not stricken, as it, unlike the version left by the trolls, may be salvegable - something we can turn in to an encyclopedic overview of reliably sourced critiques or comparisons of the topic. MrZaius talk  13:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
-  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  20:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rochelle.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Rochelle.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)