User talk:Mediaworld

License tagging for Image:Kathy8.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kathy8.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 13:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Kathy8.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kathy8.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. 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 Fair use, 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 uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Brown Cow &#149; (how now?) 18:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam
Stop adding spam links at Kathy Kirby. If you do that again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is your last warning. --mav

For your information the link was not spam, I am the director of Mediaworld which published Kathy Kirby's book and looks after her media affairs. As for the last warning threat, where was the first?

I would have thought people looking for information about her would like links to the relevant sites. Take a look at www.mediaworldnews.co.uk and you will see that we exclusively interviewed Kathy for a Sunday newspaper earlier this year. I rather think you owe me an apology.

Graham Smith

Am I to even get an answer?

Apparently not.

Different person here. I have to say your I do think that your contributions and edits to Kathy Kirby are effectively spoiling the page. You are removing the perspective, neutrality and context that other editors are contributing, and adding emotional language about the subject (and about your own organisation!). You seem to be keen to showcase Mediaworld in the article, making the whole thing sound more like a press release. I know you mean well, but in this case you are spoiling the article.

Hello Different Person.You are totally uninformed. The fan web site which you have replaced contains pictures which are upsetting the lady's family, with whom I am in touch. My organisation has published her biography and supports her on a daily basis. We print her publicity pictures, are involved in a documentary about her life and much more. Without our efforts, and we are a small two-person company, Kathy Kirby would not be receiving the publicity she is which is directly improving her quality of life. My contributions are not spoiling the page, they are enhancing it for a wide fan base.

Graham Smith Mediaworld

I don't doubt your good intentions at all, but I really think you are too close to the subject to have any perspective, and you should have more grace in allowing other people to contribute. And you should definitely not be banging on about your own company so much, which is not to dispute your commitment and hard work. I looked at that website that has upset KK's family. It is amateurish but very interesting and should not be continually deleted. Perhaps you have a personal dispute with the writer, or maybe KK has fallen out with him. This is all a shame on a personal level, but that should not dictate the content of an encyclopedia entry about Kathy Kirby's life and career.

I am close to this subject indeed and there are many things I will not discuss here. The compiler of the amateurish fan web site has often removed all reference to our company purely because he thinks he owns the Kirby legend. You now seem to be doing his job for him. Mediaworld is more than entitled to be mentioned for we published the biography udner our Best Books imprint. We also made sure that Miss Kirby, a virtually penniless recluse at the time, received a substantial payment from a Sunday newspaper article which we conducted. I have been approached personally by a member of Miss Kirby's family who find the fan web site distressing. Both the compiler and the subject appear on pictures which show them in a worse for wear state. Miss Kirby will not be aware of the entire content of the site I assure you. We continue to look after this lady's media interests and I would like to think Wikipedia could be a mouthpiece for future announcements, which are imminent. However, if rubbish material continues to be linked and references to our company removed I will take no further part.I can also live with being accused of spamming by stalking editors who do not know what they are talking about.As for arnings, I think you should be issuing those to Mr M. Willerton (BFC), who takes every opportunity to try and disrupt the work which we are doing on this subject. He's only a short step from serious action from me. It isn't a question of "being too close", it's a question of knowing what we are talking about, with respect.

Graham Smith Mediaworld

Now subject to totally unwarranted blocking of the edit and the awful tribute site is back up. Mediaworld is entitled to advertise Kathy Kirby, we published the biography for God sake and have commissioned the ensuing play. Pathetic, whoever did this is obviously a complete control freak.

Graham Smith Mediaworld (which is not a public relations firm, you sad person)

No response I see. Am I surprised? NO.

What a sad bunch this lot are!!!!!!!!

Still no reply from the thought police.Inaccuracies on the Kirby page increase, but who are we?

Precisely what are "liver performances"?

The site now asks for verifiable sources. You banned us, so look elsewhere, you won't find anyone.