User talk:Ultraviolet scissor flame/Archive 4

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Tina_Turner_and_Mary_J_Blige_in_South_Africa.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-3.0 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Britney Spears
Portal:Britney Spears, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Britney Spears and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Britney Spears during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Madonna (entertainer)
Portal:Madonna (entertainer), a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Madonna (entertainer) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Madonna (entertainer) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

MfD nomination of Portal:Mariah Carey
Portal:Mariah Carey, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mariah Carey and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Mariah Carey during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Sheryl Crow
Portal:Sheryl Crow, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sheryl Crow and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Sheryl Crow during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LTK-title-screenshot.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:LTK-title-screenshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MoonrakerComicStrip.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:MoonrakerComicStrip.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bond
Thanks. After spending quite some money in the Ultimate Collection, I thought all those bonuses could be of some use. But I haven't worked on Licence to Kill yet, so I don't know. I can give it a shot, watch all the extras, search for reviews, etc. And now only seven (official) Bond films need GA status, but we still need to get a second (or third) FA to be approved at the Featured Topics - what work is needed on GoldenEye? igordebraga ≠ 21:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew it needed at least some expansion - but that article probably the closer to a second FA in here. It tries to flesh out all aspects of the film (except themes and allusions as you mentioned), while the others are "straight to the point" (this reception sums up everything). I don't know which other has (current) potential to go beyond GA. igordebraga ≠ 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure - after I rewatch the movie (for a 3rd time!) and start seeing the extras, I'll help. igordebraga ≠ 20:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul McCartney
"they found a nailed condom and set fire to it". This is not true. Please read the books or stop messing with an article you know very little about.--andreasegde (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultra! 08:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you think that's funny or not, but I don't. It took a long time to put over 300 references into the McCartney article, and for you to rewrite history (incorrectly) is a waste of time, as someone will have to revert it. Please stop.--andreasegde (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So how did the fire begin? Ultra! 15:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * They had a condom, and as an insult to Koschmider, attached it to/hung it on a nail in the filthy and barely livable rooms, and set fire to it. The walls were bare concrete (no expense spared) and it caused very little damage. Koschmider reported them to the police because he was angry at them for breaking his contract and going to work at the Top Ten Club. I write this because I have read the books, and then someone comes along who hasn't, and edits the truth. How could they have found a nailed condom? Were they in the habit of nailing condoms to the wall for fun? This is the difference, you see...--andreasegde (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop these nonsensical edits to this article, if you add anymore I will treat them as vandalism. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * too long articleUltra! 18:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take to talk page, do not make anymore edits. Thank you, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you misundertand the relevence of the "article length" warnings, they are not really an instruction to shorten the article by altering prose, but more to remove unecessary sections - trivia etc, or to break one big article into smaller chunks. Whilst your entusiasm and officious is appreciated, many of the particular edits you have made to this page have unfotunately been detramental making the sentences non-sensical. Am I correct in thinking English is not your first language (sorry if I'm not!) Anyhoots, you might want to read up on wikipedia policy and look at what other editors are doing. Good luck! (ps, I am being sincere. I'm not normally very nice :))--Crestville (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with my esteemed colleague, and I must also point out that Wikipedia IS NOT A PAPER ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you are an older person I can understand your space-saving edits, as ink and paper were expensive in the olden/golden days, but if you are a young person than I am inclined to think that you have no idea how computers work, and how much information they can handle. I am also inclined to think that you like cutting things just for the sake of it, because you like feeling like an editor for a major newspaper. Please be careful with historical facts, as it took us a long time to compile them.--andreasegde (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ultra!'s comment on my page starts with a colon/indent, and then doesn't start with a capital letter for "too long article". The "too long article" comment should actually read as, "The article [Paul McCartney] is too long". Are we dealing with a person who has recently learned how to bang two rocks together here?--andreasegde (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ouch!--Crestville (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Shirley Bassey discography
Another editor has added the  template to the article Shirley Bassey discography, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
I noticed you have four requests in WP:PR without replies yet, two of which you did not even bother to give reasons for requesting a peer review for (they still just read I've listed this article for peer review because…). Have you tried requesting a peer review from the volunteers list for any of these? That (and finishing the Bond PR requests) may help to get some feedback. Hope this is a helpful suggestion, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this sentence: "you did not even bother to give reasons for requesting a peer review", which is proof of arrogance, negligence, and, in truth, evidence of a user who doesn't give a shit about anybody else's feelings. I would really like to be proved wrong about this. :) --andreasegde (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cast sections
I'm curious as to why you moved the relevant info from cast into its own section. The style of listing actors with relevant casting info is quite common. I'd rather do that than remove the cast list altogether and put cast names in brackets in the plot section. Alientraveller (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Many good suggestions courtesy of Awadewit, but I disagree with that one. He/she herself views themes as having to be one coherent section even if we can easily split it into "Writing" (in production) and "Analysis" (in reception). "Cast and characters" is also a broader topic than "Casting", which can include an actor's interpretation of their role, the effect on their career etc. It's working well for Quantum of Solace by the way. Alientraveller (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

IN future I suggest you stick to using your flame in the science lab not on our articles  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 13:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Ultra! 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much messing about with images leaving me drilled with bot messages  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 18:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultra! 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a stub so I don't have a problem with redirecting it. I agree with you that for many of the characters an image of each of them etc in the main film article is unneccesary. However what I don't agree with is removing images of much of the cast members like you did to Goldfinger. I thought the image of odd job, bond and goldfinger with the hat was a much needed one. I don't think it is a good idea removing images of the main villains. The more characters we can get into one image the better I feel. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 12:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I like what you have done to Diamonds Are Forever (film) -nice job. But i would be inclined to have an image of Charles Gray as Blofeld instead of the gay henchmen. But I'm glad that article now looks good. Would you consider developing one to FA? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 11:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Weel we both remember what he was like with the Casino Royale -he guarded like it was the crown jewels and once I was eventually permitted to edit it eventually passed FA. I don't like his restrictions to one screenshot at all. Two is perfect I think. Unofficial film -do you mean actual filming locations or locations in the film? Never Say Never was Bahamas I think  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 16:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was Bahamas and France/Monaco both in fiction and actual location and some minor filming probably Berkshire, England remember with Jacks Cortina and assasination by Fatima Blush with snake. See here for a detaile dlist of filming locations. As for Casion Royale 67, well I don't really consider than a Bond film as it was a spoof  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 15:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider developing On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film) into a GA?  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 16:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * sure Ultra! 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know though why you removed the images from the table on Ernst Stavro Blofeld. The four image pictur elooks good, but now people unfamiliar with the topic have no idea which one is which from the table. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 18:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Its just you've made a bad series of choices on which images should be taken out. Rather than keep the one of Largo and Domino on Thunderball we now have two images of the disco volante and sub  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 18:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its OK as long as you write the succession of who is who in the caption. Articles like View to a Kill and Living Daylights still look great image wise. There are one or two though where I think your choice of removal was not a good one. Basically I think we should be looking for a photograph which includes as many characters as possible, where we have often done this quite successfully. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Any idea why people have taken out the link to the lists of characters (allies and henchmen) in the cast section?? They served as sister articles  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 18:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I sorted one or two. I'll let you know if I see any which I disagree with. Off hand I think the phto of odd job, bond and goldfinger could be replaced although the lazer scene is quite an iconic one. Overall you are doing a very good job with these articles and the images are only minor quabbles. Regards  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 16:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC) You want to restore the diving apparatus image model of Connery?. I tend to agree -I thought it was useful encyclopedically too. Right now though if I had a choice I would remove the image of the boat. I think we should keep the underwater image as this very much illustrates what a great deal of the film wa slike -I'm sure you;ll agree that the underwater scenes were far too long in the film ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 16:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Mmm I see your argument about individual characters. But I find images which combine the main characters useful. I'm not sure which images you want to remove and to add? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Well this is true but by arguing this he is basically saying that any image of every character on ALL of the Bond film pages should be strictly prohibited. Which I disagree with. Is this what you want? I agree that decorative images of individual chaarcters have limited purpose but not screenshots of important scenes which are important to the plot and combine the leading characters. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 16:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if it is possible to obtain images which contain as many characters as possible this is a good thing. I wouldn't have a problem if you removed the largo and domino image and replaced it in the same place with the bond and women one. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC) I've removed one image from thunderball. Any idea if the apparatus image was deleted ? Could you provide me the name of the image that was deleted? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC) I've requested that it is restored. We should have the apparatus image back later. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 16:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Yes I had found it -I asked User:SkierRMH to restore it. He deals with deleted images. It should be restored later ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 19:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC) I've restored it and also added 8 references to the die another day list. You don't want to comment on the afd page? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The James Bond Portal
Would you mind if I spent a while getting the selected articles randomly generating? I know you've spent ages on the portal, but I think this would be the best option given the volume of good articles available. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN tell me a joke...  19:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You
I told you never to leave messages on my Talk Page.

I want nothing to do with you.

Tovojolo (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

James Bond fandom
I fail to see how this topic deserves an article of its' own? Why not merge anything useful into James Bond? -- Longhair\talk 08:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * see Harry Potter fandom‎ Ultra! 08:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. Fair call. My suspicions on worthiness were raised when I spotted your references. Live Journal for example is not considered a reliable source, so you'll need to dig deeper if you're aiming for an article of the same quality to the Potter article. Good luck. I'm sure there's plenty of Bond material out there. Cheers. - Longhair\talk 08:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm...
Regarding this... why? It looks so much better and the columns level off at the ends. Please can we come to an agreement? WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN I push my hand up to the sky  21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the huge amount of empty blue space it leaves. Ultra! 15:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What? If anything there is less space.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  I push my hand up to the sky  22:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Blofelds.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Blofelds.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Featured article candidates/The Mummy (1999 film)
I've addressed your concerns on the FAC page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and your follow-ups as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(bump) 16:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I know how you can miss talk page comments when you get a slew... cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GE-BondandSimonovainCuba.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:GE-BondandSimonovainCuba.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

i have been warned?
i have been warned? what's up with that! i am replacing completely redundant succession with navboxes. --emerson7 15:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You blanked an SAG box by putting Emmy. Ultra! 15:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * well it might be helpful if i knew what the heck you are talking about. --emerson7 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Halle Berry Ultra! 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I warned emerson7 for a personal attack. I considered this statement to be an insult of your knowledge. I also told emerson to keep it calm. Thought I would tell you. Rgoodermote  15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * O shit...I thought that said you..scratch that. Rgoodermote  15:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * hello. pardon my pedantics, but your behaviour is a bit out of line. disruptive =/= mistake, and i encourage you the go over WP:DE so that you might understand the difference. in any case, a simple application of WP:AGF would have been the appropriate, rather than firing the first salvo of an edit war with a wholesale by revert of my edits per WP:EW. further, leaving nasty threatening warnings unhelpful and are prohibited under WP:CIV. i highly recommend you familiarise yourself with these wiki policies as they might help you in future encounters. cheers! --emerson7 16:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Garbage (band)
You should withdraw your WP:GAN immediately, for it fails a quick fail criteria: there are several citation-needed tags on the article. I didn't get around to reviewing the article or citing from the "Behind the Music" program yet (not that you hold up the nomination for me). Royal broil 00:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed unsourced lines for now. Ultra! 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry but I have no idea how to upload audio files... I basically did a quick history for the main Garbage page to kinda kick everyone's ass to start editing and working on the page, suppose it's kinda worked! I'm focusing on the singles pages at the moment when I have time, then I'll go back and tweak the main page again when a bit more work has been done by other contributors. Breakinguptheguy (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Die Another Day cuts
While I can't remember who exactly said what in the audio commentary, according to a lot of critics, that scene between Bond and Jinx is the real on-screen sex scene in any Bond film. Also, to help sort of back-up that edit, I found this at the film's IMDb profile (the "alternate versions" page): "For the theatrical release, seven seconds were cut from the Jinx/Bond sex scene to secure a PG-13 rating in the US; this version was released on home video. All video versions released in or after 2006 are uncut. The main difference between the two is that Jinx moans loudly in the uncut version." I realise that this might not be the best source, so I'll try to find a better citation. Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs  •  critique) 23:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Madonna image
While I appreciate your efforts to contribute an image to the page, I feel it is of terrible quality. I couldn't even recognize Madonna in the image. There is no rule saying that there must be an image in a particular section - if it is bad, we remove it. Another question - the image name has 2007 in it, and the source seems to say 2008, while the section is about 1990..What exactly is the date of the photo? Herunar (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I re-uploaded it with proper date. And the purpose is to depict the topic, not decorate the page, Cheers. Ultra! 15:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Madonna-Baumblütenfest-Werder-Germany-2007.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Madonna-Baumblütenfest-Werder-Germany-2007.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bazzargh (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you've just uploaded this again after it was deleted. You seem to misunderstand the reason for the deletion. The user Joe Rego on flickr is claiming to have taken that image in February 2007. We have reliable sources for that image having been taken by Kevork Djansezian, and that the rights are owned by the Associated Press. When Joe Rego is making a patently false claim, it does not mean we can still use the image according to the license he claimed for it. I'll be tagging it again. Bazzargh (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Madonna-Blond-Ambition-tour-Germany.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Madonna-Blond-Ambition-tour-Germany.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bazzargh (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Madonna-Baumblütenfest-Werder-Germany-2007.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Madonna-Baumblütenfest-Werder-Germany-2007.jpg, has been listed at because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bazzargh (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Madonna-Blond-Ambition-tour-Germany.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Madonna-Blond-Ambition-tour-Germany.jpg, has been listed at because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bazzargh (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)