User talk:Zarafan

Image copyright problem with Image:DaniellaRush5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DaniellaRush5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You've added this photo to an article, the photo will be deleted unless you add some license info...if you look at the material in the message above you'll see that images without the proper copyright status will be deleted. If the photo is from a web site run by her or a production company it's probably protected and cannot be used here. In that case it shouldn't be added to the article. Let me know if you have any questions. Rx StrangeLove 05:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your communication; as you probably know I'm new to all this and want to make my contributions valid, well-received, and enduring. I understand the nature of your complaints but I'm at a loss to resolve them. The "official sight" is not actually run by Daniella Rush herself and the photo I uploaded does not originate at that site, but rather has appeared on many websites and user groups. I know that the appeal "50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong" doesn't work in a copyright dispute--and hope that phrase itself isn't copyrighted--but I don't know what, short of inventing a time machine and traveling back to the days when she was active to convince her to let me take a picture of her myself, would constitute acceptable usage of any image under the criteria Wikipedia maintains. I can only say that the photo was intended for publicity purposes and has been used as such all over the internet, so I am baffled as to why Wikipedia should reject the standards of "prior fair use" or why Wikipedia's use of this image should create legal problems that so far have eluded every other web site which has used this image. If there's a means for me to re-classify this image along the lines I have discussed here, please let me know: I really think that a publicity shot of an actress contributes something significant, and entertaining, to an article devoted to her career. Thanks again, Zarafan.


 * Using other people's images on Wikipedia is more complicated than typing in your own text. Take a look at WikiProject_Porn_stars for how to do it for porn star articles.... if it's a clear promotional image, you may be interested in the promophoto tag. However, Luke Ford has kindly released all his photos for our use with attribution, and has a page full of Daniella Rush images here, http://www.lukeisback.com/images/photos/000504.htm . If you take (or edit) one of those, mark it Creative Commons 2.5 license, and cite lukeisback.com and User:Tabercil/Luke Ford permission. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:Image:Daniella Rush 5.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Daniella Rush 5.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mango juice talk 14:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue, btw, is that I really don't think this qualifies as a "publicity photo". Mango juice talk 14:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Kepernyuo8(3).gif
This image was deleted partially because it is unnecessary, partially because it is used only by permission. There is already an appropriate image on the depicted person's page, it does not need another one. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the decision on this image, but not with the ruling on Daniella_Rush_5.jpg, which is necessary for the illustration of the article by that name, and which is a legitimate publicity photo!

Aurora Snow
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Tabercil (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Maya Gold
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Maya Gold. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Maya Gold. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brianna Love


The article Brianna Love has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)