User talk:Tabercil/archive8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tabercil. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

this is the real new official CClaudia web-site : CClaudia.net the former one - CClaudia.com was made by a Spansh Model Agency (SpainModels) and was no more updated since 8 months because this Agency was given up by the owner Victor Martinez from Madrid. - So pls. allow to post the new real homepage of Ms. Ciesla. - This is not linkspam. --TommyNoe 14:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Tommy Noe

• Is there somewhere other than those two pages that back up what you say, that .net is the current official page and not .com? Tabercil 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • please see imprint, webmaster of CClaudia.com: http://www.natalisweb.com/ Director Victor Martinez Diaz. Madrid. He was the former CEO of Spainmodels, Madrid. This Agency was given up by Mr. Martinez.
    Pls see also imprint of: http://www.cclaudia.net/english/impressum.php.
    there are existing 3 or 4 more websites about CClaudia or CClaudia-Model or Claudia Ciesla, but all these are made by several Fan-Groups of Ms. Ciesla and not her official sites.--Kadenpress 12:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • • Umm. Maybe I misspoke... is there an article or interview online that clearly shows that .net is the current homepage? Tabercil 13:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
        • the new webpage (.net) looks like an advertising for the "new CClaudia Calendar 2008" Wiki-nightmare 13:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
          • That's not unexpected if the link is indeed her official site... you would expect the celebrity to be flogging things like their own calendars on their official site. What I'm more interested in resolving is which site is her official site: .com or .net - both seem to lay claim to that status. Tabercil 13:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
            • I see your point. You're right. Domain whois says: .com .net Owner Contact: Claudia Ciesla for .net Wiki-nightmare 13:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
              • The Website CClaudia.com was not updated since about 1 year. Following mail was received by Mr. Martinez (former COE of SpainModels) from Madrid saying: "Siento si te ha molestado todo este tema de tu website CClaudia.com, pero ya no puedo ocuparme de tu website. Me hubiera gustado seguir adelante pero tengo mucho trabajo y ya no puedo. El dominio www.cclaudia.com finaliza en diciembre. Siento mucho el tema de la website y quiero que sepas que siempre te he querido ayudar en todo lo posible y que tienes un amigo en Madrid para lo que necesites." Means, that Mr. Martinez appologizes not beeing able to work on this website because of lots of other work and website will be given up. - Original mail can be received by Mr. Tommy Noe, Admin (and Moderator of her Yahoo Fan Base and US MySpace Group) for Ms. Ciesla in USA. --Kadenpress 13:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
                • Hmm... looks like .net is the current "official" site. Tabercil 17:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tabercil,

No need to get hot under the collar so quickly. If you would have noticed, I posted on Britney's talk page a request for opinion soon after I published the link.

Additionally, I'm one of the initiators of "nofollow" links to reduce spam and inappropriate conducts.

A little respect to my straightforward practices will do.

Midas touch 06:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You added the link to the main page, then added the comment to the Talk page afterwards. When I go through my Watchlist, I always go in chronological order i.e., check the oldest edit first, then the next oldest. As well, your posting of the comment to the Talk page happened after my removal of the link, judging by the revision histories. As for the link itself, I'll put my thoughts on it on the Talk page. Tabercil 12:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

since when is IMDb.com user-edited? I think they started - probably inspired by Wikipedia - something like that where ordinary users can review movies (but with an obligatory registration and even some sort of further authentication).
I don't intend to go on further on this nor rechange your edit - I just stopped by because I'm curios. HTurtle 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you look at the section at Wikiproject Pornography regarding the real names of performers, you'll see the logic behind why IMDB is not considered to be a reliable source for a name. And as a side note: I know that Jimbo holds similar views regarding IMDB. Tabercil 01:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

a bit late, but thank you very much for this helpful and comprehensive answer! HTurtle 14:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what Tabercil claims, IMDB is very much a reliable source, because although users submit information, it must first be verified by IMBD to be posted. I sense a very lonely, repressed person lurks in his skin and the only semblance of control that he possesses is to anonymously reject facts to support his fantasyland world of porn women. I personally knew Ellie Murdoch (aka, Alicia Alligatti) back in college in Virginia before she turned to porn. It seems to be the onus should be on Tabercil to produce evidence that her real is Alicia Alligatti (which it's not; it's a stage name). However, his "priviledged position" allows him to arbitrarily dictate policy based upon a very loose interpretation of Wiki standards. I would tell him to go to *ell, but he's already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.1.65 (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Dream on and rant on all you want. And I'm quite aware that "Alicia Alighatti" is a stage name. It still doesn't change the fact that the source you are providing for her "real name" is of poor quality and violates WP:BLP. In fact I'm willing to bet you haven't read any of the Wikipedia policies I've pointed you to. Tabercil (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• • By admitting that you know that Alicia Alligatti is not her real name, you violate the very logic of verifiability that you purport to uphold. If you go back and research the page history, you will see that no one else has challenged her real name and others have, in fact, supported my evidence. Again, the burdern of proof is on your to prove that Ellie Murdoch is not her name, which you can't do because I have given you page after page of evidence of her various sports competition in Virginia and Pennsylvania, which you promptly erased---even though it was documented! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.1.65 (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • Wrong. The burden of proof is on you with your edit... from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (emphasis mine). I am not disputing that Ellie Murdoch attended Lynchburg College. What I am disputing is that she and Alicia are the same person, and you have failed so far to do so. The only independent evidence you have provided outside of your word has been IMDB's bio page, which is not a reliable source. As for your contention that others have supported my evidence, don't piss on me and say it's raining... I'm quite convinced that you have two other identities: User:Zcxvcbvnbm and User:Inwaterpeace. I just haven't bothered to go through the procedures to check for sock puppets. And lastly, you mentioned in [this] edit summary: "give up or I will seek mediation." No sir, I will not yield in the least to you as that would simply allow you to trample on our verifiability and reliable sources policies, so if you want your waym I would suggest you start looking into Wikipedia:Mediation, for all the good that would do you. Tabercil (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Tabercil,

I've followed what seems t be common practice in other actor pages by susing a low resolution photo captured from TV to use for Jill Wagner's page. Is there a way to do this without copyright infringement or do I have to get jill's permission. Thanks. MBCF 02:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture in question:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jillwagneractress.jpg which will be deleted Nov 19.

I'm afraid we can't use copyrighted images to show what living people look like, per WP:NFCC#1. The ideal outcome in this situation is to obtain a photo under free license; I've written a tutorial on doing this at User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content. Good luck! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Videmus, I'll try out one of your suggestions. I had already tried contacting Jill or her publicist through her myspace page but obviously not the best path. MBCF 16:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding our recent Simpson-chat, you have mail. The Rambling Man 08:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not a reference I recommend holding onto dearly. I'll leave it for others to decide but recommend a more reliable source backs it up. I've not heard of dolly dyke or doily dyke but they certainly could have currency and both could be true. I suggest finding sources for whichever ones are true. As a bonus a good source can be used in any article. Benjiboi 07:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• That was the best reference I could find quickly through Google... hopefully it'll last long enough for a better one to be located. I also found a few hits on some urban dictionaries for the term, but I felt they were of even lower quality than the one I used. Tabercil (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, try this and this. Benjiboi 22:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I came across that first link but didn't use it as it only used the term in such a fashion as not to be glean its meaning. As for the second, I think that one would be useful in the lipstick lesbian article as a secondary link to back up the first one.. .which is how I'm going to add it as. :) Tabercil (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For you this link http://www.pornstarsspain.com/soniababy/ is more imoprtant than this? Noproblem. delete this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:200.3.222.13&redirect=no Write in Source Sonia Baby. You delete the link? You choice what can read the people in all wikipedia? You are the owner of wikipedia? I only make colaboration, you disturb. For me delete all the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.3.222.13 (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Surprised when looking at this edit that you removed her birth name as being unsourced when the link to her IMDB bio followed immediately after. My understanding is that IMDB bios are a reputable source. Thanks for any clarification you can provide - Chewyrunt (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you look at the section at Wikiproject Pornography regarding the real names of performers, you'll see the logic behind why IMDB is not considered to be a reliable source for a name. And as a side note: I know that Jimbo holds similar views regarding IMDB. Tabercil (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Aha, you are correct! Good to know - Chewyrunt (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

i was just reverting back links that were and have been there for awile.....i did not add any i just put them back. i did go thru the links and double check them, i have since deleted some and a few were duplicates. just like other living people pages they do have links ffor them, and this is what i have left. i have not done any wrong now. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 10:25, November 21, 2007

Yeah, it's a one-shot spammer. I'm collecting evidences first on my user page. When he resists, I'll report it and asks for blacklist if necessary. Thanks for the message. Dekisugi (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Check on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Brandy_Ledford.jpg, follow the source and see with your own eyes! Then, tell me if it can't be upload to wikipedia. You can see the same on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_MercedezSdrtirs (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a mistake. I was doing some cleanup with AWB and made about 6 or so changes before I realized the mistake. It doesn't affect the link itself, so I didn't feel an urgency to fix it right away. TJ Spyke 00:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that a claim of "used with permission" from another website needs to be backed up by a letter from an email address assoicated with the website - see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for details.

Getting this done before someone lists the page on the "copyright violations" page is a Good Idea.

Good luck! --Alvestrand (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I should have the email with the permission somewhere... just need to dig it up and forward it along to OTRS. Thanks for pointing that out! Tabercil (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think my two pictures with the awards are "better" because the they are sharp, clear scans from my original photos. The photo from "dirtybob" is off poor quality -- fuzzy and hard to look at.

I'm not trying to make trouble or keep redoing my pics -- I just appreciate pictures that are professional looking and clear to display. If he had a better picture to start, I would not have bothered to upload mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbane700 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• That's your call, but my feelings largely echo that of AnonEMouse on this topic... Tabercil (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

An image used in the article on the first Bangladeshi pornstar Jazmin, Image:WorshipThisBitch3.jpg, the cover of the DVD that made her the selling point, a first for a Bangladeshi, is up for deletion here. You may be interested to take a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your pic for JR Rotem is not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.172.12.36 (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well that's how the photo was identified on lukeford.net. On digging further (by checking with other sources), I agree with you in that he was misidentified; the photo is actually of Edgar Ramirez. Tabercil (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tabercil, just an interesting quote i thought you might like from jimbo wales;

"I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.28.252 (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mayhaps it's not all it's cracked up to be... but that still does not mean that your contributions don't count as vandalism! Tabercil (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Brittany O'Neil, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany O'Neil. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cindy Crawford (porn star), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy Crawford (porn star). Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits simply because it's not her birthname. The article doesn't specify it as such. Friedland is her married name. Vinh1313 (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On Dec 24, he edited his article. I have not touched it as per your request, but would like for you to correct it. Callelinea (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. I hadn't spotted that edit. Tabercil (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

hi, i've entered a link to spam.hstthompson.altervista.org/photos/index.php and you removed it and marked as spam, but if you see the site i linked it have no sponsored links or virus or ads or other shit. please tell me what's wrong in my site, so maybe i can fix it, here or at hstthompson at altervista dot org. thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.214.196 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• The link in question is simply put spam, and was removed (and will continue to be removed) per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Spam. Tabercil (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• thanks for the reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.206.229 (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor has nominated Cathy Barry, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Barry (2nd nomination) and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor has nominated Hikari Hino, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikari Hino (2nd nomination) and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you leave me a message76.98.236.231 (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• The message was left because of this edit. Tabercil (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That was from July and that guy WAS being a creep & you are also being a creep for looking up things I said in July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.236.231 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Hey, you were the one who asked why the message was left. I had to try and figure out what the context was for the message I left in the first place! Tabercil (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tabercil. Happy New Year to you! We seem to have an anon: User:24.18.129.117 indescriminately mass-tagging articles for "Notability". See: [1] Can anything be done about it? Dekkappai (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Seems to have stopped. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I know her. she killed the jesse capelli myspace and started taylor pagano using all "jesse" pics. Happened right after her c-list boyfriend, DJ joe joe pellegrino dumped her for escorting.

I even spoke to her and she said it was her page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.184.189 (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's nice, but it all constitutes original research at this point. Tabercil (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I removed the pseudonym from the article body since it had been introduced in the lead-in. I have no problem leaving it, if you want, but i don't think it adds much. Verne Equinox (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ah. I didn't see that the alias had been put at the start. I'll undo my own edit. Tabercil (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor has nominated Paizley Adams, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paizley Adams and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you're busy with the project deletion page updates, which are very much appreciated. I wanted to point out that both editors you cited in your merge argument had changed their position due to the rewrites I've been doing. If you have time would you be willing to review the article to see if you feel it has improved enough to keep? Horrorshowj (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see you reverted my "vandalism" to a version with a blatant error/untruth. She isn't married to KIW, they don't marry the skanky mud sharks, they just fuck them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.68.162 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well that's your point of view. Problem is it's not what Wikipedia is about; it's about a neutral point of view. And further edits will be reverted as vandalism; heck, irritate me enough and I'll even throw in a blocking of editing privileges for free. Tabercil (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see you haven't fixed the inaccuracy. Obviously this site isn't about factual information for you, it's about reporting and being a hard-on cop wannabe. Enjoy your reports and reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.68.162 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh I will. Tabercil (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you check out the links on the Tera Patrick article? Another user added an "official site" to the ext. links section but I'm not sure if both the site in the info box and the site in the ext. links are both legitimately hers. I thought you may have a better idea. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 13:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm... checking AVN for recent stories about Tera turns up this one, which clearly points out what her official site is. Tabercil (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tabercil,

On the Cassie Campbell article, the top image is a copyrighted image that you provided quite some time ago. I notice that someone added a free image to the bottom of the article about a month after your image. Do you have any objections or comments on my replacing your image up the top with the free one down the bottom, then nominating your copyrighted image for deletion?

Cheers, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Go ahead. I put that image up back before they really clarified the free use policy as meaning "no fair-use images of living people in the info box". Tabercil (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've done all the necessary steps. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cassie Campbell bramptonsports.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) 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Modifications to entries for Violet Blue (the actress) were made at her direction by me in order to mitigate damages for the tort of outrage. I am Robert Apgood, her counsel of record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.16.186 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you reverted my edits to the said article. I won't start an edit war, but I was curious as to why you reverted them. I was merely readding a page which had been removed without any discussion. Without starting a discussion yourself, you simply removed it. Whenever things like this happen, it seems to me the people who do this (such as yourself) are living out a thrill of being "vandalism police," rather than actually investigating to see if it's vandalism. Your home pages are filled with "0 tolerance policy on vandalism" banners, yet I think a better banner would read "Anonphobic," since you simply revert any addition made by an "anon."

Regardless of how you may feel about anons, we are not all vandals. In fact, many vandals have Wikipedia accounts, sometimes multiple accounts. Your actions seem a bit elitist, and un-Wikipedian. --24.149.185.189 (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I removed it because it violated the external links policy. Tabercil (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Katie_weatherston.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kim_stpierre.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Meghan_agosta.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tabercil. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.