Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:44, 18 January 2008

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Madonna-confessions-remixed.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Madonna-confessions-remixed.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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Licorice hoax

Wow! I'll start moving things back to how they were..... do me a favor and get these stories and the references put into the article - otherwise it's gonna keep getting switched back! - eo (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well here's two links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7132227.stm http://madonnalicious.com/ "Licorice catches out Larry Flick"

The fan site, DrownedMadonna.com which posted the news to begin with, has contacted Larry Flick, and he won't reply back nor reveal where he got the story from. They now believe that he took the fan cover design with the title, and released it as the album's title name. Talking about f-ing up!

The official listening party thrown for the Warner Bros. executives had Madonna revealing that the tentative title for the album was in fact "Give It To Me". I believe this was reported on Wiki. Let's keep it as it's tentative title for the TBA page.

Thanks again.

Maddyfan 17:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I got the article and Talk Page moved back and I removed all references to Licorice and I'm pretty sure I caught all the double-redirects. Let me know if you need anything else! - eo (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The main Madonna page ;)

I did stick a new ref tag in the first sentence that someone posted in the Talk Page... it's directly from Reuters... although I suppose the whole confusion and subsequent news errors are notable enough to be placed in the article, right? btw I have placed a semi-protect on the move function, so hopefully we won't see it going back and forth. - eo (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe we were both working on it at the same time. Anyhoo, I've combined stuff you wrote with some stuff I put in also.... I kept getting edit conficts!  :-) Add/subtract whatever you need to... - eo (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I noticed that. You made the perfect summary, which I why I totally let it go when I saw that it was you that was updating the page. ;) Thanks again! 01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears

Regarding the Rolling Stone and All Music Guide reviews of Blackout. They are added for consistency within the article. All of her previous 4 studio albums have 2 reviews mentioned in the article. Do not remove them without a proper explaination. Oidia (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

They're on the album page. We can't be seen as non-biased if we don't start posting negative and positive reviews which are already contained on the album page. We didn't need it before, we don't need it now. Maddyfan (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

First, for ...Baby One More Time, Oops!... I Did It Again and Britney albums, the reviews shown in the article are from Rolling Stone and All Music Guide. Second, 3.5 out of 5 stars are not totally positive, it's called a mild reception. Hence it's not "selecting only positive reviews". Last, like the previous sections in the article, reviews of the album make a good addition to the article. Do not remove it again. Oidia (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't own the page, and the album page's reviews are sufficient and balanced. Maddyfan (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am exercising common sense in this matter. Britney Spears is a different article to Blackout (Britney Spears album). Like all her other studio albums, 2 reviews for each album are mentioned in Britney's page. It is therefore common sense to have the 2 reviews (from the same critics) for Blackout in Britney's page. Non of the other editors have a problem with adding the album reviews in Britney's page. Lastly, one of the comments you gave in Talk:Britney Spears is a personal attack on an editor. WP:NPA states that you should only comment on the content, and not comment on the contributor. Any more personal attacks from you will be reported to an administrator. Oidia (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oidia, just because you don't agree with me not agreeing with you, doesn't mean that you have to exaggerate other matters. I'm going to see what Kraft. thinks. Then we'll see if the reviews shall stay or not, and what the consensus is. The two reviews you published, are there for one reason and one reason only, to make the album sound better than it seems. No way are those reviews adding a non-biased overall review of the album. They are both extremely complimentary. The main album article states just the opposite. Your name adds to the non-non-biased effort. You are a Britney fan. I'm not saying you're doing anything underhanded or purposely to make her look good, but people are going to begin wondering about that very issue, and these reviews are not helping you. I appreciate any person who tries to help putting a page together, but if you think these reviews give a "balanced" assessment from critics, you really are blinded by fandom.

BTW, Oidia, what comment are you referring to? There is not one thing I said on there that is a personal attack. You have people on there who wish her dead. If you referring to my, "You must be joking or at least insane. lol." I AM referring to what the person wrote. Read their comments. They are completely insane, or are totally joking. You also would be failing to see my "lol". I know you take this personally, me not agreeing with what you see as "your page", but you don't have to start making up ridiculous accusations, looking for anything to use against me. It simply isn't there.

Maddyfan (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The reviews I've posted are not biased. In the "Professional reviews" table on Blackout (Britney Spears album), there are these positive reviews:

• Digital Spy gave the album 4/5 stars
• Candid Review gave it 4.5/5 stars
• The Guardian gave it 4/5 stars
• Times Online gave it 4/5
• Associated Content gave it a positive
• AP gave it a positive
• BBC gave it a positive
• The observer gave it a positive

There are these negative reviews:

• Billboard gave it a negative
• NME gave it 4/10 stars
• The Star gave it 2/4 stars
• Newsday gave it a D

Therefore, the Rolling Stone and All Music Guide reviews (3.5/5) are mild reviews, they are not positive nor negative, they are in the mid-range when compared to the other reviews.

Part of the comment from Rolling Stone that I've posted in Britney Spears said "but Britney's stubbornly holding on to her freakness". They said she's stubborn and made a remarked on her "freakness". All Music Guide's comment said "the album is overpraised". As you can see, I'm not selecting positive reviews in her article.

And lastly, your comment in the talk page is obviously not referring to what the editor wrote, you are referring to the editor himself/herself. You can also get Kraft, or a Request for Comment to determine whether or not it's a personal attack. I am not exaggerating this matter. And on the note of exaggeration, let me show you this message you wrote a while ago, , noticed how you said we don't need three billion of them? So please have a think again before saying I'm exaggerating matters. Oidia (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but their comments had nothing to do with the page, and I responded as such. The Discussion page is not suppose to be for personal chit-chat. You are over exaggerating and you know it. You will also be treated as such, if you continue to make up such blatant nonsense. Shall I check and see if you wrote messages on the TALK pages of those who want bad things to happen to her? Give me a break.

If we're going to post a positive review, then we're going to post the opposite--negative review. Choose the most positive, I'll choose the negative, then we can balance this out. Those two contain no negativity, not like the ones who said it sounded like a blow-up doll album, or how Paris Hilton sounded unplugged compared to this. Maddyfan (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not mind other editors saying bad things about Britney, this just goes to show that I am a non-biased fan of her. You have commented that a contributor is "either joking or insane", and then went on to "laugh out loud" about your personal attack on that contributor. That is violating Misplaced Pages's policy of No Personal Attack. The history of your very own talk page have shown you were conducting personal attacks on editors . If you insist that this is exagerrating, or blantat nonsense, then we should have a Request for Comment on this matter.

I completely disagree when you said the 2 reviews I've posted have no negativity. Read it again, for your convenience, I'll post them here, and bold all the negativities in their comment.

It received decent reception from critics. Rolling Stone gave the album 3.5 out of 5 stars, stating that "Blackout is the first time in her career that she's voiced any real thoughts about her life. The old provocation game is still afoot, but Britney's stubbornly holding on to her freakness — it's the only form of rebellion she's got left." All Music Guide also rated the album 3.5 out of 5 stars, noting that "Blackout is an easy album to overpraise based on the lowered expectations Britney's behavior has set for her audience, as none of her antics suggested that she'd be able to deliver something coherent and entertaining" and also that "it holds together better than any of her other records, echoing the sleek club-centric feel of In the Zone but it's heavier on hedonism than its predecessor, stripped of any ballads or sensitivity, and just reveling in dirty good times."

Those comments have both positivity and negativity within them. And finally on Blackout (Britney Spears album)#Critical_reception, the very first sentence states "The album has received generally positive reviews." So have a think again before saying it's "to make the album sound better than it seems" and "No way are those reviews adding a non-biased overall review of the album." Oidia (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"this just goes to show that I am a non-biased fan of her." You have to be joking with this. You're not making any sense no matter how hard you try. They're chit-chatting. That's against the rules. I responded as such. Get over it. You need to have some perspective and stop trying to bully people when it's completely not necessary. It's like running to the teacher every five minutes. Any person with a lick of sense can see what I was saying.

Review is pretty good review. Maddyfan (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the reviews on Britney Spears are "pretty good" reviews, just as Blackout (Britney Spears album)#Critical_reception says "The album has received generally positive reviews." Just like the reviews on Britney Spears for her previous four studio albums. ...Baby One More Time and In the Zone have positive and negative, while Oops!... I Did It Again and Britney have only positive reviews. When other editors discuss non-article-improvement-related materials in talk pages, you need to be polite, be welcoming, and certainly not conduct a personal attack in informing them not to chit-chat. The way you responded is inappropriate in relations to the guidelines and policy I have wikilinked in the above sentence. Oidia (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke, and anyone reading it would see how nuts the poster was to begin with. The picture isn't her? She will be Marilyn Monroe, etc. My reply was spot on. It was a crazy posting. Maddyfan (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What vandalism?

You have blanked sources, removed uncopyrighted images when they are supposed to replace copyrighted ones and also falsely accused 3RR. Vikrant 13:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You did break the 3RR. Go look at the history. Blonde Ambition, and the Reinvention image ARE copyrighted. They have been removed. Live8 happened in 2005, so I moved it to that section. I saw that you added sources, as I looked at the discussion page. Thank you. Maddyfan (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Show me the history. Images are free see their pages. Vikrant 13:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the person put Self-made when they in fact, are not. The Blonde Ambition photo is official. It is agency released. The Re-invention photo is an infamous shot back from Getty/Corbis/etc. I have these photos. They are not unofficial. Users do this all the time.

Check out every Commons image. Publishers of magazines etc may choose a license of their choice. OK? Vikrant 07:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And both pics that you showed me have been cut from the free one. Vikrant 07:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they haven't. People do this all the time. It's is NOT free. Maddyfan (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Wiki Commons, edit rule, HELP!

Hi Maddyfan. The "3 edit rule" is actually a "3 revert rule". Some editors may try to get around this by using the basic edit function and manually making their edit identical to the one previous.... you can read more here: WP:3RR. If you feel that someone is absuing this you can submit an issue to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I am less familiar with the image issue you have as I am not as well versed on what is available in Commons. HOWEVER, it is my understanding that images found there are to be free images. There is a policy section in the Misplaced Pages Commons article. If you feel that an image was incorrectly tagged (i.e. editor claimed they are self-made when they clearly are copyrighted), you may want to check out Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. - eo (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Againsample.ogg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Againsample.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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) 13:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:EveryTimesample.ogg)

Thanks for uploading Image:EveryTimesample.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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) 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ThatstheWayLoveGoessample.ogg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ThatstheWayLoveGoessample.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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) 13:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I think you should go here and oppose this person's request for Adminship. Take a look. Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Vikrant Phadkay Vonita (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)