4Real182

Unsourced information

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Madonna (entertainer), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Madonna (entertainer). Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

Please do not label a content change as "grammar" in your edit summaries. It is misleading and, if done repeatedly, is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Cher

Just a note. When there is a "dead link" attached to a reference, it shouldn't be removed. It's marked so that regular editors can search for a new reference for the content. Also, quite often, one reference is used for more than one place and are linked together. When such a reference is removed, it leaves errors in the remaining references that look like this. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility to go back through and add, one by one, the references that your changes continue to make. See Above, where I told you to stop removing the dead link reference that you first removed three days ago. Leave it alone. I would suggest that if you have content to add, that you do the adding, without reverting and changing a few words. At the moment, the good content you've added includes "starring in box-office hits like The Witches of Eastwick and", "Her earlier films, like Good Times and Chastity, had been poorly received. She", "and was nominated for a Golden Globe as Best Actress in a Motion Picture Drama". You've removed the reference to Chastity Bono's birthdate, added two posters for which the licensing isn't covered for use on the Cher page, and you are badly overlinking the awards. They need only be linked once. What it amounts to is that it is your responsibility to add material, properly sourced, in an appropriate manner and not to tell me to make individual changes to correct these issues, when all it would leave are a few minor wording changes. No. Work the minor changes in to the existing article. If you remove these references again, I will report to AN/I. Consider this the second warning for removing references. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sources are needed for statements of fact, like birthdate, marriage date, divorce date, record sales, and it is never appropriate to remove references, for any reason except an inaccuracy. The issue with the films is not whether she appeared in them, but that you state inequivocably that films were "box office hits", "poorly received", etc. Those are claims that require a source. The issue with the awards changes you made are that the name of an award, such as an Academy Award, do not get wikilinked each time they are used in an article. Once, maybe twice, but not each time.

As for the movie poster/DVD cover licensing, look at the image pages. The Fair Use rationale is specific:

For Moonstruck:

• "The sole purpose of this use of the copyrighted image is to illustrate the DVD in question."
• "Said image is the primary means of visual identification of the main topic of the article; that is, the studio film that is distributed via the DVD media."

For Mask:

• "The image meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy."
• "The image is used in the article wiki-linked in the section title."
• "The image is significant in identifying the subject of the article, which is the film or film character itself."

There are specific policies regarding such use, and it limits the use, per the licensing given for these two images, to the article about the title. Any other use would require further rationale for the specific page on which it would be used. In the case of film posters and DVD covers, they can only be used in relationship to critical commentary regarding the actual image or the work it depicts. It isn't allowable for Cher's article. Fair use is very strict regarding this. I'm not jerking you around, the rules are specific. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Was there some reason you didn't bother to wait for a response to your post to me? Some of these issues I've noted are again returned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't carry out a discussion in edit summaries. No one said you put all the weasel descriptors in the article, but I took out more than you put in. You did put in this: "Her earlier films, like Good Times and Chastity, had been poorly received." Whenever you use a descriptor word or phrase like "poorly received", "box office hit", "acclaimed", "flop", "receiving critical praise", it needs a reference that supports the statement. It may be something everyone might know, but it has to be published somewhere in some form, like Box Office Mojo, which gives box office returns (without analysis) or Rotten Tomatoes, which does give statistics on relative hits and failures from a critical point of view. This is a very firm Wikipedia policy. Articles are a living document. Some things may still be wrong with them, but there's no justification for allowing new content to be placed with those same issues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Cher, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please note that new talk page discussion belongs at the bottom of the talk page. It is never acceptable to remove old discussion to make way for yours, as you did in this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "i still don't know how that topic was unnecessary." When you made your talk page comment, you removed a note about an image and placed your topic in. I moved your topic to the bottom of the page, where it remains, and responded. Whether you like it or not, Cher has been embraced by the gay community, has been given awards for her stance on gay issues and advocacy. It doesn't mean that all of her fans are gay, but some of them are. It's a sourced fact. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? No one else has ever either disputed or complained about the fact that Cher is a gay icon, has been honored with awards for her involvement in gay activism. Why does this bother you? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Madonna

It may not have been you intention, but in this edit you misrepresented a source. You refer to Luz's age and profession, neither of which are indicated in the source. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Please don't add that information to the article without a proper source. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Cher

The sentence that said she sold XXX amount of records was removed, not because people didn't believe she sold 275 million records, but because no sourcing has been located from an official source that can independently verify 275 outside of material released by a press agent through an old article. You used this source twice to verify what you put into the article. That is true for this source, this source, this source, and this source. The problem is, that source is a direct copy of the lead section of the Wikipedia article. You can't use a copy of the Wikipedia article to support the Wikipedia article.

This source and this source are user submitted articles and therefore do not meet WP:RS requirements. This source presents copyright issues and RS does not allow for questionable sources like that. Finally, any information about her needs to be presented in the main body of the article and not just in the lead. How much she is earning in Las Vegas should not be put in the lead. The article is supposed to cover her whole career. The lead is supposed to reflect the entire article, not just fill up with pomposity for income and sales. Please stop trying to insert something into the lead that does not belong there or cannot be independently verified outside of copying some version of the Wikipedia article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Excuseme99. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:KimNovake2004.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:KimNovake2004.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.allstarpics.net/0220466/012841958/kim-novak-pic.html. As a copyright violation, File:KimNovake2004.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:KimNovake2004.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:KimNovake2004.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at File talk:KimNovake2004.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:KimNovake2004.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)