User talk:Baltimorecreole

Image copyright problem with Image:Robert_Ri'chard.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Robert_Ri'chard.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonce[edit]

I see the category is still under consideration for deletion. If it is not deleted, note that it should be "Entertainers of Louisiana Creole descent", not "Entertainers from Creole decent". Please sign your Talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will add your username and the time automatically. Also, please use the Edit summary box with each change; it will help your fellow editors out. -- JHunterJ 00:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. I'll bring the food 13:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I have just reverted original research from you and others repeatedly. This is now vandalism. I will request a block if you do it again.--I'll bring the food 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of your Warning[edit]

Hello, Baltimorecreole.

When one of our editors (in this case, you) listens to a piece of music with an analytical ear, and determines what the key of the music is or even the note being strummed, one is originally analysing a piece. Original research can take a number of forms, depending on the discipline it pertains to ...it typically ... involves direct ... observation of the researched subject, e.g. ...in the field. Original analysis is original research.

The problem is, Wikipedia is not the place for original research, this is an official rule. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. The source must be from a reliable journal, publication or website. Please note, Blogs do not count to this end. Wikipedia:No original research is one of 3 wiki-laws, as it were. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

You have broken one or more of these laws. If you choose to break it again, it will be deliberate vandalism, an act for which I will seek to have you banned, as you have been warned.

Sincerely, --I'll bring the food 13:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on user page moved[edit]

About the comment you left [2] on User:I'll bring the food, I moved it to their talk page [3]. -- Gogo Dodo 05:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scan the press kit and upload it, alternatively upload the press kit as a photo, or request someone else with the CD upload it (click "Community portal" on the left - be sure to ignore people at the water cooler who whinge you posted in the wrong place, they always do that to the n00bs.). --I'll bring the food 09:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the n00b article says n00b is an insult but it's not, at least i'm using it in the cute sense (crap article imo).--I'll bring the food 09:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]