User talk:Kellycasady18
Welcome!
|
Kellycasady18, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Kellycasady18! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC) |
File source problem with File:Craig Macneill.jpg
[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Craig Macneill.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]Hello. I see that you removed a number of negative reviews from The Boy (2015 film). I re-integrated the sources that you added but reverted your blanking. Please do not do this. If you are associated with the filmmakers or the film's production, you should read our guideline on how to manage a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. We neutrally report reviews – good, bad, and mixed – without censoring them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Look, please stop trying to promote the film. If you keep up this disruptive editing, you can lose your editing privileges. I reverted your latest edit because it violates MOS:LINK and because you're clearly moving positive reviews to the forefront. I wouldn't care so much, except that you already removed all the negative reviews, and I'm losing my patience for promotional edits on this article. If it keeps up, I'll seek administrator assistance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your note. I'm just wondering why you are putting all the negative reviews up front. All I've done is added one review up top so that the reviews "good, bad, and mixed" are honestly placed.
- Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are trade magazines and are more prominent than random websites on the Internet. I like Badass Digest, but people are going to want to know what prominent critics think. It's not sorted by reception, though some editors like to do that. They lump all the positive reviews, mixed reviews, then negative reviews into different paragraphs. In a film like Star Wars or Titanic, you could probably do that, because there are so many reviews. For a smaller film, there just aren't enough review to support separate paragraphs. Other prefer to sort them by nationality, but, again, there aren't enough reviews for a breakdown by geographic location. I honestly don't care all that much about the order, but, like I said, I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of edits made to this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. That all makes complete sense. It's just that currently the editor has all the negative reviews at the top and the strong ones are at the bottom. Would you mind if I adjusted the order a bit so it feels more neutral? Thank you again for all the information.
- How is more neutral to intentionally list positive reviews first? If you want to move the other stuff around, go ahead, but I really don't like the idea of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter being moved. I think they should be the first reviews listed. Once Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic index the film, it will probably have a positive reception, and we can prominently list that. Also, in case I wasn't clear, please don't embed links like [http://www.indiewire.com Indiewire] in the article body. If you want to make a link, use brackets like this: [[Indiewire]], which will link to the Wikipedia article on Indiewire. The citation itself will lead readers to the review. We don't make individual words a link to external websites, because that causes confusion over where the link goes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll keep those two reviews up top and adjust a couple others that are below. Understood on the citation. Thanks again for clarifying all this, much appreciated.
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ana Asensio at the International Rome Film Festival.jpg
[edit]Thank you for uploading File:Ana Asensio at the International Rome Film Festival.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Ana Asensio at the International Rome Film Festival.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mosmof (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Ana Asensio.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Ana Asensio.jpg, which you've attributed to Self. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
