User talk:Alkclark

Welcome!

Hello, Alkclark, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- JHunterJ 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -- JHunterJ 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 4 Minutes (Madonna song). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KYLIEX2008 Set List

Hi. Is the set list changing quite a bit? I haven't kept up on it (waiting for the DVD so I can see it properly) so I have no idea if loads of songs are being left out. If it's only a few songs, I think that can be documented towards the bottom (like little numbers indicating the song wasn't performed on such and such date). After the tour ends, we should be able to organize it better. Pinkadelica 05:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give It 2 Me Image cover

My image for the song "Give It 2 Me" was no reson to be deleted. I will re-upload it. JoFerg 09:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie The One

Done. Good catch. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X (Kylie Minogue album)

http://www.metro.co.uk/fame/article.html?in_article_id=132120&in_page_id=7:

The performance was in sync with her new album released in US stores today, Album X, which has already sold nearly one million copies worldwide.

86.1.249.35 (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted again, stating "reference provided cannot be used as validation b/c no actual numbers are given and we cannot assume that just b/c it was "nearly" a million in April that means its at or over in July".

The first part of your summary doesn't make sense to me, because the reference is only being used to support the statement "almost one million copies worldwide"—correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that statements including words such as "nearly" shouldn't be included, which I don't understand. The second part is irrelevant because the beginning of the sentence reads "As of April 2008, X had sold...". There is no implicit assumption about subsequent sales. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your comment on my talk page, which for some reason Wikipedia did not make me aware of. I am not inserting into the article a claim that X has sold one million copies worldwide; I am inserting a statement that X had sold nearly one million copies worldwide as of last April. The Metro is a news source, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources recommends the use of third-party sources, so a statement regarding sales of X from Minogue's record company or management team is not necessarily preferable to what the Metro reports. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Chances Tour

You have reverted my edit saying that I don't have the neutral point of view. Let's see... The differances between your version and mine are:

1) you have placed one concert as Middle East
1) I say that Middle East is not a continent and that's why it should be a part of Asian concerts

2) you say Dion will perform over 100 shows
2) I say 125 - and that's a fact

3) you have hiden set list
3) I leave it open

So tell me where my point of view is not neutral? As there is no continent Middle East, as Dion will perform 125 shows (at least), and as there is no rule that say the set list must be hidden, I am reverting your edit. Oh, and the Quebec City concert was added long ago, so I don't undersatnd you saying "added Quebec City show". Max24 (Max24) 21:16, 15 Septemeber 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you must have seen that form all your changes to the article from last month, I have lef most of them because I did like them. I have only reverted the 3 things mentioned above. I see you are ok with the Asian concert, so I can live with the "over 100 shows". Anyway, the most important thing for me was the set list. The way you have made it last month, it was not good. There was "#" before the first song and there was a big gap between the set list and the references. But in your latest edit it's fixed, so I'm ok with that. Thank you! However there is a small thing I must fix. In the internet explorer I'm using, the first picture is placed on the right, under the info box and it causes a big gap in the middle of the article. So I'm changing that, and I'm changing some pictures which I think will be better.

P.S. if you could do some fixes to Celine's earlier tours, I would be very happy :-) Max24 (Max24) 08:05, 16 Septemeber 2008 (UTC)

I Am…

Hey noticed you redirected this page - I think instead it should have been done with the move function, all the article's edit history is still at the incorrect "Sasha" title. - eo (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Ill do it. - eo (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blond Ambition World Tour dispute

I tried to reach a concensus about the tour title here [1] and all I received was abuse from KM*hearts*MC (talk). I have proven the tour title:

The official European tourbook says on the front cover Blond Ambition World Tour [2]
The official tour posters from Italy and the UK have Blond Ambition World Tour 90 depicted on them. [3]
The North American tourbook has a sponsor page on page 36 clearly depicting "Madonna Blond Ambition World Tour 90 - Presented by Pioneer: Bring It Back Alive" [4]
The official laserdisc release was name Live! Blond Ambition World Tour 90 [5]
The user KM*hearts*MC is trying to use newspaper articles as proof of the title, but in my opinion official tourbooks, official tour posters, official tour laserdisc release and official sponsorship from Pioneer all clearly depicts the tour as Blond Ambition World Tour 90 which ALL have been released by Madonna and her companies and are the reliable sources for the tour title NOT newspapers.

JWAD (talk)

I have also added in new Los Angeles and Japan tour posters here [6] to the article which clearly show that the tour was known as "Blond Ambition World Tour" in Europe, Japan and the United States, the countries it covered. I expect the tour title know to be changed back as I think I have proved my point! JWAD (talk)

Funhouse Tour

I note you "cleaned up" this article - in doing so, however, you removed all the inline citations. Please be careful when removing - there's generally a reason for them being there! In this case, the article had had to be knocked down and rewritten to include only confirmed dates, and this is surprisingly hard to maintain without the footnotes. Shimgray | talk | 14:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "absurd" to footnote - it's good practice! Footnoting information to reliable sources is never a "violation of the manual of style"; I have no idea where you got this idea from. Accuracy and reliability is the core of what we're doing here, and always have been. The article did not have any neutrality problems I could see - could you identify these? The date issue is pretty much irrelevant - either works, and I just didn't feel enthusiastic enough to put them back in.

An early version of this listwas cited very generally to a forum post of dates, which was itself sourced to a list that had been removed from the site. I've been trying to avoid this sort of error creeping in - we had someone write in complaining about it - and so I've been trying to cite the dates to specific sources. The major source for most dates, of the three sources given, is this one; I'm a bit leery of using it as a single source because it opens us up to the problem of the original version, that of relying on a dubious source. We've no way of determining the reliability of it save by checking with more reliable sources (the venues or the promoters themselves) - and if we're going to doublecheck with more reliable sources, it makes sense (and is more useful to the reader) to link those.

As for the accuracy without specific footnotes... note that since they were removed, a date has been added that isn't cited by any of the three articles linked at the bottom. [7]. This is exactly the sort of thing that I put the footnotes in to avoid!

I hope this explains why we need the specific footnotes for specific details. Shimgray | talk | 00:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tina!: Her Greatest Hits

My friend, even not being the biggest fan of Tina Turner, I know that her album was released all over Europe, including my country. The album also charted on many official European charts. I have reverted your edit. You can find the confirmation on all European Sony BMG websites as well the charts where the album is still charting. Max24 | talk | 10:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. Tina! was solely released in North America. Sony BMG is not Turner's record label, so why would they release her al? Additionally, there is no mention of Tina! being released on Sony BMG or EMU website. Being an "import" doesn't mean it was released in that country. KM*hearts*MC (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky & Sweet Tour

Hello, I have seen your edits to S&ST article as well as other tour articles and I think you do a really profound job. Could you please look at the description of the show at the S&ST article? KM*hearts*MC (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply merged the references. I had no idea they were from a fan site. Please take a little time to actually look at people's edits. If you continue to warn people carelessly, I will take it to the attention of an administrator. Best wishes. ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The $12 million was here when I accessed the page. They probably edited it later to remove the figure. So you're right, the $12 million figure has to go from the Wikipedia article, because it's been removed from the cited source. But it was there when I looked at it.

The figures for total gross and tickets sold were cited by me from this source which I later removed because I saw an URL that looked like Madonna's official site citing the same figures. I didn't know it was a fan site. My bad.

The third source I used is this one, listed what I thought to be the number of tickets sold during Madonna's two concerts in Santiago. In reality it was merely a forecast. But the number is indeed there if you know Spanish: Si se cumplen los pronósticos, la estadounidense llevará cerca de 140 mil a sus dos presentaciones.

In short:

I added one source (La Tercera) which was reliable and had the information up when I cited it. The source later changed the information.
I added one source (EMOL) which was reliable and had the information up when I cited it. I replaced this reliable source with a fan site page I thought was Madonna's official site.
I added one source (El Mercurio) which was reliable, but had speculative information, which I thought were facts.

All of my edits were done on good faith. My advice: Don't threaten people with administration intervention unless they are vandals. ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know I was such a drama queen! Thanks for letting me know! Cheers.☆ CieloEstrellado 01:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Pcdeu eutour.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pcdeu eutour.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Justifed stripped.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Justifed stripped.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rmkc tour.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rmkc tour.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soul2soul 2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soul2soul 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soul2soul 1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soul2soul 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Ttlict poster.jpg)

You've uploaded File:Ttlict poster.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:Suspected sock puppets/Alkclark. Thank you. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation has been expanded, same location. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alkclark. I would welcome a frank explanation of the non-overlap of the editing times of these four accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts for more evidence please see this. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 06:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alkclark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This complete things seems completely inexcusable. I have not violated any rules of Wikipedia. As I mentioned before, this seems to be guilt by association and everyone involved should be punished, including admins. I am not a sock puppet and I have already provided evidence that suggest otherwise, as I personally contacted the ISP provider so stated where the IP address is coming from (a business park). I also provided the telephone number that a responsible admin could verify as well. I cannot speak for the other editors (dancefloor_royalty or KM...) and I am not aware of their intentions but I know mine are true. Additionally, this block was extended to indef. by Tiptorty without opening another case and failing to advise me of his/her decision. here. This seems to be because two pissed off editors who are not getting their way. I do not understand how something like this can be allowed. I could care less about JWAD or Wasted Time R or thier opinions but using the excuse that I may or may not bully them (or other users) is not an excuse to indef. block a user.

Decline reason:

Requests that attack other editors are always declined. See WP:GAB. — Sandstein 01:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alkclark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not request that other editors be attacked. Everyone hands are dirty and in fact everyone should be punished. I strongly disagreed with the entire process as I felt I strongly defended my self, however, that I was not enough and I accepted the 48 hour block. I was not made aware of the indef. block until 20 mins ago where Tiptoety nor Kanonkas opened an additional case nor did they notify me of his/her decision since he/her made their decisions hours after the 48 hour block. No reason can justify this and I strongly request that is be reverted. After reviewing, it appears that User:Wasted Time R took it upon him/herself to revert my edits of the Soul2Soul Tour, My December Tour, 2 Voices 2 Worlds Tour, Blond Ambition World Tour, Soul2Soul II Tour to his previous version and also took it upon him/herself to nofity specific editors of "being a victim of a sockpuppet". Those edits are here. This appears to be some bigger than the surface and I find this inexcusable.

Decline reason:

This doesn't address the socks. — Blueboy 96 02:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alkclark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I cannot address something that I am unaware of. Again, I strongly disagreed with the entire process as I felt I strongly defended my self, however, that I was not enough and I accepted the 48 hour block. I was not made aware of the indef. block until 20 mins ago where Tiptoety nor Kanonkas opened an additional case nor did they notify me of his/her decision since he/her made their decisions hours after the 48 hour block. No reason can justify this and I strongly request that is be reverted. After reviewing, it appears that User:Wasted Time R took it upon him/herself to revert my edits of the Soul2Soul Tour, My December Tour, 2 Voices 2 Worlds Tour, Blond Ambition World Tour, Soul2Soul II Tour to his previous version and also took it upon him/herself to nofity specific editors of "being a victim of a sockpuppet". Those edits are here. This appears to be some bigger than the surface and I find this inexcusable. Additionally, as mentioned on my talk page, my computer is registering my IP address as 10.116.114.38 and I can provide a screenshot of my computer and the dialog box to prove so. I cannot speak for other editors and I honestly do not know (personally or via any online source) dancefloor_royalty or KMheartsMC.

Decline reason:

I find that hard to believe, given that all three accounts have edited the same articles in the same manner, and that checkuser has confirmed that all three are being operated from the same computer. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Non-free use disputed for File:Jt_jalit.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jt_jalit.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image. Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kanonkas : Talk 16:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on block

We normally accept checkuser findings as decisive. (I'm the person who requested the check). See WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alkclark. Alkclark, it is unlikely that anyone will take you seriously if you claim to have no idea who was operating those other accounts. Especially when three of those accounts worked to support your point of view at Viva la Vida Tour. I think we can put this down as one of the less credible unblock requests. These accounts were all using your IP, yet you have no idea who they are. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what "view" would that be? You keep saying my IP address as if I was the sole user. I have already stated that I contacted the IP (Level 3 Commiunications) and was told that the IP address belonged to a business park, you may contact the IP as I did to confirm this. This is all a matter of your opinion. Alkclark (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how the editing times of all four accounts dovetail perfectly, so that no two accounts were editing at the same time? And how did three random strangers all develop a point of view similar to yours at Viva la Vida Tour? EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in your first question you are asking why no two accounts were editing at the same time? If its a business ip (as I was told) then i am sure it has to adhere to business hours. As a bulk of my edits are usually on the weekends or in the late evening/early morning. My computer gives me the IP address of 10.116.114.38. (i can provide you with a screenshot it needed) Which is why I did not understand that block, b/c I can assume you are saying that the 64...is my ip address along with dance and KM. As I stated in my case, I don't just edit articles on a whim, I take the time to look into, see the problems, correct them, verify the sources, or find new sources or add sources if needed. I verify tour dates and correct the table. This all takes 2-3 hours. Concerning the VLV tour, I didn't until that page until late Nov when i added the boxscore, corrected the setlist and added dates then the IP address moved the img and undid changes to the tour dates in Dec with additional edits to the tour dates done of the 10. I came in added tour dates while adding addtl boxscore information (in essence undoing the IP edits, how is that agreeing?) The the IP undid my changes to the setlist (how is this agreeing?)Then I came in again on the 31st to remove flags from the tour dates, as they were not needed. In undoing that I realized that the editor also changed the setlist, which I was not aware of at the point, which I can understand how that can be confused. Again, I only made two edits to the setlist moving around the source thing and separating the encore from the main set. The bulk of my edits were to the tour dates and boxscore. If I reverted an editor's edit and they edited a different section of the article (other than the section i was reverting), I understand that it implies that I agree with the previous version. It was a mistake as it was not my intentions to agree with a previous edit. Alkclark (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP that you don't know, 64.140.0.3 (talk · contribs), removed some warnings from your User talk here. Did that edit from an 'unknown IP' come as a complete surprise to you? EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was done April 10, my last edit was April 9 and not again til June 5th. Anything could have happened to my talk page in a two month period. Additionally, I'm not going to comment on something that happened nearly two years ago as I do not remember specific details from so long ago. Alkclark (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For admins viewing the unblock requests

Besides the checkuser evidence, there is a ton of behavioral evidence behind this person's sockpuppeting, which I outlined in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alkclark. I can even provide more examples if necessary, since I spent a lot of time pouring through this person's account histories. I should also note that other editors had similar suspicions, as you can see from the notes they left at User talk:Wasted Time R#Thanks very much. Finally, this person used the sockpuppeting not just to win edit debates but to bully other editors on their talk pages and to try to deceive admins with deception games. That's why I feel strongly that the indef block is justified. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Chelydvd.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chelydvd.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 06:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nsync nsat.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nsync nsat.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nsync pot.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nsync pot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]