User talk:Lizwilde

Regarding edits to Liz Wilde[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Lizwilde! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \.photobucket\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 00:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lizbwcowgirl.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Lizspace2.jpg. The copy called Image:Lizspace2.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:294px-Anniecowgirl2007.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:294px-Anniecowgirl2007.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

May 2008[edit]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Liz Wilde, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Prashanthns (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008[edit]

Rather than editing in the article Liz Wilde, you should consider working with another editor to update this article as it appears that you have a Conflict of Interest with the subject of this article. Please dont misinterpret this as a suggestion that information in the article should not be corrected, just that it should be done in keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Liz Wilde appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Rtphokie (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Liz Wilde constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Gail Wilson (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Lizbwcowgirl.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lizbwcowgirl.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rtphokie (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC) --Rtphokie (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Liz Wilde appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Please stop editing this page. Rtphokie (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Lizbwcowgirl.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on Image:Lizbwcowgirl.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image which is not under a free license or in the public domain and it has not been used in any article for more than seven days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Lizbwcowgirl.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Rtphokie (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, an easy way to prevent this image being deleted would be to either release it into the public domain or release it under a Wikipedia-compatible license (e.g. Creative Commons). I'm assuming, of course, that you hold the rights to the image personally. If it's owned by a media company, it gets more complicated. I'm willing to help you on this, so let me know. Dppowell (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Liz Wilde, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Liz Wilde. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. The359 (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please chill![edit]

Liz, I've called attention to this article on Wikipedia's administrative noticeboard. I'm also watching it personally.

I appreciate that you think there are ex-employees vandalizing your article, and if so, that's something the community here can help to address. At the same time, Wikipedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view. An article about you can't be one-sided, can't be used to promote your show, and can (like all articles on Wikipedia) be edited by anyone...in other words, you can't "own" the article. Please read this page for a clearer idea of what I'm getting at: WP:AUTO. Dppowell (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make accusations of other editors in edit comments or elsewhere. I've been reverting your edits much of today and I have nothing to do with you or your former shows. Unfortunately I have reached the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (as have you). Please let this article go for a while.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 199.200.243.253 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?[edit]

Liz, are you seeing these messages? Please acknowledge. I'm going to ask you to refrain from further edits to the article for the moment; you're in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule. Dppowell (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at Liz Wilde. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys for your help and suggestions. The people editing and adding or subracting erroneous information have seemed to "backed off". Now it would be helpful to know how to proceed to make this article acceptable and in line with Wikipedia's standards and practices. I, by no means am a HTML guru so please bear with my limited skills.....Thanks...Liz

How to proceed[edit]

I'm beginning a discussion on this at Talk:Liz Wilde. Dppowell (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]