User talk:NewCiaraFan09

Image copyright problem with Image:MamaWantToSingPoster.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:MamaWantToSingPoster.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Tiptoety 01:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is from CodeBlack Entertainment's original website, so of course its true. (NewCiaraFan09 16:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to Mama, I Want to Sing!:

Your recent edit to Mama, I Want to Sing! (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a non-talk page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 16:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ciaraworldmusicawards.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Ciaraworldmusicawards.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fantasy Ride, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DiverseMentality (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Umbrella (song) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. ukexpat (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stepped on My J's

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Stepped on My J's. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 01:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive? I'm merely speaking the truth. "Stepped On My J's" is the official second single from "Brass Knuckles. Not some simple radio single like "Body on Me". However, if I may inquire, if "SOMJ" isn't the second single, why did they film a video? (NewCiaraFan09 (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violating 3RR is disruptive. Also, in regard to the facts at hand, you are wrong. There have been numerous occasions in the past of videos being shot, but the song not being serviced to radio for airplay. In this particular instance, the next airplay single is "Body on Me." Hence, it - under policy - is the second single, in regard to Wikipedia's concerns. "Stepped on My J's" may be serviced as a single in the future - or even at the same time as "Body on Me," but just to another format - but until there is official confirmation from a reliable source (and the artists themselves do not count, sorry), your desired edit(s) is/are incorrect. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 01:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. (NewCiaraFan09 (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please make sure that you are being civil to other users. Your recent edit summary was not necessary and fails WP policy. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ciaraperformingpromiselive.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Ciaraperformingpromiselive.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? BlueAzure (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Ciara-nelly.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Ciara-nelly.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BlueAzure (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your comment on my talk page

"Nonsensical?" LOL No, I understand how the industry works, being in it. Artists have next to no say in the order of their singles, nor when they're going to be released... fact. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's the way it is. Also, it doesn't matter when the interview was or how it happened, for it to be here on Wikipedia you still must source it. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, seeing as this rumor is more than likely true why couldn't you have just used this: (NewCiaraFan09 (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT, for starters?--InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, I don't care anymore. Wikipedia is one of the most unreliable sources on the net, so who gives a fuck? (NewCiaraFan09 (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if we didn't have users who continued to add unsourced information to some of our articles that might not be the case (in your opinion)? That is why WP:PROVEIT, WP:V, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:BLP exist. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if Wikipedia didn't offer the "edit" option, allowing any idiot to write false things and had a vast, dedicated staff to add TRUE stories to Wikipedia pages that might not be the case. Who's bright idea was it to add omni-editing functions anyway? (NewCiaraFan09 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I don't appreciate the personal attack (see WP:CIVIL). 2) Show me one "false thing" that I've written, please. All I have done is asked for citations / sources to verify information, per policy. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.) I never said YOU were one of the idiots who'd come up with false things, I was speaking in general. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't try it on. 2.) I'd be more interested in seeing what you've done to ADD to the Wikipedia database. When have you ever ADDED something, rather than just correcting infomation you deem as "challenged or likely to be challenged"? (NewCiaraFan09 (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My chosen role in the project is not of your concern, but thank you for asking. My actions are supported by policy, that's all that matters. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All that matters is the fact that you're boring me, so hop off my page. *waves* (NewCiaraFan09 (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a witty response to that, but I'd become a hypocrite if I wrote it here, so... --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a hypocrite and a liar for merely thinking it, so why don't you just release yourself from that sheltered Wikipedia policy-bound cocoon and say it. The floor is yours.... (NewCiaraFan09 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:InDeBiz1, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shut the hell up. (NewCiaraFan09 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InDeBiz1 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Is that all you can say? LoL, you're lame, boo. (NewCiaraFan09 (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility_2

If you had misunderstandings with InDeBiz1, please let it pass. If you cannot make it, please avoid incivil comments. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd already been warned and this was over the top. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks and harassment. 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2008 (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).

NewCiaraFan09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Request from user who was attacked by this editor... I am willing to overlook the incident and begin fresh with this editor, should an administrator see it fit to lift the block.--InDeBiz1 (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Continuing a dispute with someone who has decided to leave Wikipedia is particularly destructive to the collaborative editing environment we should all try to create here. InDeBiz1's exasperation of the situation didn't help, but it doesn't excuse calling him an 'ass'. That you're "willing to overlook the incident" inspires no confidence that the incivility issue is understood and won't be repeated.—chaser - t 12:29, 20 June 2008 (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.

Civility 3

Please do not leave inappropriate edit summaries like this one here. Continuous addition of unsourced material can be stressful, but edit summaries like these are not acceptable. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 06:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I was out of line. (NewCiaraFan09 (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efe (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, and remember: "All men are created equal, but ambition, or lack of it, soon separates them."Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Efe (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil edit summaries, biting newcomers, WP:OWN

Please be careful with edit summaries such as this: [1]. Remember that editors do not "own" any articles.

I noticed the message you recently left to User:Bowwowgirl4LIFE. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. - eo (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing

The burden of proof is on those wishing to add information to an article, per Wikipedia policy. Even if "it's true," if it is not cited or overwhelmingly common knowledge, it can not be included. Winger84 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girl, boo. (NewCiaraFan09 (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such your recent page move and related title change of Good Girl Gone Bad. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Winger84 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch, fall into a damn river and drown! (NewCiaraFan09 (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is unacceptable. You are blocked, and given your previous history, any further occurrences after your block expires are likely to be met with a permanent block.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Black Kite 23:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a thread has been started at AN/I concerning some of your actions. If you would like to review the thread and / or respond, it may be found here. --Winger84 (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CiaraFan4Ever for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 00:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 00:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Ciara-in-Thats-Right.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Ciara-in-Thats-Right.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image 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 image 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 images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image 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. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Nelly Ciara and Jermaine in Music Video.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Nelly Ciara and Jermaine in Music Video.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. — Σxplicit 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]