User talk:Journalist23

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Venetian princess.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Venetian princess.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Herald1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Herald1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Venetian princess.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Venetian princess.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Skygoddess.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Skygoddess.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:VenetianPrincess-ScreenCap.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:VenetianPrincess-ScreenCap.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JodieRivera.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JodieRivera.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. 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:Fair 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.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Venetian Princess‎ . If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Sandahl 02:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:ElkenaJ4

I left a message on the talk page asking why, and am watching both Eklena's pages and Venetian Princess. If it does continue, just message me on my talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, instead of just a general references section, it is better if you use inline ref tags. It makes it clear which references is for which statement. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Venetian Princess

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Venetian Princess, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Venetian Princess. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal name at Venetian Princess

You seem to constantly removing all references to her personal name at Venetian Princess. Please see Talk:Venetian Princess and discuss why, or you could soon be blocked for vandalism. If you have conflict of interest (your edit summaries indicate a connection to the performer), it would be helpful to know. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

In a year and a half, almost 100% of your dozens of Wikipedia changes are related to Venetian Princess. Along with Ricky81682, I am asking you to declare your relationship to her. See WP:COI, which includes this statement:

"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia."

While I agree with most of your edits, a few are not properly justified, and suggest a strong bias, e.g., here [1] where you replaced the uncited (and suspect) statement "The majority of close to 59,000 comments state that they prefer Venetian Princess's parody version over the original."

Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your discussion request. I find it easier to talk to you on here. I agree with you about the "majority of close to 59,000 comments" statement. That should be removed as it is not a clear statement. The statement about her being #1 most subscribed female is indeed true though. Because you are not familiar with YouTube's subscription system and it's impact, it doesn't make it any less true. It's not so much my views on the girl, but the constant removal of accurate information that frustrated me. I guess I am what you would call a YouTube groupie, I have been following VenetianPrincess and YsabellaBrave for quite some time now. However, I do not in anyway believe that wikipedia would act as an advertising source for either of them. They have enough exposure through YouTube and the press. I think that the wikipedia article should be completely re-written or removed. There is no point in declaring how many subscribers each has, considering the number changes everyday.

Here is a fine place to discuss. So, lol, putting words into your mouth, you have no professional or financial connection to Venetian Princess. That does help to understand your perspective, thank you.

I don't understand the YouTube rating system. However, I don't necessarily trust any organization's ranking about themselves, but more especially, organizations are often unprepared (or uninterested) in stopping others from manipulating their ratings. (Since I've been a Webmaster for major companies, I'm familiar with some of the processes.) However, I don't have a specific quarrel with YouTube's ratings.

I actually started looking at Venetian Princess (as I recall) because someone had misunderstood what Chroma Key is. Then I noticed there were some strange factual disputes, copyright infringement, and inappropriate links to social sites [2]. At that point, my antenna were really up, and I started to dig deeper. Then I started to suspect everything I was reading, as I described on the talk page [3]. I was especially unimpressed by the Wiki reference that included "BUSINESS/PRESS INQUIRES CONTACT: Management@VPrincess.com".

So, of all of these things, the one that really concerns me is that while Venetian Princess may be a video wiz, and clever writer, and all that, she's being bankrolled by marketing forces that are anything but "home grown". Maybe she has integrity, but it's not her integrity that's in question. It's what appears to be a multi-million dollar business promoting her work.

I do appreciate you taking the time to explain your involvement. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I can see it from your perspective now. Perhaps we should have spoken sooner lol. I checked the social link and http://www.wickedlocal.com/brockton/archive/x249521225/g2582583cc080777771510958a90e4b927f6f7eed34db69.jpg is actually an archive of Massachusetts newspaper articles. But anyway, I'm not sure about her marketing department or if she has one, but I will be vigilant on the issue. I don't think she had one before, but it is quite possible that she has acquired one within the last year since she started getting a lot of press. I'll keep an eye out for anything that seemed bias and remove it when I see it. Thanks again.

It is not up to you to redefine Wiki style

Please stop making pointless changes to Venetian Princess.[4] It is not up to you to decide what information Wikipedia places in the infobox. (Notice that your addition did not actually change the screen, that's because arbitrary changes to the infobox are contrary to standards.)

Someone can claim for themselves, in a reliable reference, that they consider their heritage especially important. It isn't up to you to make a claim it is for them. As far as you know, she hates her heritage and rejects it. Stop the original research.WP:V Learn Wikipedia standards and conform to them please.[5] Piano non troppo (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)