User talk:Anywhere But Home

Hello, Anywhere But Home, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Paxse (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add the Bulgarian charts, or any other charts listed on WP:BADCHARTS, to any Wikipedia articles. Thank you.—Kww(talk) 13:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (Anywhere But Home) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Leujohn ^(talk) 10:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lilo6126.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lilo6126.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) 13:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add copyrighted images to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did on Lindsay Lohan. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images borrowed from other web sites, printed material, films, or other sources; such additions will be deleted. Note that Wikipedia policy does not allow use of a non-free image on the page of a living person. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a collection of unverifiable speculation. All information about anticipated events must be verifiable as having little, if any, doubt that it will occur, such as your addition of information to Lindsay Lohan. Please do not add information about future events without such a citation to a reliable source. Persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Sarah Michelle Gellar, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Garda40 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you move it not delete it entirely . You have been adding a lot of non RS information to SMG related articles and maybe you are getting caught up as vandal but they edit on SMG related articles in a similar pattern (small incremental edits ) .Garda40 (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Garda40 (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Possession (2009 film), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Still from the Block has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb.com is not a reliable source. Please stop citing it. Ward3001 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun is another unreliable source. It's a tabloid. Ward3001 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely irrelevant in Lindsay Lohan who gets a role that Lohan turns down or fails to get. Please stop adding such useless information. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we actually discuss this instead of just reverting? I started a topic at Talk:Lindsay Lohan#Parts Lohan never got. Siawase (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a precautionary message, not a warning or criticism. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the three-revert rule, which prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. You might want to read the policy. I'd hate to see you get blocked simply because you were not aware of the rule. Ward3001 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You , i didnt know about it......i will read it now....;)

Anywhere But Home (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that fan-sites or blogs are not reliable sources, therefore I have reverted your recent edit to Circus (song). Thanks. - eo (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a fan site or a blog...it is Britney Spears's official website......

Anywhere But Home (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly been told by administrators that the information you are adding is unreliable. If you continue to insert the information you will be blocked. Please wait for reliable sources to report it. — Realist² 23:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why isnt her official website reliable?? Anywhere But Home (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. This is your final warning, the sources are not reliable read WP:RS. If you continue like this your account will have to be blocked. — Realist² 23:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add unsourced additions to articles after being warned multiple times and edit warring.. 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. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|i always add a source...and if your talking about if u seek amy, it was a reliable source, spears official website.....this block is uncalled for, and there is no reason to block me, cause i did many good contributions..and i always put sources....look at all my contributions, every single one has a source, get your facts right..unblock me please}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Please see the Admins' noticeboard discussion of this for more detail. I am accepting this unblock because you clearly acknowledge that you were edit warring but felt that your source was reliable (which is obviously not an excuse for edit warring but mitigates a reason for blocking). Please understand that preventing edit warring is important to the encyclopedia and future problems will result in longer blocks and less lenience. Request handled by: Protonk (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why isnt anyone doing something about my unblock request

Anywhere But Home (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

someone answer....is everyone sleeping or something

You're getting a harsh lesson here, but one I hope you learn from without getting too pissed off at everyone. I've looked over your edit history, and I can see your point. It isn't clear to me whether www.britneyspears.com is official, but it claims to be, and it is clear to me that www.britney.com is. Both sites have brief announcements that "If You Seek Amy" is the next single. So, in that sense, I think you're right ... you were adding information based on a sufficiently reliable source that it could have been included in the article. On the other hand, you were edit-warring. Multiple editors kept taking your change out, and telling you not to re-add it. That's the time to take it to a talk page, discuss it, and come to an agreement about what people can agree on that can be added. Instead, you simply kept adding your change in, over and over, which is unacceptable. An admin might be kind and undo the block if you show that you understand why what you were doing was wrong, but I can't see anyone undoing it before you show that you understand that.

Please remember that I'm not an admin, and can't do anything about this block myself. If you discuss it with me and things look promising, I can make sure that someone reviews your unblock notice, though.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

discuss it here? Anywhere But Home (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You can't edit any other pages right now, and this creates a good public record for any admin that reviews the unblock.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, im sorry, i wont edit-war again........forgive me...im only human.... Anywhere But Home (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed at WP:ANI#An_unblock_request_that_actually_might_merit_review.—Kww(talk) 22:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anywhere, I think that you should look at the discussion linked by Kww, and change the text on your unblock petition taking into account the advice given by MBK on his comment there. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, a 24-hour block should probably not be a big deal. I think a few years ago, they were gentler about teaching new users how this all works (fewer blocks) but the it was a lot harder to get someone's attention about genuinely bad conduct. Don't take the block too seriously, but do take the rule about edit-warring seriously. Remember, it really is OK it takes a day or two to get the right information into the article, much better than ending up with a big stupid fight. - Jmabel | Talk 23:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anywhere But Home, you are really skating on thin ice with edits like this. After getting a previous block (even though it was reversed), I would hope that you would be careful about being loose with the facts. Your first red flag should have been that there might be some WP:CRYSTAL issues because of a future release date. But then you stepped way over the line because you misrepresented the source; it had nothing about a release date. Then you jumped way over the line because you restored a proper revert that had a specific explanation of policy violations. I think you probably don't have bad intentions but that there is something about these policies that you just don't understand. Don't think that your block has no meaning simply because it was reversed. We try to assume good faith with editors up to a point, but after you repeatedly violate policies when they have been specifically and repeatedly pointed out to you, the assumption of good faith is no longer there. I don't say any of this with animosity; I simply would like to see you become a better editor, because if you don't, another block is inevitable, and this one will stay for a while. Think about it. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to second this. Your block was good, and your unblock was because you appeared to understand what you had done wrong and had good intentions towards being a good editor in the future. When people revert your edits saying your sources don't back up your edits, discuss it with them, don't just keep including the information. That will get you blocked again, and, as Ward3001 says, the second block will stick.—Kww(talk) 16:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why you made this change again without explanation, after already having been reverted once?—Kww(talk) 13:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what was this unexplained reversion about?—Kww(talk) 13:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to revert you twice for inserting this. Stop right now, start listening to people. It has nothing to do with the critical analysis of the album, you cannot copy and paste paragraphs of information from other sources. You just take the important parts. We are not here to abuse the work of other publishers. — Realist² 22:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that a full stop period at the end of a sentence should be followed by one or two spaces before the first letter of the next sentence. That is, it should be ...she said. The next day... not ...she said.The next day....

This is standard practice in English, and not just wikipedia style, but for more details see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation at the end of a sentence. Siawase (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem edits have reached the point that some of us are finding it very difficult to tolerate. For example, you have been asked repeatedly to stop adding future release dates for films or music, but you persist in doing so, as you did here (the source is irrelevant because no one can predict the future, and because IMDb is not a good source). In the same article, you removed legimate information in this edit with no explanation. And it's not just these two edits; it's the entire pattern of your edits. I think maybe you simply don't understand some things about policies, but you also don't seem to be making any effort to understand. I, for one, have just about reached the limit. Therefore:
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Labor Pains, you will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Labor Pains. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Ward3001 (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lindsay Lohan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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.

If you wish to comment on your poor sentence structure, go to Talk:Lindsay Lohan#Sentence structure. Ward3001 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your benefit, let me suggest that you not revert any more on the article for the next 24 hours. Minor corrections, such as spelling, as well as additions (but not reverting any of your edits that are changed or removed), are OK. If you revert anything, you have violated 3RR and almost certainly will get a block. Ward3001 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:E=MC²_(Mariah_Carey_album)#Concerns_Part_2 Reidlos (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful (whether you agree or not), if you could express your opinion, suggestions how to improve the article etc. Thanks! Reidlos (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Less than 48 hours after I give you a final warning about repeatedly adding future release dates, you did it again here! What part of "future release date" do you not understand? If you make additional edits without fixing these edits first, I will immediately make a WP:ANI report. IMMEDIATELY, with no additional warning. Ward3001 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Diva (Beyoncé Knowles song), you will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to A Little More Personal (Raw). Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop changing the wording on Lindsay Lohan in the section related to the film Poor Things. There is an consensus on that matter, and you have repeatedly violated that consensus. If you continue, you will be blocked. Ward3001 (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album images are inappropriate and against policy for biograhical articles. They do not fall under "fair use" for a bio page of a living person. Please don't argue about this or edit war. Read WP:NFC and WP:COPYVIO. Ward3001 (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Llrgmg.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" 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 for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Llrgmg.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" 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 for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images of Lohan as an adult are not permitted on her bio page. Ward3001 (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Lindsay Lohan, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lindsay Lohan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Ward3001 (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the battle between the two of you (Ward3001 and Anywhere But Home) from the sidelines, and I think the path the two of you are on is going to wind up causing trouble for everyone. There's just too much reverting going on, and, while I think a lot of the edits being reverted are of poor quality, not many of them could be classified as vandalism, or obvious violations of fair use policies or anything like that. Siawase and I both keep a pretty good eye on the article, and, if something too obviously crappy gets inserted, we'll take it out. If you think we've missed something, bring it up on the talk page. The way things are going, I can see blocks in the future for both of you, and I don't think that's the right thing to have happen. I'm putting this on both of your talk pages. Feel free to respond on either.—Kww(talk) 16:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you please tell him to stop removing the movie screenshots that i uploaded...Anywhere But Home (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't "tell him" to do anything. I'm asking both of you to stop reverting each other, and I'm doing my best to keep my personal opinions of who's right and who's wrong out of it. You both should be able to tell that Siawase and I don't automatically agree on things, and I hope you can trust us to sort things out well enough.—Kww(talk) 16:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ward3001 has agreed to stop reverting. Will you agree, too?—Kww(talk) 16:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes......but the movie screenshots are acceptable...and he should stop removing them.....Anywhere But Home (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. This is a living person. Go read WP:FUC for yourself. JBsupreme (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what about the already existing screenshots of lohan in parent trap and antother world Anywhere But Home (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)~[reply]

and what about christian bale's article......he has a picture of him in the movie Equilibrium.....and anothe one in the movie The Machinist .......and he is a living person......why is it ok for his article and not for lohans.......Anywhere But Home (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you dont reply, i have no choice but to revert........Anywhere But Home (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't live glued to my computer, so I can't always respond in ten minutes. If you've agreed not to revert, you've agreed not to revert. As for your other examples, there are sometimes reasons, and sometimes other articles have problems. The base guideline is that a fair-use picture can only be used if it can't reasonably be replaced, and substantially increases reader's understanding. How do the pictures you want to add measure up against that?—Kww(talk) 17:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

answer my question first........why is it okay for his page to have those movie screenshots.....Anywhere But Home (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your all making a big deal out of nothing...many articles of actors have movie screenshots, including lohans.....so so what if i added more.....Anywhere But Home (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

let me answer your question, the mean girls screenshot is notable cause its lohan's breakout lead performance.....and the freaky friday screenshot is notalbe cause its lohan's biggest commercial film success Anywhere But Home (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian Bale image is clearly acceptable, because it enhances the reader's understanding of "Bale gained attention for his devotion to the role and for the lengths to which he went to achieve Reznik's emaciated, skeletal appearance for the sake of an authentic, natural performance". Neither of your explanations address why a picture is required. How does a picture of Freaky Friday help me understand that the film was a commercial success?

You really need to learn that when other people keep telling you to stop doing things, you need to stop. I tried to keep this from happening, and you brought it on yourself through impatience. This block is for 24 hours, and really makes me regret having helped you get your first block cut short. The next one will be for 72 hours or forever, depending on the blocking admin's mood.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, 3RR applies to pretty much everything but reverting vandalism and copyright problems. You were not reverting vandalism, and you were not reverting copyright problems ... if anything, you were inserting copyright problems.—Kww(talk) 17:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and why is a picture required for parent trap and another world then?

how is the picture of christian bale in Equilibrium notalbe......?......

The Lohan pictures are gone now.—Kww(talk) 18:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there's still one left, lohan in A praire home companion......why didnt you remove this one to....Anywhere But Home (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just help me understand....in Wikipedia:Non-free content, it says that movie screenshots are acceptable

Acceptable use:

Images Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.

Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.

First, please understand that it doesn't matter whether you were right or not. Being on the "right" side of an edit war is not different than being on the "wrong" side. Next, can you tell me what critical commentary and discussion accompanied the images you were trying to add?—Kww(talk) 19:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lindsay lohan4.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove image maintenance tags from image description pages. If you disagree with the image's replaceability, the template contains directions for disputing the claim. However, Wikipedia's policies are extremely clear that we cannot use non-free images to identify living persons, and I suspect you are unlikely to find such an appeal upheld. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Lindsay Lohan. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Kanonkas :  Talk  17:15, 20 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).

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

---

Request reason:

lohan's article already had two movie screenshots, so there is no reason why the one's i added should be removed....so, i didnt do anything wrong....even if i edit wared, its because my edits were good faith edits and improved the article......christian bale's article has 4 movie screenshots by the way.........and the screenshots i added were notable cause mean girls was lohan's breakout lead performance and freaky friday was Lohan's biggest commercial film success......unblock me, this is not faire ,you block someone if their vandalizing not when theyre making good faith edits....the three revert rule applies if the person is vandalizing, it doesnt apply if someone is making good faith edits

Decline reason:

"Because I'm right and they are wrong" is a unblock argument that is generally ill-advised. Good faith edits are not a legitimate reason for breaking WP:3RR, a policy that I think you should familiarize yourself with a great deal more. I'm declining your unblock at this time. Here's an excellent idea for avoiding this in the future: Take your proposed edits to the talk page and get consensus before engaging in an edit war. — Trusilver 17:44, 20 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).

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

---

Request reason:

ok, im sorry...i just saw other articles of actors, and saw that they have movie screenshots...and lohan already had movie screenshots, so , i thought i can add more...........but now i understand that they cant stay....i wont add them again...................

Decline reason:

I concur with Kww and Trusilver below; You were blocked for essentially the same behavior before, promised not to do so again, and then did anyway. Your allotment of good faith has been exhausted, and I have no reason to believe you won't resume edit warring again. Please use the remainder of your 24 hours to review WP:Edit warring; similar behavior after your block expires will likely lead to significantly longer blocks in the future. Also, I notice that overall (even neglecting the multiple warnings from a single editor), your talk page does not look like the talk page of someone who is currently contributing constructively. Please rethink your approach to editing here; what you are doing now is not working. —barneca (talk) 19:55, 20 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.

Note to reviewing admin: please note that ABH acted repentant in order to get his previous block cut short. Since it was for essentially identical behaviour, it's apparent that his repentance wasn't sufficient to prevent repetition.—Kww(talk) 18:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I decided to let someone else review this second unblock request, seeing that I'm not at all open to unblocking this editor. For someone that has been around for only a month on the project, two edit warring blocks in such a short time is unacceptable to me.Trusilver 18:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}} first of all, the first block was completely unnecessary and shouldnt be even counted...cause i didnt do anything wrong.....i simply went to the OFFICIAL WEBSITE of Britney Spears and it was announced that 'if u seek amy' is going to be the third single and i added it..... so i was blocked the first time for no reason....and you know that....and for this block, it clearly states in Wikipedia:Non-free content that movie screenshots are acceptalbe to be used on wikipedia.....furthermore lohan's article already had movie screenshots and many other articles of actors/actresses have movie screenshots.......so....i did nothing wrong........

I think that's enough. You do not appear to be addressing any of the concerns raised by many people. You apologize, then when the unblock is declined, you return to claiming that you've done nothing wrong. This is abuse of the unblock template, and disruptive; every time you put one up, a new admin gets dragged in to review.

I've removed this unblock request as non-responsive. If you put up another non-responsive unblock request, I'll protect the page for the duration of the block. If you resume disruptive editing when your block expires later today, I'll extend your block to 2 weeks, on the basis that enough is enough. You really need to read, and take to heart, WP:Edit warring; your responses above seem to indicate you think you're allowed to do it if you're right, and that is not the case. Please reconsider your approach to editing here. --barneca (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm backing up User:Barneca in this. I've moved your contributions to my watchlist. I think you need to take the remaining time in your block to study WP:3RR, WP:EDITWAR, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:AGF.... and anything else that happens to catch your eye. Further violations of Wikipedia policy will make you subject to more lengthy blocks. Trusilver 16:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's important that you follow standard punctuation. Every period at the end of a sentence has to have a space after it. Every single one. No exceptions. No only is your tendency to edit-war a problem, but you are having problems with competence as well. It isn't my job, or any other editor's job, to have to follow up on all of your edits and fix the grammar and punctuation.—Kww(talk) 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you saw fit to reinsert all those changes without correcting punctuation and spacing, I reported the edit at WP:ANI#Blocked user granting himself unblocks.—Kww(talk) 19:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

im working on it now......just wait......you dont have to be stubborn.....that was so mean and cruel and unnecessary...Anywhere But Home (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do anything mean or cruel. Why on earth didn't you fix it before restoring it if that was your intention?—Kww(talk) 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt know you were talking about this particular edit...and i didnt really understand what i have to do exactly... Anywhere But Home (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look over your changes that were removed, find the ends of the sentences, and put in spaces, perhaps? Maybe after commas, as well? It was incorrect in every sentence you added to Lindsay Lohan. Siawase has talked about this with you before.—Kww(talk) 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, Anywhere But Home, but Kww is correct, and was not meaning to be cruel. Using correct punctuation (spaces after periods and commas) is something simple that you can do to help, and it will save other editors a lot of time and effort. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Anywhere But Home, no one is trying to drive you away from Wikipedia, so don't feel like you are being unfairly attacked. However, you seem to need to slow down with your edits. If you are not sure what to do, review the manual of style before editing. If someone reverts your edits, don't revert their revert but send a polite message to them to discuss what was wrong with your edit. Also, please assume that other users are trying to improve the encyclopedia, not persecute you. If you want help with making productive edits, feel free to ask someone, as if you continue to make edits that do not conform to punctuation, capitalization and MOS guidelines, some may consider it disruptive and will revert, or even block you. Let me know if you have any questions and good luck! Theseeker4 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Normal 12.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. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Chad murray4.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. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Normal 108.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. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lindsay lohan1.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. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 22 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:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx. Thank you. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. To contest this block, please email me or place {{unblock|your reason here}} on your page, including an explanation why you feel you should be unblocked. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx I conclude that in addition to the edit warring and non-free content issues identified above, you are also evading a block (several blocks, to be honest) and are using multiple accounts in a way forbidden by policy. I think you may safely consider yourself banned at this point due to persistent and flagrant abuse and policy violation. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 22 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).

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

---

Request reason:

unblock please, i dont have any other account......really.....you have to believe me

Decline reason:

No I don't, not when there's this much quacking going on. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 25 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.

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is I Live for the Day. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Live for the Day. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]