User talk:MHalliwell

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Ashley Leggat has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bfacebook\.com (links: http://www.facebook.com/ashleyleggatfans).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Ashley Leggat do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  
   Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bmyspace\.com (links: http://www.myspace.com/ashleyleggatfans).
   If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you may misunderstand what is meant by "official page." The term means that the page is run by Marnette Patterson herself or her publicity people. Being run by fans makes a page unofficial by definition, and even though you posted an update to the page stating that the page is now "official" that does not make it such. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if that is true or not, but here is how it looks from an outside perspective: The page was listed as unofficial. I reverted the changes, and within MINUTES the page was changed to be considered "official." I highly doubt you were able to get in contact with Marnette & co. within such a short amount of time and hear back from them to confirm that they would be taking over a facebook page that they previously had nothing to do with. If you can provide some proof (such as the video you mentioned) that it has been turned over to Marnette, then the page can be readded, but right now, there is nothing to suggest that a legitimate turnover has happened in a matter of mere minutes. --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you can get that video proving the page is official, I think readding the page as official would be fine. However, there is no reason to protect the page from vandalism as it has not been the target of vandalism recently and there would be no reason to protect it. Also, make sure you sign your posts on talk pages using --~~~~ Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have proof that that is the case, go ahead and remove the MySpace pages. --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Marnette.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. —teb728 t c 07:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in violation of what it says above, when you added your replaceable fair use disputed template, you deleted the original replaeable fair use template. You also added a {{Rk}} tag, pretending to a be an administrator. (Even if you had been an administrator you would be forbidden from acting as closing administrator for your own file.) I have restored the replaceable fair use template and deleted your fraudulent Rk. I also replied to your comments on the file talk page. —teb728 t c 00:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Marnette Patterson.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Zoeydahling (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you retagged the Marnette Patterson image with the non free promotional tag. However, this is not the correct tag as the image is not a promotional image released by a company to promote their product (an example of this would be a cast photo to promote a TV show, etc.) but a professional headshot taken of Marnette. Also, a non-free image is never acceptable as the primary image used on a biographical page, as you tried to use it for on Marnette's page. The image is not permissible under Wikipedia's copyright terms. Unless you can find an image that is permissible, please stop uploading images, as it just creates extra work for those who have to delete them. If it helps, I am happy to help you check if an image is permissible before you upload it if you just post a link on my talkpage to the image and relevant copyright information, or you can always ask at the media copyright questions page. Thanks! --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's clearly stated otherwise somewhere that she or the photographer has posted the image, the copyright belongs to them. You need to ask Marnette to post someplace official the copyright release that she intends to place the image under. Without that posted someplace, we cannot use the image on Wikipedia. --Zoeydahling (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ashley Leggat.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]