User talk:BRETT9

Image source problem with Image:Bobby.gif[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Bobby.gif. 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 23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Susser[edit]

Several times now, I've attempted to disam the word "America" in the Bobby Susser article. Why? Because right now it's pointing to America, which is a disambiguation page. We do not want links to disam pages. The link should go to the article that has the information the user is looking for. If you look at America, there is absolutely nothing that tells someone about Bobby Susser's single "America" so it's a pointless link. So the link should be either removed or replaced with something more specific. If you do not agree with the change, let me know. But please stop simply reverting me with no explanation. I've been an admin here for several years. I don't do these things without a reason. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bobby Susser, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Judging from WoohooKitty's remark above, this is not the first time that your (unexplained) edits are seen as disruptive. Removing the "copyedit" tag from an article that desperately needs copyediting is disruptive. Please stop. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Bobby Susser, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. For the series of edits of which this was one, you REALLY should use "preview" instead of cluttering up the history with back and forths until you get it right. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bobby Susser, you will be blocked from editing. Enough already. You keep removing the copyedit template without addressing the issues, you continue to mess with and then delete the infobox, and you continue to insert irrelevant material to the lead of the article--all this without ever using the "preview" function or leaving even a single edit summary. By now your editing is disruptive, and the next warning will be the last one. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bobby Susser, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Final warning for removal of maintenance template. Also, removing the infobox is incomprehensible to me. Still no edit summaries, still no suggestion that you check preview before cluttering up the article history if you do your wikilink incorrectly. You are very, very difficult to work with. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brett, you are going to have to start to play by the rules. Use preview; don't hit save every time. Give edit summaries! Don't put material in the lead that shouldn't be in the lead. Etc. If your interest is in making this article better, inform yourself of the Wikipedia guidelines, and since this is a biography of a living person, start sourcing the statements in the articles--the current references, for instance to Billboard on a certain date, are entirely inadequate. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Bobby Susser.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Bobby Susser.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, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. 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 created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks[edit]

Sharing your password gets you blocked. You can be unblocked if you promise to change the password and not share it. Type {{unblock}} to let us know that you're ready to comply. DS (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]