User talk:Rihanna Knowles

Hello,
you knew that the image you uploaded was copyrighted. You even copied the link and the author information from the source page. And from the seven other images you previously uplodaded, which were all deleted as copyright violations, you should know by now that this is completely unacceptable. You need to take more care with this in the future. Don't upload images unless it is explicitly marked as public domain or released under a compatible free license, and you are convinced that the licensing is correct. Uploading copyright violations can get Wikipedia's re-users, the Wikimedia foundation, and you yourself into legal trouble. If you want to use an image you found on the web, feel always free to ask me, or ask at

... and consider this your last warning. If you find your file yet again deleted, the responsible move is to question what was wrong with it, not to re-upload it with an untruthful copyright claim instead! Amalthea 00:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know the images I've uploaded in the past were not expectional but If you're suspicious of me copying the author and link (I swear I didn't this time), you can help upload the image at Wikipedia from the website. It's ABC News so I'm sure it's not from just a random website. Thank you. Rihanna Knowles 04:55, 11 January 2010 (PST)

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. It is impossible to use this image on Wikipedia, since it would violate the copyright of

Getty images/the photographer. It's also impossible to use practically all other images you can find on the web. Only an extremely small percentage of all images available on the Internet is usable here without further ado, since only very few photographers (i.e. copyright holders) decide to offer there images under an appropriate license. By default, you have to assume that an image you find on the Internet can not be used here. In particular, images used on news websites are practically always from photo agencies like Getty images and can certainly not be used here. If you had a WireImage account and would purchase use of an image from them, it is still impossible to use such an image here on Wikipedia, since it will still not be licensed by the copyright holder under a free license (you are not purchasing copyright from them).
You need to give this a rest. Do you think we wouldn't already use all those shiny images out there if it were that easy? If you want to have a better picture, you either need to convince someone out there to relicense it under a free license, or you need to go out there and take it yourself.
Amalthea 01:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

So what you're trying to say if I get a WireImage account and spend $10 dollars a month and the author is credited and use a link like this if it was medium size. It's still impossible. How does that make any sense? Rihanna Knowles 05:30, 11 January 2010 (PST)

Correct, because the license agreement you will have accepted when you purchased a picture from WireImage severely limits what you can do with it: http://www.wireimage.com/help.aspx?sk=HelpBuyers#LicenseAgreement
In particular, you do not purchase copyright, which means you can not relicense it, which means you can't upload it to Wikipedia (

Wikipedia:License#Using copyrighted work from others, you accept that license every time you press the "Save page" button). Amalthea 01:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't have a purchased WireImage account yet so that my be the case why my celebrity uploaded images get removed because copyright. Thanks for the information. Rihanna Knowles 05:53, 11 January 2010 (PST)

Again, none of the images available from WireImage can be used here, it does not matter whether you have an account there or not. Amalthea 01:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to jump in here, let me give you a scenario: You (I and I mean you - user:Rihanna Knowles, personally) take a picture of your room with your camera. YOU own that picture. You hold the copyright to that picture. No one on earth can legally use that photo for any reason without your expressed permission. That same rule applies to every photograph ever taken in the history of mankind. Whoever took the photo, owns it. Now you might say "but there are an infinite number of fansites that use all kinds of photos! Is what they're doing illegal? Yes it is. Of course, most corporations or photographers wouldn't bother to bring a law suit to the owner of a fanpage, but the point is: they would be within their legal right to do so if they chose. The same rule applies to wikipedia. Except in this case, you, user:Rihanna Knowles would probably not be sued, but the wikipedia foundation would. Again, although highly unlikely anyone from Island or Rihanna's legal team would sue over one photograph they would be perfectly within their legal right to do so if they chose. And that is a risk wikipedia will not take. You would need to have the expressed written permission of Ghetty Images and the photographer saying "we the copyright holders of this work, give consent for this image to be used on wikipedia." Either that, or take a picture of Rihanna yourself and upload it (which we all know is nearly impossible, but that's the rule). The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Consent for this image to be used on Wikipedia" wouldn't actually be enough though,

WP:CSD#F3. Amalthea 07:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Fine. I live in Los Angeles. If Rihanna attends Wango Tango 2010, then I will probably take a picture on my own. Although, I promise I won't upload any photos here again, Wikipedia needs to stop being so strict with images. Rihanna Knowles 04:25, 12 January 2010 (PST)

Imagine the roles were reversed, and you would make a living of taking and selling pictures (or creating music, or films, or software, ...). How would you feel if people all over the world would just took and used your creations however they please, with no mind to who took the trouble to create them? Amalthea 00:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but these are celebrities. Plenty of television shows, magazines, gossip sites, websites and even Billboard credit the photographers. I don't think it's stealing though, I think it's just a way of seeing the subject on a specific topic. I wouldn't mind if anyone were to use my expensive creation because it shows that I probably made a pretty good impression. Rihanna Knowles 05:04, 13 January 2010 (PST)

Well, let's talk in a couple of years when your livelihood might depend on these things. If the creators wanted to have their works used in that way, they could license it appropriately, and some do (often with limited resolution versions). But all that are available at stock photography pages have made the decision to sell usage of their works, and that's it. TV shows, magazines, and reputable websites pay for those limited uses. Smaller websites usually do not get sued over them (although they sometimes get takedown notices), but they are violating copyright (except in some limited fair use cases). Amalthea 02:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. No problem! Someone else had deleted the box from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Animals because the image in your userbox had been deleted. I didn't think that was a good reason to remove a userbox and thought it might be better to replace the image, at least temporarily and then restore the box to the page. The image I used is actually one of mine, so please do feel free to use another image if you have a better one! - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, please do not revert editor's changes without providing an edit summary explaining why. If you believe another editor's contribution to be absolutely worthless, you need to have the courtesy to explain why. Doing otherwise is an implicit accusation of vandalism.

As for the infobox at

That is Beyoncé's official logo off her studio album, I Am... Sasha Fierce. So can you please give a clear definition why it is 'strange'? Thank you. Rihanna Knowles 03:55, February 21 2010 (PST)

Because Wikipedia formatting is not derived from the artist's works, and the "name" field in the infobox is not a logo.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the use of logos or any type of image is restricted, as one can read at Template:Infobox musical artist#Parameters. — ξ^xplicit 07:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again at the

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Self-identifying minor. Thank you. - Nothing much to worry about, some editors are concerned about the amount of personal info you have on your user page. You may wish to consider removing your e-mail address. If you have e-mail enabled, users will still be able to contact you via e-mail. If you wish to have your e-mail removed and oversighted, please say so on the ANI discussion and it should be acted upon. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having "your best interests at heart" is a common phrase that you're taking a little more literally than intended. If someone has your best interests at heart, it means they don't want to harm you. User:Mjroots just meant that people on the internet might actually want to harm you (so they don't have "your best interests at heart"). Hope that makes some sense to you.

Also, please try not to take any of this concern as an insult. People are just worried about young people here -- even young people who aren't necessarily "children". There are lots of news stories about adults finding teenagers online and getting them to meet in person, and hurting them, so you can't really blame people for being concerned. Though I agree they overdid it this time, since all you posted was an email address. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:56, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

With all the talk about your email address, I don't think you were ever properly welcomed to Wikipedia....so "Welcome!" I am going to place a welcome template on your page. Every new member should get one of these. Just gives you basic information, talk page contacts, and the like. If you ever need any help on editing any pages or questions on anything, please feel free to message me at my talk page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rihanna Knowles, and

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Pop soul

The article

Pop soul has been proposed for deletion

because of the following concern:

No indication of how this might meet

reliable sources

.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{

dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page

.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{

dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Sandbox redirection?

Why did you redirect something from my user sandbox? It's save as a user subpage a project in working on until it can be qualified as an article. I don't know what your interpretation is of an userpage but it is for the account owner to work on things, not to be redirected. Candyo32 (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right Round genres

Your disruptive editing at

your own comparisons to other musicians

, I doubt your ideas will gain a following with other editors.

I suggest that if you do not agree with the current consensus, you find

I see consensus is a very useful word on the article for you when the only people on the article is me and you. No, I'm not causing disruptive behavior. If you were on the article back in early 2009 then many people would agree with my genre opinion. The song 'Right Round' is not southern hip hop and the article for pop rap does not exists. The article electronic music says Electro is sounded from a synthesizer. Rihanna Knowles 00:51, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

We're not using your opinions and conclusions you have drawn. Wikipedia is about using reliable sources, not

Chase (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This is your final warning regarding the

Chase (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Article Wizard

.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. HipHopStan (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Can someone please delete my user article. I want to hide my indenity outside Wikipedia. Thank you. P.S. My original user account was Cicifan247 so I would really appreciate for the block describition to be changed. The unblock template is get administator's attention.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Per your request, I've deleted all old revisions to your user page, as may be verified in the history. However, this request is declined, as the CheckUser did confirm your abuse of multiple accounts. Courcelles (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2010 (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.

{{db-u1}}

Add the text "{{db-g7}}" to any page you created that you want deleted. An admin will come by shortly and delete the page. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-u1|rationale=Can an administrator also delete my old revision history for HipHopfan4life? I can't edit my talk page there and at the history location my information is public. Again, I want to hide my indenity outside Wikipedia. Thank you. }}

• I am going to refer this request to the
  Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents for review. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Nomination of

Replacement Girl

for deletion

Replacement Girl, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Replacement Girl until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

talk) 04:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lauren Conrad in Seventeen magazine March 2010.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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 "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

talk) 04:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed deletion of Rosa Acosta

The article

source

that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Damiens.rf 16:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lauren Conrad in Seventeen magazine March 2010.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rihanna_Knowles&oldid=1091535170"