User talk:Camboy8

Nathan Gamble[edit]

You edits to this article were not constructive. If you have questions about it please ask them on the article's discussion page instead of making changes that don't follow Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalizing this article. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked to stop making inappropriate edits to this article twice. If you are interested in contributing to film articles, please familiarize yourself with the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. Thank you! LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding an unnecessary filmography to this article. A filmography is needed ONLY if an actor has so many credits all of them can't be mentioned in the article. If you keep vandalizing this article I will ask an administrator to block you. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I politely asked you a few days ago to familiarize yourself with the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films, but obviously you didn't because you keep adding an unnecessary filmography to this article. I find it odd that this seems to be the only Wikipedia article in which you have any interest. Why is that? LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact Nathan Gamble is your favorite actor doesn't mean you can edit an article the way you want instead of following the film project guidelines. I assume you're young and I applaud - and even encourage - your desire to write for Wikipedia. However, you are not familiar with the many discussions editors who regularly contribute to film articles have had in the past, discussions which resulted in a consensus of how things should be done.

In general, the addition of lists of any type to Wikipedia articles is discouraged. At times it is necessary because there's too much information - such as the credits for an actor who has made dozens of films - to include within the text. In the case of Gamble, his few credits were mentioned in their entirety within the article. Therefore, a filmography box is redundant.

Also, please keep in find that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you were to look up George Washington in the Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, the article about him would refer to him as Washington, not George. This is the correct format no matter how old the individual is, so it's inaccurate to heep changing Gamble to Nathan. Also, the person's age appears in the infobox, not in the first sentence of the article, where you keep putting it.

You responded to me by saying, "So when someone is taking out what takes me a long time to edit, It bothers me." Well, it bothers me that you won't accept the fact that articles need to follow a certain format. You also said, "So please just leave the table in the article it's not hurting anyone. So since it is the only article I edit, please leave my edits alone." The fact it's "not hurting anyone" or it's the only article you edit isn't justification for letting it stay there. Please try to understand. I hope you will cooperate. I also hope you will learn more about how to write for Wikipedia and contribute to other articles that interest you. Thank you very much. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

filmography[edit]

I personally disagree with the decision of the Film project to get rid of the filmographies. I was not part of it, because I don't edit on films much. I cannot revert it because it could start a major war with the film project. However, you do have a point that the filmography did contain important information, like the year that the films were made, and the role that he played. You could put that same information in the article. For example, "in 2006, Gamble played John Smith in Film Number 1." We would definitely welcome your help with incorporating that information, from what was the filmography, into the article. Academic Challenger (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't report anyone in this dispute to WP:AIV anymore. I was wrong to block that IP, because blocking all these IPs won't even help you in the long run, and they weren't technically vandalising. Academic Challenger (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Carnal Repercussions.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Carnal Repercussions.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:A Higher Place.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:A Higher Place.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.

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 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:FCP3box.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:FCP3box.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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), 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. ww2censor (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Final Cut Studio 3.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Final Cut Studio 3.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 '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 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. ww2censor (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]