User talk:Campbellgirl

The Takeaway

You recently undid several of my edits on the page for the PRI show, "The Takeaway." Looking at this page makes me think that you are an employee of PRI, and that you are attempting to cover up a wide-spread negative reaction to the show. Posting press releases from PRI verbatim, and deleting text (September 2007) about Public Radio International in a way that was considered "vandalism" gives me the impression that you are not a neutral observer, but editing with a point of view (POV) in mind.

In the same article in which John Hockenberry says that "we need a Baba Booey" there is a list of markets that they intend to move the show into. I think it is of some interest that several of those markets did not pick up the show, probably because of negative responses in New York and Boston. You have deleted my edits about this. The only station in all of California is a tiny one up on the Oregon border. There is nothing in Philadelphia or Chicago, so how can this not be a reflection of the show's reception? And why should it be concealed from the Wikipedia readers?

Furthermore you deleted my reference to the minutes of the Community Advisory Board. These minutes were several months old but that is exactly because friends of the show delayed their release (suppressing bad information) until very recently. How else can we find out how the show is being received? Your characterization of "The Mix" in several edits has been slanted and distorted.

Instead of merely reversing your latest round of converting the Wiki page into rosy publicity for your program (it is your program, right?) I decided to try and discuss this situation and allow others (who are NOT employed by PRI) to have a hand in the decision. Please reply here or on my talk page, or on the talk page for The Takeaway.

Affenbart (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Public Radio International. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. You removed a lot of text from the article, for no apparent reason. This is considered vandalism. Rjd0060 01:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing east

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Crossing east, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.pri.org/crosseast.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 01:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lisa Mullins.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Lisa Mullins.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) 03:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Kay Magistad

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mary Kay Magistad, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.theworld.org/?q=node/95. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb Sharp

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jeb Sharp, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://theworld.org/?q=node/120. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Takeawaylogo sm.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Takeawaylogo sm.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]