Amalgamut00

Hello

I saw that I became a blocked user on Wikipedia this morning. I am not sure why this has happened by posting music reviews. If you have noticed somebody posted one of my reviews on the latest Evans Blue album called The Pursuit Begins When This Portrayal of Life Ends. It is right under the professional review section, I didn't post it either (like I said). To me this made it seem like my reviews were good enough to be in the professional reviews section, I've had some of my other reviews posted on some band web sites, The Ocean and Impaled are just a few.

To me this seems completely unfair that you can justify which reviews are professional or not. Wouldn't you think I am doing something right if people have posted my reviews and bands have posted links to my reviews on their web pages? Wikipedia is about users editing pages and what I did was edit a few pages with my work. Half of the reviews I posted didn't even have any reviews, I was helping the band with exposure. Are you trying to deny popularity to certain bands?

If you would like me to provide links to anything I talked about please let me know. Again I did this since I saw one of my reviews up on here, then I had more of my work posted on the Internet. You can reach me at my email, amalgamut00@gmail.com at any time of the day. When it all comes down to it this is a way to help these bands, especially the ones that have no reviews up for them. Why shouldn't people know how their albums are, may they be good or bad. You let others post their reviews, some of which have some pretty raunchy things on their web sites. I'm an honest guy here trying to help artists out.

- Eric

Since your are also the author of the review you have a conflict of interest as well. As such its always best to let other editors add links your reviews when they use them as a source for information. Gnangarra 15:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that wikipedia is user driven but it is not for 'helping bands with exposure'. As i pointed out the guideline at WP:ALBUM shows what is appropriate to include as a review, it must be verifiable in accordance with policy. This means reviews are only usually acceptable from sources with a reputation for reliability. Remember seeing something on wikipedia does not necessarily mean it is correct, always read the policy and introduction. --Neon white (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Then how come one of my reviews is posted on Wikipedia already and I can't go ahead and post some of mine? From what I got from the one section it is alright if somebody else posts my review, as long as it isn't me it's fine. How can you justify if I am posting it or not? I don't know if I am missing something or if I am taking certain things wrong.

- Eric

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dying fetus war of attrition.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dying fetus war of attrition.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Himsa summon in thunder.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Himsa summon in thunder.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)