User talk:Barbara.d.martin

Commercial use of Image:Snow Queen Bottle Image.jpg[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Snow Queen Bottle Image.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Snow Queen Bottle Image.jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Snow Queen Bottle Image.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Barry J. Beck Photo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Barry J. Beck Photo.jpg, which you've attributed to http://www.bluemercury.com/about.aspx. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BethNaught (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Marla Beck.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Marla Beck.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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Barbara.d.martin. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:NEW Barry Beck.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:NEW Barry Beck.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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:&pizza logo.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:&pizza logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:&pizza logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:&pizza logo.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 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).

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. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Barry J. Beck.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Barry J. Beck.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Barbara.d.martin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi there. I have made a number of factual edits across a number of sites. While I'm not paid to make updates to wikipedia, I have access to updated information, so have made edits to pages with which I'm familiar that have incorrect information. I'm happy to stop making those updates if that is deemed inappropriate, but did not think they were--so please clarify and I'm happy to oblige. I'm an individual user, not a sock puppet. Thank you for your time and attention on this.Barbara.d.martin (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

To have any prospect of an unblock you need to address, in detail, the evidence in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barbara.d.martin and explain the existence of User:BarbaradmartinDC. Just Chilling (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2017 (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.

I also seriously doubt making edits to Wikipedia is not part of your work for the Becks and/or Bluemercury. Google is a powerful tool, and the connections are obvious. Huon (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marla Malcolm Beck.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Marla Malcolm Beck.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Barbara.d.martin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi there--Wiki is not allowing me on the Sock Puppet Page to address. It looks like the account BarbaraDMartinDC is one that is unused--that is me, probably from not remembering that I had already had a log in. But looking at the log, it doesn't show any activity on it? I know VTroisi but we are separate people, and am wholly unfamiliar with anyone else listed there. I'm also not paid to update wiki accounts. I do work with people on their press, and adding press hits to verify facts is something I have added, as well as adding in factual information, such as number of stores-again, facts that I know to be true, not facts that I'm being paid to update. Would appreciate clarification here as well as info re: how to respond to the Sock Puppet claim. Thank you! Barbara.d.martin (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. You have clearly engaged in promotional edits here and have been less than forthcoming with your multiple conflicts of interest. Please pass the word around your PR agency, you will all be blocked on sight. Yamla (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2017 (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.

Not unused. You can't see them, because they have been subsequently deleted, but User:BarbaradmartinDC made seven edits to Bluemercury. Just Chilling (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Barbara.d.martin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please tell me what promotional edits I have made. I literally have updated things like store counts and verified factual claims that were made in the press. As for BarbaraDMartinDC--you say that 7 edits were made, but I assume they were a) of the same vein and b.) were not made in the same time frame of any others--again, I'm assuming that I didn't remember the login to an account/couldn't find it as this clearly not purposefully trying to hide anything--please note that my two accounts listed here have basically the same name. Being sneaky has never been my intention. Thank you.Barbara.d.martin (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

How about your second edit here, singing about one of the purest and smoothest vodkas in the world? I haven't even started with your sock/meat puppets. Max Semenik (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2017 (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.

You know we can see your contribution history, right? Here, for example, you use such marketing puffery as "artisan spring water" and "now Queen Vodka is one of the purest and smoothest vodkas in the world". --Yamla (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC) And this doesn't address the fact that you work for a marketing company. WP:PAID and WP:COI and WP:PROMO applies here. --Yamla (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Snow Queen Bottle.jpg[edit]

The file File:Snow Queen Bottle.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Personal file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]