Talk:Congressional Youth Leadership Council

Jr.Nylc is for six and seventh graders

Fair use rationale for Image:Cylc seal large.jpg

Image:Cylc seal large.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the templateen.wikipedia.org a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 23:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cylc cylc.gif

Image:Cylc cylc.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 23:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Source Needed and Concerns

We need a source to confirm the claim (in edit history) on 2 October 2007 that CYLC was "bought" by Envision EMI, LLC. If this is true, this information is relevant to the article, and the Non-profit Org categorization needs to be removed.

On 18 May 2007, user "Cheesy Yeast," who was the creator of this article, removed as "irrelevant links" two links to Envision EMI, including mention of Envision's for-profit status. This supports the contention of the anonymous editor on 4 September 2007, who commented, "I believe this entry is primarily an advertisement..." Articles used for advertisement are not allowed on Wikipedia. In the

same vein, I have removed the call for testimonials in this discussion area. I am concerned about Envision employees reversing these changes. Brian wessels (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo Answers

I noticed quite a few Yahoo Answers links and I don't think it's something that should be relied upon. Can anyone provide a more reliable source?--71.196.48.107 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Online Forums Reliable?

I really don't think that these online forums should be considered a reliable source for the claims made. From what I read, they are simply the rantings and opinions of several people that apparently don't have any sources to their claims. Therefore I am going to delete that entry unless valid sources are provided.--Brad M. (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed all forums/blogs as sources and related unsourced content, and added new content with references to reputable news organizations and to the law firms involved in the litigation. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by employee of CYLC owner

An employee, each1teach1, of Envision EMI, LLC has made repeated edits including spam and original research to this and related articles that demonstrate a conflict of interest. The user has been repeatedly educated and warned but is not desisting as requested. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits make by employee of CYLC public relations agency

A number of recent edits have been made by an individual who is an employee of R&R Partners, which is or was providing public relations and advertising services to the parent company of CYLC, Envision EMI, LLC. This individual has previously been asked to disclose his potential conflict of interest on the talk page, which he has not yet done. I reverted two edits, one that removed a well-sourced statement about the company's purchase of mailing lists, and the second which was a quote from a student cited on a blog, which is not acceptable as a self-published source. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Btphelps,

As previously stated, I do not have a conflict of interest here. I know that you believe, despite your close association with a competing youth leadership organization, that you don't have a conflict of interest either. As we move forward to reach a fair edit, I appreciate your input in this space.

Regarding your edit of the blog post - I see your point -- it's not a reputable news source.

Regarding your other edits - I believe they should be reverted. The Kemper article that you cited clearly does not support the assertion in the that sentence/graph. I hope that you will take a fresh look at this and see that the extrapolation is exactly that - and that further facts/citation are required to properly support such a claim.

Thanks,

FavreisGod (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, your conflict of interest is not personal, it relates to the fact that you are a contributor employed by a company that was or is providing services to the company whose program is described by the article. By Wikipedia standards, the creates a de facto conflict of interest. The budget and purposes of the very small non-profit, volunteer-run group that I am involved with in no way competes with Envision's multi-million dollar budget and purposes. Nor has my organization received payment from Envision for any purpose at any time. Can you say the same for your employer, R&R Partners? -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)