User talk:Marthews
I would welcome comments on my edits or contributions as they are made.
--Marthews (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Shane frederick[edit]
A tag has been placed on Shane frederick, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.
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 (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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Catherine Tucker bio photo.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Catherine Tucker bio photo.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 created 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 the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Marthews (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Hi Eeekster, I was thoroughly confused by the copyright permissions page. I am preparing a Wikipedia page as a gift for Professor Tucker. The photo in question is a professional headshot she had taken last year for use on the Internet. She has also uploaded the same file to her professional webpage at http://cetucker.scripts.mit.edu. She has not created an explicit license to me for its use, but I am her husband, and such a course of action would be very unusual. Obtaining that permission from her would make her aware of the creation of this Wikipedia page ahead of time, defeating the surprise in the gift. So what would you recommend that I do in order to include her photo on this page?
Marthews (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Have consulted with MIT and the photographer to obtain permissions for this photo. Approval expected within one week; meanwhile, have deleted the photo till confirmation is received.
Marthews (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC) After extensive consultation on the Articles for Submission chat page, I have made a number of changes that bring the page (as far as I can tell) fully into line with Wikipedia's best practices. I therefore believe that it meets the quality standards for a new submission to Wikipedia.
Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Catherine Tucker.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Conflict of interest[edit]
Alex,
We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
As July 4 approaches, I encourage you to review Wikipedia's guidelines on paid editing and marketing. The community as a whole very strongly discourages marketing efforts for one's employer. I don't know if you're being paid in connection with some of your editing, but paid editors who insert material that is promotional in tone into an article may be presumed to be violating our policies on neutrality and advertising. I encourage you to restrict your editing to article talk pages to suggest changes, and to provide full disclosure of your connections both here and on the talk pages of the articles you contribute to.
Please don't take the above as a reflection of my feelings about your cause. I try to keep my political views very close to my chest to preserve some semblance of credibility here. Similarly, it's in your organization's best interest to avoid all conflicts of interest so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Thanks,
Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dr. Fleischman,
Sorry to miss your comment; I am a very infrequent Wikipedia contributor, and this is my first login since working on the page for Restore The Fourth.
My work for Restore The Fourth is entirely voluntary, and I have not been compensated for editing anything on Wikipedia, either directly or indirectly. Indeed, Restore The Fourth has no employees - it's entirely volunteer-driven. The already-existing Restore The Fourth page was badly outdated, and only those volunteering with it were in a position to make accurate updates as to the history of the group. I hope this will reassure you that the edits made do not violate Wikipedia's policies, and if there are aspects of it that sound overly promotional in tone, please feel free to edit them.