User talk:D.B.Chace
February 2013
[edit]
Hello, I'm E Wing. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! E Wing (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Patrick Jennings (writer), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/visitkit/patrick-jennings-author-visit-kit.
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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Patrick Jennings (writer)
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Patrick Jennings (writer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Old Al (Talk) 00:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Todd Masters (April 17)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Todd Masters and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Todd Masters, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, D.B.Chace!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Whispering(t) 01:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
|
Draft:Todd Masters
[edit]Hi D.B.Chance. You draft has pretty much no chance of being accepted as is since you've essentially gone ang removed all the links to the sources that were cited in the article. An AFC reviewer is not going to go digging through the page history looking for the links you removed and they're not going to go searching the Internet for reliable sources related to Masters. A citation that says simply "shootline" has absolutely zero value for Wikipedia purposes. If you're not sure how to properly add citations to an article, please look at Help:Referencing for beginners for some general information. If you're not sure whether something is a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, please look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Perhaps you read some of the responses given to your Teahouse question or the one you got for your AFC/Help desk question, and felt something needed to be done; however, you've majorly over corrected in the wrong direction. I'm sure you did this with the best of intentions, but the result is not going to be the one you hope for. It's perfectly fine for you to work on the draft while it's waiting review; so, my suggestion would be to go back and re-add the links to those citations which you think are reliable sources. Then, look over the draft and remove anything that is not directly supported by those sources. This may not guarantee the draft is accepted, but it will give it a better chance of being accepted.
Finally, if you're in any way connected to Masters (professionally or personally), then please carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (particuarly this and this), Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Ownership of content. There can be some negatives about Wikipedia that might not be obvious to new editors or to those who want to have a Wikipedia article written about them and it's only when problems start happening (i.e. it's too late) that these negatives are fully understood. Please understand I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong, but am just trying to make you aware of some things about Wikipedia that you may not know. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Commons files
[edit]I noticed you've removed both the images you uploaded to Commons from the draft. I'm not sure if that was because you saw the comment I left at c:User talk:D.B.Chace. Image use and licensing can be tricky, but the presence of images is not something that really affects the whether the draft is accepted. One of the files you uploaded (the Hawaii one) actually looked like it might be OK as long as you took the photo yourself. That's actually not a bad photo as far as Wikipedia is concerned, so the only problem would be its licensing. Did you take that one yourself? If not, then perhaps whoever did wouldn't mind giving their consent for it to released under a license that Commons accepts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. I took that photo in Hawaii. I removed it to try to reduce the complications. I also changed the references format. Trying to comply with your suggestions. D.B.Chace (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for clarifying that. That photo should be OK as is. However, if you want to ensure there are no problems, you should follow the instructions given at c:COM:CONSENT to have your copyright ownership and intent to upload the photo more formally verified. One thing though that you might not be aware of is what it means to upload one of your own photos to Commons. This photo short of looks like a personal photo and that's perfectly OK as long as you sort of understand the following: the only types of file licenses that Commons accepts are ones in which the copyright holder is essentially giving their permission to anyone anywhere in the world to download the photo at anytime and use for pretty much any purpose (including commercial and derivative use). You might've uploaded the photo simply because you wanted to use it on Wikipedia and thought nothing more about it, but anyone can download that photo and use it anyway they want (even in a way that you might not like) as long as they comply with the terms of the license you chosen; moreover, once you've uploaded and released a photo under such a license, you can really take it back. I think it's great you uploaded the photo, but you should take a careful look at c:Commons:Licensing to make sure it's what you really want to do. Just for reference, Commons and Wikipedia are sort of part of the same family, but they each have their own respective policies and guidelines. If the draft you're working on is accepted, then that will be the most likely home for the photo. If the draft you're working on, however, isn't accepted, then the image will still be there on Commons sort of "homeless" so to speak waiting for someone to use it in some way.The other photo you uploaded is more problematic. Did you take that one too? That one can actually be found used online before it was uploaded to Commons so that one is certainly going to need some type of formal verification. If you didn't take it or if you don't want to try and have its license formally verified, you can do a couple of things: (1) do nothing and the image will be deleted or (2) go to the file's page (make sure you're on the Commons page), click edit and add the code
{{SD|G7}}to the very top of the page. Click on the "Show preview" button to check that things are OK, and then click on the "Publish changes" button if they are. Make sure you leave an edit summary explaining why you want to file deleted just for reference. As for the formatting of the references, if you check at WP:THQ#Citation question, you'll find that another editor named David notMD also noticed what you tried to do, and went back a re-added the citations for you. David notMD is a pretty experienced editor; so, if you got any questions about citations, he'll probably be more than happy to clarify what he did.Please do take another look at what I posted about in #Draft:Todd Masters about conflict-of-interest editing. It's important to understand what Wikipedia expects from those trying to create articles in general, but things can become trickier to navigate if you're somehow connected to what you're trying to create an article about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for clarifying that. That photo should be OK as is. However, if you want to ensure there are no problems, you should follow the instructions given at c:COM:CONSENT to have your copyright ownership and intent to upload the photo more formally verified. One thing though that you might not be aware of is what it means to upload one of your own photos to Commons. This photo short of looks like a personal photo and that's perfectly OK as long as you sort of understand the following: the only types of file licenses that Commons accepts are ones in which the copyright holder is essentially giving their permission to anyone anywhere in the world to download the photo at anytime and use for pretty much any purpose (including commercial and derivative use). You might've uploaded the photo simply because you wanted to use it on Wikipedia and thought nothing more about it, but anyone can download that photo and use it anyway they want (even in a way that you might not like) as long as they comply with the terms of the license you chosen; moreover, once you've uploaded and released a photo under such a license, you can really take it back. I think it's great you uploaded the photo, but you should take a careful look at c:Commons:Licensing to make sure it's what you really want to do. Just for reference, Commons and Wikipedia are sort of part of the same family, but they each have their own respective policies and guidelines. If the draft you're working on is accepted, then that will be the most likely home for the photo. If the draft you're working on, however, isn't accepted, then the image will still be there on Commons sort of "homeless" so to speak waiting for someone to use it in some way.The other photo you uploaded is more problematic. Did you take that one too? That one can actually be found used online before it was uploaded to Commons so that one is certainly going to need some type of formal verification. If you didn't take it or if you don't want to try and have its license formally verified, you can do a couple of things: (1) do nothing and the image will be deleted or (2) go to the file's page (make sure you're on the Commons page), click edit and add the code
Your submission at Articles for creation: Todd Masters (June 19)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Todd Masters and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Todd Masters, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
June 2021: Might you be Dani Chace? Possible COI
[edit]As Dani Chace is mentioned in your draft as a person closely associated with the subject of the draft, it appears that you might have a conflict of interest with respect to the subject about which you are writing a Wikipedia article.
Hello, D.B.Chace. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Todd Masters
[edit] Hello, D.B.Chace. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Todd Masters, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)