User talk:MichaelBorum

File:StacySchiff Wikipedia FreeUseImage.jpg

You will probably need the copyright holder of this image to confirm they are releasing it under a creative commons license (see Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed) or the image may be deleted as an non-free image. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 16:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Robin Hemley.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Robin Hemley.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Peripitus (Talk) 11:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Stacy Schiff 2010 Photo by Elena Seibert.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Stacy Schiff 2010 Photo by Elena Seibert.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. We hope (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Christopher Castellani 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Christopher Castellani 2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} 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. Kelly ^hi! 03:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:StacySchiff Wikipedia FreeUseImage.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:StacySchiff Wikipedia FreeUseImage.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} 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. 太刻薄 (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi, nice picture. however, there is a fair use policy that limits their use to deceased people. wp:NFCC if your subject really prefers this, rather than a texas book fair photo, then you should release a photo under a creative commons license. also, if you have a conflict of interest wp:COI. you might want to declare this on your user page. (i may be replaceing your image, sorry). Duckduckstop (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Stacy Schiff giving the keynote address at the 2014 BIO Conference in Boston, MA.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stacy Schiff giving the keynote address at the 2014 BIO Conference in Boston, MA.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) 02:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such as you did from http://www.booksincommon.org/authors-books/author-profile/?author_id=698

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Username/Conflict of Interest/Paid Editing

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Etherweave", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username, by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Etherweave. 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
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 must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never received compensation for any edits or contributions I have made, even if they were to articles for people I know personally. I do not profess to be an expert Wikipedia editor, and I do not market myself as such, nor do I sell my services for this purpose. I have updated pages as a favor to people I know because they lack the technical ability to do so themselves. The information I added or changed--provided by them--was factual in nature, verified by me, and cited. It's possible that some references or quotes that were given crossed a line into being too subjective and not useful for Wikipedia's purposes, and I have advised my friends that such quotes and references aren't allowed. I'm happy to disclose my relationship with someone if that's helpful, though I hope it will have no bearing on whether an editor considers the information worthy of inclusion simply because of the contributor's relationship with the subject. Facts are facts. --Etherweave (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that verifiable doesn't warrant inclusion. WP:IINFO. Please also see WP:Advertising Graywalls (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware that all content contributed is subject to review and may be removed. Thanks. MichaelBorum (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Stacy Schiff, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Etherweave. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Stacy Schiff, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Etherweave. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Etherweave|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Continuing to add awards and such Graywalls (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Username policy

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Etherweave", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username, by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Hi friends. Thanks for the heads-up that I'm apparently violating rules I wasn't aware existed after 15 years of editing content here without any issues. I understand times change, and we are living through particularly nightmarish times where the reliability and integrity of information is critically important. Please allow me to clarify: I have never been paid by anyone to create or edit a page on Wikipedia. I engage in freelance website design and development for a number of public figures, some of them famous or otherwise noteworthy. My contracts do not contain any reference to Wikipedia whatsoever, and I do not accept payment for making edits to their pages, if they exist. It is done as a free service only, and I have made it clear to all of my clients that updates must be factual and require citations, and that papering their entries with fawning reviews isn't exactly what this is for, even if those reviews can be cited.

I have, on occasion, copied and pasted content from another source because it was literally a quote that was needed for the entry page and I didn't have time to re-key it. It was a quotation of a quotation and not original content. I know the difference. (One particularly controversial sentence, from the article for Stacy Schiff, "Her essays and articles have appeared in The New Yorker, The New York Times Book Review, and The Times Literary Supplement, among other publications," which was flagged as plagiarism by me, is almost verbatim a sentence that appear ON HER OWN WEBSITE, which I maintain on her behalf!)

As for my username, I have been using it for 15 years. If you need a more transparent username, fine--I have no problem with that. I have submitted a request to change it to one that reflects my name. I have literally NOTHING to hide from anyone. --Etherweave (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Itemized or Wikipedia specific contract is not a requisite to be considered paid editing.

Payment or compensation: money, goods or services. Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. source

Graywalls (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds reasonable to me. So I'm a "paid editor," and apparently that's acceptable as long as I disclose that information? MichaelBorum (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editors are still highly discouraged from editing on their clients. Your former user name, although non-compliant was not the primary reason you were blocked as I understand it. It is all about repeated acts of Undisclosed Paid Editing. Graywalls (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]