User talk:Mattcooperrider
|
Welcome
[edit]Hello Mattcooperrider, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, they have helped improve Wikipedia and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions. Some resources to help new Wikipedians include:
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects.
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you have any questions, please see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, try the Wikipedia:Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! Mattinbgn\talk 04:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Making contact
[edit]Hi Matt. Regarding this edit you may get a better response at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board which is much more active.
As well as the policies and guidelines on your user page, you may wish to look at WP:NOSHARE. I would advise giving careful consideration to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Financial
If "[y]ou are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes) ... then you are very strongly encouraged to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased)"
I am not particularly concerned about your engagement with EPA Victoria (as long as the content meets the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policy) but others in the community feel very strongly about such arrangements.
Hope the welcome message above is of some use and please let me know if I can help in any way and I will do what I can. Good luck, Mattinbgn\talk 04:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Matt, It would also be helpful to disclose exactly what the EPA has asked that you do with the article and how this relates, if at all, with their website. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Nick, I gave some more detail on my user page as to the activities I've undertaken. There is no direct relation to their website (not sure what that would be in the first place). Is there some specific tactic I'm appearing to be engaging in? --Mattcooperrider (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- The question about their website relates to why they're investing resources in a Wikipedia page given that they have a perfectly good official website - it seems to be a waste of resources at best and has potential to embarrass their minister (the media loves to highlight examples of government agencies editing their own pages). It would be helpful if you could clarify your statement - why have they engaged you for this (particularly given that you appear to have made few edits - do you have another account?), are you being paid and why is the EPA investing resources in this? Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I see where you are coming from, and I think there are a few points to address. For one, they see Wikipedia as in many ways more relevant and visible than their own website to those who would like to find information about the EPA. Unfortunately, no one in the Wikipedia community had taken the initiative to write such a page. Given the existence of other EPA pages, most notably the US EPA page, they thought it worthwhile to invest some resources in creating their own page. And given the difficult issues involved in editing ones own page (especially COI and, not trivially, how intimidating the interface can be), they engaged my firm to help them stay within Wikipedia guidelines. They see a neutral Wikipedia article about EPA Victoria as a win-win for them and their constituents (and Wikipedia too). Basically, it’s an attempt to establish such a worthwhile article transparently, engaging the Wikipedia community on its own terms, without resorting to sock-puppetry (yes, this is my only account) or any of the other tactics that have made headlines in the past.
- Thanks for that further information Matt. I have to say that, as an experienced Wikipedia editor and someone who has worked for the government, this is a seriously Bad Idea. Many editors have serious concerns about organisations paying to have articles written about them and there's a long history of this backfiring on the organisation (particularly government organisations). I'd strongly advise that this not go ahead. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Environment Protection Authority Victoria logo.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Environment Protection Authority Victoria 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
