User talk:Caammo7

File permission problem with File:Rufus Black Press photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rufus Black Press photo.jpg, which you've attributed to Rufus Blaq. 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 are the copyright holder for 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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Rufus Blaq moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Rufus Blaq, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. And those references should give in-depth coverage of him, rather than simply being mentions.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Hello Caammo7. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Rufus Blaq, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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:Caammo7. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Caammo7|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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am not being paid to create this article. Hope this clarifies your query above. Thanks. Caammo7 (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you clarify how you came to receive File:Rufus Blaq.jpg? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing! Rufus gave it to me. I am familiar with Rufus and his work, and I am a fan of his. We've stayed in touch. Since he didn't have a wikipedia page, but has such an amazing music catalog and has worked with amazing artists, I wanted to help his online presence with creating a wikipedia page. But I am not getting paid to create it. Just thought it would be a nice thing to do for him. I hope that helps! Caammo7 (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If you're in contact with Rufus, you should go through the process described at WP:COIDISCLOSE, as that level of relationship is still considered a conflict of interest, even if you are not being paid for your efforts. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping me! I'm a newbie - can't you tell? I didn't realize this would be a COI, but I went ahead disclosed my connection. Caammo7 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)