User talk:Cmdcam01

October 2009

Your recent edits to Cambridge University Press might possibly be construed as inclusion of advertising material, particularly when you have a user name which suggests some involvement with the organisation concerned. You may want to have a look at WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:ORGNAME in order to reduce the risk of such criticism in future. David Biddulph (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because your username is a representation of a university, which we cannot accept. Please check WP:COI for further information. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 04:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Hello Cmdcm01, I've taken the courtesy of moving your sandbox work to it's own page rather than your user page. Feel free to keep working on it there! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you'll find it here by the way! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Edinburgh_Building_UK_Cambridge_MED.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Edinburgh_Building_UK_Cambridge_MED.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there Cmdcam01, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Cmdcam01/sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

The above warnings just mean that a file in your sandbox has been removed because it has a "fair use" licence, one that means the image needs justification for use for every instance it's used, per WP:FU. Give me a shout if you need any further advice on this! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi Cmdcam01. Just a quick word on reference placement. Yes, outside punctuation where possible but also, no spaces between the punctuation and the reference. WP:CITE may be useful (if a little boring!)... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cambridge University Press Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cambridge University Press 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. 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. Courcelles 03:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Been a while, things okay? Need any help or are you now a fully-fledged member of the community no longer requiring the help of a decrepit admin? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, great to hear from you; I hope all is well? I'm all good thanks - just been doing a few updates on the page to try and keep it up to date. I'll be sure to get in touch though if there's any wider edits needed as your help is always very much apprecicated!!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Andrew Jestyn Phillips (December 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs sources independent of subject

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Peter Andrew Jestyn Phillips 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:Peter Andrew Jestyn Phillips, 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.

Slywriter (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cmdcam01! 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! Slywriter (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Andrew Jestyn Phillips has been accepted

Peter Andrew Jestyn Phillips, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gusfriend (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Peter Andrew Jestyn Phillips for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Andrew Jestyn Phillips is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Andrew Jestyn Phillips until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello Cmdcam01. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Cambridge University Press & Assessment, 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:Cmdcam01. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Cmdcam01|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. Nardog (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I will update with such a disclosure shortly. I am an employee of Cambridge University Press & Assessment, but was not commissioned/paid to edit Wikipedia. I will add a clarification. And happy to engage on talk pages ahead of further such changes (I had been inspired by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold to jump right in :)). Cmdcam01 (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the disclosure. Just so we're clear, only you, an individual, have had access to this account, Cmdcam01, correct? If not, that's also against policy. Also, I strongly suggest you not edit articles you have a conflict of interest with "boldly" and instead take advantage of Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. And have a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Nardog (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful advice. Understood. I currently am the only person with access. However, in the past a different former employee used this account. Cmdcam01 (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please change your password so they can't access it anymore if you haven't done so already (see Wikipedia:Username policy#Shared accounts). Nardog (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cmdcam01 (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]