Jump to content

User talk:DanGayle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, DanGayle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Lukobe (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Iron Horse Brewery

[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 Iron Horse Brewery 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 an organization or company, 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. Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Typophile (Internet forum)

[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 Typophile (Internet forum), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "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. Light2021 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello!, I see that you removed your question from the page Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Although you did not mention the file name, I guess it was probably about File:Spokane-chronicle-building.JPG. I don't know if that means you found the solution to your problem, but apparently not, because the description page of the photo still shows the template you mentioned. That's why I'm taking the liberty of contacting you here. Anyway, the description page is easy to fix, but first, to determine the proper tag to use, more essential information is needed about the first publication of the photo and about the rationale for the claim of copyright. You mentioned when the photo was created ("circa 1934", "a 1934 press photo") and where it was first published ("originally published in The Spokesman-Review"), but you did not mention when that first publication occurred. Was it first published in 1934? The ideal would be a precise reference to the date of the issue of the newspaper where the photo was first published, but if not, at least the year or approximate year of that first publication of the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to what Asclepias posted above, you cannot really upload this under a "CC-SA" license, etc. since you're not the copyright holder of this photo. The copyright holder of this photo (assuming it is the The Spokesman-Review) is the only one who can really do that. While I personally have no reason to doubt that you are a TSR representative and that the paper has given you permission to upload the photos to Wikipedia, what is really need is for the paper to give its explicit consent to Wikipedia for the file (or files) to uploaded under such a license. Unfortunately, there's no way for Wikipedia to verify any agreement/discussion between you and the paper, so Wikipedia needs to have something emailed to it for verification purposes. You can find out more about this at c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Bascially, someone at the paper (ideally the person who deals with copyright issues for the paper) needs to send a consent email to Wikimedia OTRS for verification purposes. If there are multiple files involved, the same permissions email can be written to cover all the relevant images. An OTRS volunteer will eventually process the email and verify the licensing. This can take a bit of time because there tends to be a bit of a backlog, but I think it's the best way to make clear that the paper has agreed to release the file under a license accepted by Wikipedia. The person sending in the email should make sure and use an official work email account; moreover, they should also include the file names of whatever image (or images) have already been uploaded to Wikipedia in the email to make it easier for the reviewing OTRS volunteer to find the relevant file(s). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please wait! Let's not put the cart before the horse. The OTRS people are already drowning in a flood of unnecessary mail. Let's not add to their problem until we know if it would be useful to send them anything and, if so, what exactly that would be. Marchjuly: please let's not waste DanGayle's efforts before we clarify what may or may not be needed. (My initial impression, in the context of the file discussed, is that the mail you asked might be unnecessary and a source of confusion.) DanGayle: please let's clarify the situation here before sending mail that would worsen the OTRS backlog. Let's take this step by step. Before anything else, what would be useful to know is the essential factual information, beginning with the question asked above about the date of the publication. We'll see where it goes from there. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editing

[edit]

Hello, DanGayle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Spokane Daily Chronicle, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms our use and policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DanGayle. I added the above template after seeing your post on WP:MCQ. Since you've stated that you're a representative of The Spokesman-Review, you should be aware that Wikipedia likely considers you to have a WP:COI with repsect to anything written on Wikipedia about the paper or any of the persons, companies, etc. associated with it. COI editing is not something expressly prohibited, but it's something which is highly discouraged because it can sometimes lead to some serious problems. Please take a look at WP:PSCOI to better familiarize yourself with the kinds of edits that the Wikipedia community feels are generally OK for COI editors to make. As long as you adhere to relevant policies and guidelines, you should be OK. Please pay particular attention to WP:FCOI because you might also be subject to WP:PAID depending upon the exact nature of your connection to the The Spokesman-Review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, thank you. I appreciate your note. Since the Spokane Chronicle is defunct, it's business interests are gone. The Spokesman-Review, who I work for, is and was a separate entity. I would not edit the SR's page directly, as that would be a clear violation of COI, but the Chronicle has been gone for 25 years. Their archives were transferred to our holding and use, but we're simply maintainers.

How do I mark my affiliation with The Spokesman-Review? I am making these edits on my own time, simply wanting accurate information available. I am a web developer for spokesman.com, not paid for things like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanGayle (talk • contribs) 23:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Courtesy ping to Marchjuly. Primefac (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While we have templates available that we encourage COI editors to use, that's not the only way to declare your areas of potential or perceived conflict of interest. If you put an explanation, like the one you have just given here, on your user page, that should suffice as a disclosure for most purposes. It explains the relationship you hold, so another reader can evaluate your contributions in that context.
The point of these disclosures is to remove the guesswork when an editor appears to be making non-objective edits. Many editors are suspected of being undisclosed paid editors based on their behavior. It's a pattern experienced editors are sensitive to. You, with your fully disclosed relationship, can edit in any area that would not appear to be a conflict, just like any other editor. You seem to have an understanding of what sorts of edits would constitute a COI, so we expect you to stay away from editing those areas directly.
So, there's a custodial relationship of sorts between Spokesman-Review and Spokane Chronicle archives; tread carefully there. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DanGayle&oldid=851842650"