User talk:Drspearson

File permission problem with File:David Pearson (librarian) May2018.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:David Pearson (librarian) May2018.jpg, which you've attributed to Lynne Pearson. 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) 00:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of image

Hello, is this the right way to make contact about the image which you have recently deleted from the entry David Pearson (librarian)?

Conflict of interest editing

Hello, Drspearson. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page David Pearson (librarian), 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right way to reply to this? Your framework is so complicated and not at all user-friendly or intuitive.

I am puzzled by all of this. A Wikipedia page was created about me many years ago - I don't know by whom - and I have occasionally edited it just to keep it accurate and up to date, as my career has changed. I do not add anything that isn't purely factual, and I don't make any value judgements about myself or my work. I understand the importance of impartiality in Wikipedia entries but it also seems to me to be valuable to keep it factually correct. If you made it easier to show people how to input corrections or updates without doing it directly themselves, I'd be happy to do that! I'm sure much of the content about living individuals on Wikipedia comes from the people themselves. - Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drspearson (talk • contribs) 11:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drspearson. The wording of the above template is mainly boilerplate text designed to cover as many situations as possible, and doesn't mean you've done anything wrong in particular. It's more of a general information type of notification than anything else, just intended to provide some information on Wikipedia policies and guidelines related to conflict of interest editing. The template contains links (the words in blue) where more detailed information can be found. I tried to explain this as part of my response to your post at User talk:Explicit#David Pearson image, but probably should have clarified as much here as well. So, my apologies for any undue alarm the template may have caused you.

Wikipedia articles are written about subjects deemed to be Wikipedia notable and article content is only intended to reflect what can be verified through citations to reliable sources. Wikipedia articles are not written for or on the behalf of subjects, and permission of the subject is not needed to create the article as long as the subject satisfies Wikipedia notability guidelines. So, whoever created this article about you probably did so because they felt you met some Wikipedia's notability guideline. Anyway, regardless of who created the article or their motivation for doing so, Wikipedia articles are not really owned or controlled per se by their subjects, and article content will be assessed by whether it is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which in this case is largely going to be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). When they are any disagreements regarding this, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution comes into play and disagreements are expected to be resolved through Wikipedia:Consensus. I'm just providing this information as a general overview of how Wikipedia is supposed to work with respect to any article, and not trying to imply you've done anything wrong. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit COI editing, but it does highly discourage it. Subjects of articles trying to edit or add content about themselves or those connected to subjects of articles trying to edit or add content about said subjects often (even unintentionally) run into difficulty adhering to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; they are trying to make changes in good faith in the majority of cases, but they often run into difficulties because their focus tends to be more on what's best for the subject of the article than what's best for Wikipedia. For this reason, all COI editing tends to be viewed rather suspiciously by the a large part of the Wikipedia community and COI editors are, therefore, encouraged to seeks assistance when they would like to change things in articles about subjects they are connected to.

You can find more about the above in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide#Steps for engagement and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Making uncontroversial edits, but basically you try and avoid directly editing the article and instead use the article's talk page to make edit requests. This will give other editors a chance to assess their changes you would like made with respect to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It might seem a bit unnecessary to be asked to do such a thing, but it helps maintain overall quality of Wikipedia article and makes it clear that subjects of articles aren't (even unintentionally) trying to influence what's written about them in the article. While I understand your desire for "factual accuracy", Wikipedia is more concerned about what can be verified about a subject than what is true about a subject since any content which cannot be verified through citations to reliable sources has a strong chance of being considered original research. So, if there's content in the article you would like to update, just use Template:Request edit and propose the update at Talk:David Pearson (librarian). Try and keep your requests as specific as possible since broadly worded and vague requests tend to be hard to sort out. It also helps if you try to keep requests manageable by not bundling lots of requests together, and if you can provide links to any reliable sources which can be cited in support of the change(s) you're proposing. Simply requesting something like Please update the article to reflect my latest activities is going to really hard to respond to and likely going to end up being declined outright without much consideration given, whereas requesting something like Please change the second sentence in the third paragraph to <this> in accordance with this source will be easier to deal with. Once you've made an edit request, the article will be added to a maintenance category page listing other similarly pending requests. All editors , in general, are WP:VOLUNTEERs and it may take some time before someone responds, but there's a bunch of editors who focus on editing these requests and someone will get to it as soon as they can.

One last thing about edit requests is that the "Request edit" template needs to be formatted correctly for the edit request to work as intended. What you should do if you want to make a request is to go to the top of the article's talk page and click on the "New section" tab. This will open an editing window much like the one you see when editing any Wikipedia page. In the "Subject/headline" field, you can add a description of the request or just something general like "Edit request May 26, 2020". In the main editing window, add the code {{request edit}} (you can just copy and paste it from this post) and then below that simply add your request. The very last thing you need to remember before clicking on "Publish changes" is to make sure you've signed your post because forgetting to do so may cause system to not recognize the request. You can find an example of the steps I have given you in Template:Request edit#How to use. You can also find some more detailed information in Template:Request edit/Instructions. If you want to see an example of edit requests being made and responded to just to see things in action, try looking at Talk:Bob McDonald (businessman).

I hope I didn't confuse you even more with the wall of text I posted. If you've got any more questions you can ask them below or at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]