User talk:Anne Christensen

November 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the username you have chosen, "EUombudsman", seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of something other than yourself. Please note that you may not edit on behalf of a company, group, institution, product, or website, and Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are promotional or have the appearance of shared use. If you are willing to use a personal account, please take a moment to create a new account or request a username change that represents only yourself as an individual. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and remember that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 17:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:EUombudsman

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 User:EUombudsman, 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, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Vincent Liu (something to say?) 12:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, EUombudsman, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Peridon (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

I would advise you that Wikipedia accounts are for individuals only and must NOT be used by more than one person. Usernames should also not appear to represent organisations, and while I realise that an ombudsman is a person. it is the office and all that it entails that I regard as an organisation - that including the 'communications team'. Also, I would advise you to read WP:COI about conflict of interest. While editing with COI is not totally forbidden, it is strongly not recommended, and if you request unblocking for a name change, there may be conditions imposed about areas you should not edit in. I have removed the contact details you posted as that is tantamount to advertising your operation. Communications about Wikipedia articles should be made by the use of the appropriate Wikipedia talk pages. Peridon (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request to change username and unblock me

Peridon Thank you very much. I have added the request and changed my user page information as advised by you and your colleagues. EUombudsman (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Anne Christensen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Anne Christensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. Peridon (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can (possibly should) put that you work for the EUO, but I do advise against contact info. (Anyone who wants it can find it on Google or message you here). Peridon (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I actually remembered to unblock you as well as post the notice! When you go to the change page, scroll down to Simple. Much quicker that way. Peridon (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexf Please unblock my user page and explain to me if the new username works? I was not watching the talk page over the weekend so only noticed this today.

Thanks!

Anne (EUombudsman (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

In the absence of Alex, the new name looks OK to me. There is an Anne Christian who created an account four years ago and still hasn't edited (why do people do this?), but I don't think that's going to be a problem. Now, while we're about it, do you understand what I said in my post under the blocking notice? And will you have a look at WP:OWN which explains about 'ownership' of things here (or rather that people here shouldn't think that they DO own articles or such. Your userpage can't be edited by you until the unblock has been made, but I do strongly advise leaving the office contact off. Peridon (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peridon Yes, I understand all of this, and I am not here to edit or "own" articles, simply to point out if there are issues we would like the community to deal with and update a few links on the relevant articles. I will clear the user page of any office info.

EUombudsman (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC) 136.173.162.129 (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would unblock you if you agree to the following conditions:

If you are here representing your employer, you disclose your position with the European Parliament (or whatever entity employs you) on your user page.
You agree to abide by the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline and refrain from making any major changes to any article in your area of interest without first discussing your proposed changes on the article talk page. You can still perform minor corrections or maintenance edits (updating names as people change, for example) without talk page discussion.

Do you accept those conditions? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon Amatulić User:Alexf How many times do I have to confirm and to how many people?

Sorry guys, I am beginning to find this ridiculous, especially given that the first thing I do on Wikipedia is to ask the community for advice on the Wikiproject european union talk page and NOT edit any articles. I am here in good faith and I made a mistake naming my user page.

I agree to abide by the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline
I will not edit or try to "own" articles WP:OWN
Happy to disclose where I work, but I was just told by others to remove office info so do I just put my name and who I work for then?

EUombudsman (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links in the European Ombudsman article

Hi Anne,

I'm sorry you had such a fuss over your username and the conflict of interest policy. I'm glad to see it looks like it's all been sorted relatively amicably.

I just came across your comments at the European Union Wikiproject. I don't know if you've had any sort of reply yet. I've not worked on that particular project; really I'm just another user like you, but I think I know enough about how this place works to respond to your question.

Your best option is almost certainly to confine yourself to the talk page of any article you'd like to update, and allow others to incorporate your suggestions into the article as they see fit. Briefly explain your position, and then describe anything you think should be removed or added. The talk page for the article you suggested changes to is at Talk:European Ombudsman. I saw at the Wikiproject that you were wondering about changing some of the external links. If you specify on the talk page what changes you think should be made, I'd be happy to review them and if necessary go hunting for other editors to give second opinions.

If nobody notices your presence at a talk page (as can often happen, especially in less controversial articles), you can get someone's attention in a number of places including the Conflict of interest noticeboard, Editor assistance requests and WikiProject Cooperation.

If you ever want to create a new article, you should make a userspace draft (the linked page has more information on that) and then submit it for review.

I hope you don't feel too put off by all the red tape! --Noiratsi (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

I've made some changes to the article at European Ombudsman, based on the updated information you offered. Let me know your thoughts. I also took the liberty of tidying up the affected sections to improve some of the wording and clarify the sources.

When I looked at the biography article for Nikiforos Diamandouros I noticed that a large part of it seems to have been copied directly from the CV you gave a link for. I can't find any mention of the copyright status of the CV. Can you provide clarification? If the CV does come under copyright we will have to rethink the article—the affected text would of course be instantly and completely removed. For now I will need to tag the article as a copy-and-paste with unknown copyright status. I'll leave a note on the article's talk page explaining that I've asked you if you can shed any light. Thanks! --Noiratsi (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, all EU websites are copyright EU, allowing you to copy the texts for all sorts of purposes as long as you acknowledge where it came from - except if there are specific exceptions mentioned (an image from a photo bank for instance) or if you are planning to sell it (say you copy-paste the Europa website and publish it as a book with the intent of making money).

Thanks for all your help! Anne Christensen (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright here is a tricky issue. Unless the EU sites are actually licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL like Wikipedia is, the content can't be imported here. Our content can be repackaged for sale, and is, although how many they sell I don't know. Restricted free use like CC-BY-NC-SA is not compatible with our totally free with acknowledgement licence. For more detailed opinions, ask User:Moonriddengirl and/or User:VernoWhitney who are two of our top copyright people. MRG actually works for the Foundation. Anyway, in all cases other than brief quotes (in quote marks and sourced properly), it's best to use original wording on Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the CV page. The info bit says "Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.". (Quoted from site referred to in references of article.) This as it stands isn't sufficient for Wikipedia, in my opinion. As I'm not one of the top people here on copyright, I'd advise referring to the two I've linked for a more definitive answer. The point as I see it is that while reproduction is authorised there, we also authorise Derivative work, which is reworking, and not mentioned there. For reproduction in a place that isn't licensed for going any further, it would be fine. Our content does go into all sorts of odd places. I could be putting a more restrictive interpretation on than our experts would. Best check with them, or reword but not too closely. Peridon (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look, Peridon; I'm a bit out of my depth on copyright issues, so it's nice to have some input. Before I saw your comment I'd already posed a question at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems; hopefully one of the copyright experts will respond there. I agree though that in any case it's better to use our own work.

Sorry this has got complicated, Anne. I realise this doesn't have much to do with you—all you wanted to do was add a link and move an initial! It's good that your comments have brought the issue to light, though—the copied text has been in the article since 2005 without a single mention of where it came from! Back then I suppose our methods for detecting such things weren't as thorough. Anyway, I'll continue to look into this and if necessary I'll lead the charge to replace the copied text with "Wikipedia's own words" (as it were). —Noiratsi (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, In this case I _personally_ think it is a highly hypothetical question, as the document is a CV and there really aren't that many ways of formulating it. Also, the fact that you redistribute it to other places like Facebook etc. makes it in our interest that the information here is indeed correct. As I have said before I will not edit the articles but leave it up to the community to decide on the content. Anne Christensen (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikiforos Diamandouros

Hi Anne,

Just to let you know I've finished working on the article about Nikiforos Diamandouros, for the time being. The consensus seemed to be that it was best for Wikipedia not to use text copied straight from the EU site, so I've repackaged the information into different words. I also added a photo that I found lying around at Wikimedia Commons. I hope you're happy with the way the article is now. Do let me know if you have any comments. Happy New Year! --Noiratsi (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noiratsi, thanks for your effort!

I have sent the link to my colleague for a fact check, but it looks good to me.

Anne Christensen (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Ombudsman

Hi Anne, I am a member of WP:WikiProject European Union. Sorry about the trouble you have been having, especially that nobody replied to your message on the project talk page. Like me, everybody on the project seems to have been busy with other things of late. Can I mark your question there as "Done"? I hope everything has been cleared up now. If not, or if you have any other problems or questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Boson (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]