User talk:EmpressMatilda

Welcome!

Hello, EmpressMatilda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Rebecca Housel, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Drdisque (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rebecca Housel

A tag has been placed on Rebecca Housel 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 a person or group of people, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Drdisque (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:San Francisco 7-3-2008 065.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:San Francisco 7-3-2008 065.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COIN

Hi EmpressMatilda. I opened a thread at COIN[1] regarding the Rebecca Housel article. I would be happy to help you with your concerns. Please consider posting there. --- Jreferee (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Rebecca Housel, Ph. D.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rebecca Housel, Ph. D.jpg. 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 on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Housel

Hi. Most of your edits to the Rebecca Housel article have been reverted for the following reasons:

The Survivor's Review you wrote is a primary source, and cannot be used to support material about your post graduate studies, your research, your books, etc. Secondary sources are needed for this.
The YouTube video and the page from your website on your comedy work are primary sources, and therefore cannot be used to support information in the article about that work.
The NYU page does not mention any of the information in the passage to which you added it as a source.
The Wiley page you added to the article does not mention any of the material in that passage. In addition, That is a primary source, because Wiley is your publisher.
The Phoenix Fund web page you linked to does not mention any of the material in the passage in the article.
Sites with user-generated content, such as photo-hosting sites, are not reliable under WP:USERG. For this reason, the Flickr page you added cannot be used as a source for the material on Steph's Fund. In addition, a collection of photos does not mention any of the material in the passage.

Please understand that sources used in articles must be those that pass Wikipedia's Reliable Sources policy, should generally be secondary sources (meaning that they are independent of the article subject or her employers), and must explicitly support the material for which they are being cited. It does no good to link to a website if that website is inactive, doesn't mention the material in question, or is written by or belongs to the subject or their employer.

Please undersand also that is imperative that Wikipedia articles not be written like a resume or promotional piece for the benefit of the subject. This applies both to the material included in the article, and the wording with which it is presented. Please read the policies and guidelines to which I have linked you here, and adhere to them in your future editing. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. I have started a consensus discussion on the Infobox photo on the article's talk page here. I have requested 42 other editors who I know have participated in previous consensus discussions on Infobox photos, as I described at the top of the discussion. If a consensus of the community decides that the current photo (your own) is the better choice for the Infobox, then I will not oppose it remaining there. If you have any questions or other problems you need help with, feel free to leave a message for me at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything will be OK

Hi EmpressMatilda. I know there is a lot of activity going on regarding the article about you, but it is not common for Wikipedia to have an article where the subject of the article has edited it over several years without much feedback. Since the Rebecca Housel article is about yourself, you have a conflict of interest (COI) with the topic and COI editing is strongly discouraged. See WP:COI and WP:BLPEDIT. Unfortunately, the work editors should have been doing over the past few years is all going on right now at the same time and, from your help desk post, appears to be placing stress in your life. Please do not be discourage as thing eventually will calm down. The article on you still will be in Wikipedia and collaborative editing will result in improving the article over time. Feel free to post on my talk page. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serious problems (beyond "I don't like that photo") can be addressed by the process outlined: WP:AUTOPROB. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Rebecca Housel, Ph. D.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rebecca Housel, Ph. D.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rebecca Housel, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Housel

I reverted your edits. Blanking the article isn't the way to handle it. I've asked a more experienced administrator to comment here. I'm sorry you're having trouble with this. I'm hope it all works out okay. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rebecca Housel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rebecca Housel 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/Rebecca Housel until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]