User talk:Frontdesk1
Your username
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created Santa Fe Reporter, and I noticed that your username, "FrontdeskSFR", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Jack Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".
Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please create a new account or request a change of username, by completing this form, that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
COI edits
[edit]Hello. Thanks for changing names, but I would like to make sure you have also read about editing with a conflict of interest, which is linked above. You may also find this useful: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Additionally, per Help:Minor edit, the minor-edit check-box is mainly for typos or reverting obvious vandalism, and not for the addition of substantial content. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey Grayfell, thanks for keeping me pointed in the right direction! In terms of COI, I have been tasked with updating facts for the SFR wiki page, updating names of editors/publishers, adding the official logo, mentioning some new (more recent) awards and general information. Should I simply avoid future editing? Once again, thanks for all your help in making sure that I am participating in the best way possible.Frontdesk1 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Frontdesk1 3:00 PM, March 23, 2016
- Thanks for being transparent about this. Many aren't, and it's always a drag, so I sincerely appreciate it. For routine info such as uncontroversial names and dates, the only thing to be aware of is making sure info is verifiable, e.i. sourced. For some reason, vandals like to fudge info like that, or add themselves or made-up names to articles and infoboxes. Without a reliable source, it's impossible, or at least a hassle, to determine if it's vandalism, or someone updating or correcting an error. If you have sources, there's probably no problem with you making these kinds of edits yourself, but if someone's objecting, it's best to slow down and discuss it at the article's talk page. This is discussed further at WP:COIADVICE, by the way.
- As for awards, it's a recurring problem area on Wikipedia, but the general idea is that the award needs to impart information to the reader other than just sounding impressive. There are two simple ways to demonstrate an award's encyclopedic significance. One is if (using your edit as an example) SFR receiving the Dixon award has been covered in some depth by independent, WP:SECONDARY sources, then those sources could be used to provide context in a neutral way. A press release from the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government isn't going to cut it, because it's not obvious who they are, and they're not expected to be neutral about themselves anyway. Similar with SFR. Understandably, you guys want to toot your own horn, but that's not what Wikipedia is for, obviously. The other way would be if the award itself has an article so that readers could find out more. This is probably a bigger project than you want to take on, but if the William S. Dixon award meets general notability guidelines than creating it would be a great way to help out Wikipedia.
- Like I said, it's a problem area. Some awards are given out very, very liberally (such as the Stevie Awards), and I can think of some specific examples of people who have created awards to give to themselves as a form of promotion (lavish ceremonies and everything). I know that's not what's going on here, but it demonstrates why caution is called for with awards, and why independent coverage is so important.
- If you are at all in doubt about making an edit, the best thing to do is take it to the article's talk page. You can WP:PING me, as you did above and I'll take a look when I get a chance, or take a look at Wikipedia:Edit requests. The exceptions are obvious vandalism and WP:BLP violations (such as harassment or defamation): you should always feel free and encouraged to remove that on sight. I hope that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you so much Grayfell, I really appreciate your advice on all this... I'm all about honesty, transparency and communication. I'll look into secondary source coverage for journalism awards, that way I can be sure that the context provided is neutral. Thanks for offering to help, and I'm going to take you up on it when I come to the next trouble area. Best. Frontdesk1 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Grayfell, another inquiry for you.... I am going to work on editing and adding to the 'Awards' section next week. Before I do however, I had a quick question. You had mentioned earlier that press releases from organizations that bestow awards are no good, and that I should be looking for third-party coverage. However, if I absolutely cannot find any third-party commentary, should I omit mention of the award completely? Thanks for taking the time! Frontdesk1 (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would say yes, the award should probably be omitted, and you should not be the one to add it to the article. For situations like this, I would post a suggestion to the article's talk page. It may take a while longer, but it's a much appreciated show of good faith and transparency for if the content is ever challenged, or if the article gets tagged with Template:Advert or similar. If there is no substantial outside mention of the award, it's probably not encyclopedically significant. One exception might be if it's a major award bestowed by a widely recognized organization. Off the top of my head, the example that comes to mind would be awards given by the National Press Foundation. Those awards don't have articles, but the organization's pretty big, and its article mentions the awards so it's not a complete dead-end for readers who want additional context. If the award itself does have an article with reliable sources, it's still a judgement call, but it helps a lot. Grayfell (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey Grayfell, I'm getting ready to upload an image (SFR official logo), any pointers on what type of licensing I will need to provide Wiki? Thanks! Frontdesk1 (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Files can be a pain in the butt. Is this the same as the PDF you uploaded? I think that's simple enough to upload to Commons, because it doesn't meet the Commons:Commons:Threshold of originality for copyright. While it may be a trademark (or not), logos made only of letters and simple geometry are not typically copyrightable. Compare to the Commons:File:Pepsi logo 2008.svg, for example. PDF is not the best choice for a format, PNG (or better yet, SVG if you have it) would be better. I don't recall how to upload logos like that. Commons is its own site with its own set of (too few) volunteers, and it gets very technical very quickly. If nothing else, uploading it to Wikipedia should work, as I think it can be tagged for transfer? Sorry, I wish I could be more help. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Welcome
[edit]
|
COI editing
[edit]Hello again. As a reminder, please propose edits to Talk:Santa Fe Reporter instead of making them yourself. You may use Template:Request edit on the article's talk page to facilitate a faster response. Your edits included promotional language and expanded on routine events supported only by primary sources, which is not compatible with Wikipedia's goals. As a user with a conflict of interest, you are not impartial about what content belongs and what doesn't. Additionally, the edit you just made was not minor (Help:Minor edit), and introduced formatting errors. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)