User talk:JRfougnazal

Welcome!

Hello, JRfougnazal, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
The Signpost, our newspaper.

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, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sadads (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ulla Reimer

The article Ulla Reimer has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Christine Leunens addressing the NZ Federation of Graduate Women at the Zimmerman Art Gallery in November 2013.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Christine Leunens addressing the NZ Federation of Graduate Women at the Zimmerman Art Gallery in November 2013.jpg, which you've attributed to ticket 2018042610002775, which does not contain acceptable evidence of permission. 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. B (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, JRfougnazal. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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, clients, 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 Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
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. Izno (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Izno, thank you for your message and the clarifications provided. I'm only a casual contributor of Wikipedia so your comments are helpful.

I thought it was possible to contribute to an article if you are not paid, which I'm not, and only if you provide reliable and verifiable sources of information.

You can see that whatever information I have provided is supported by evidence available on the internet and not based on my opinion or hearsay. All contributing notes and information are from verified sources that anyone can easily see on the page.

You will also notice that I am not the only contributor. I may be an important one, but that is probably due to the fact that the author was big in the city I lived in, and it is a small city in a small country where we know each other quite often, even if only from attending literary festivals.

I see now that Justlettersandnumbers2022 has added a "name-and-shame" type of banner on the article, despite me not being paid to add the information. This is quite a sad assumption and I would like to see it supported by any evidence showing that I am paid, in the same way I supported any contribution I made with available evidence.

I am not sure why this article is subject to this level of scrutiny, a 5 minutes stroll on the web would suffice to see that Christine Leunens is in many articles and news available to the common viewer.

I would appreciate to get some guidance on why I get to be treated like this and if there is still a problem, what to do to get the banner removed.

Thank you for your assistance. JRfougnazal (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see this. A simple "hey, left a message for you" or a ping would have worked to get my attention. :)

I thought it was possible to contribute to an article if you are not paid, which I'm not The above message is relevant not only for WP:PAID users but also those with a conflict of interest. Which it is fairly clear you have one given your single purpose here, even if you aren't PAID.

You can see that whatever information I have provided is supported by evidence available on the internet and not based on my opinion or hearsay. All contributing notes and information are from verified sources that anyone can easily see on the page. Yes, that's a good starting point. But when a user has a conflict of interest, it may be insufficient. In many cases, those with a conflict of interest will not add relevant negative information to a page, because of their conflict. Or they may puff up the topic with whom they have a conflict.

Whether you are the only contributor is not particularly relevant.

I am not sure why this article is subject to this level of scrutiny If someone is paid, and has not disclosed that fact, they are banned a priori from editing Wikipedia as it is a violation of the Wikipedia terms of service to edit for pay without declaring such. The general rationale is that it is an abuse of the commons. In some countries even, it has resulted in the law saying it gives an unfair advantage and there were monetary damages assessed. That is why you are subject to this scrutiny. And whether you are paid or not, it's not ok to edit about topics with which you have a COI without doing so exceptionally carefully.

For further help, I would recommend discussing your case at WP:COIN and being forthcoming about the relationship, monetary or otherwise, you have with the article topic. Comments like "it's a small city" are not likely to be believed. Izno (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izno, I didn't know about PING so thank you for that; I also thought that using the REPLY button at the end of your message would do the trick, so thank you for that ;-) Given that it looks like I have a single purpose here though I have edited and contributed to other pages, I will follow up on with discussing this with the link provided. Should I delete the article then and let it run its course, after all, she is a public figure and has many readers world wide? Appreciate your guidance in this. JRfougnazal (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Battle of Hürtgen Forest. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you for your advice. I have created "attributions" in the Bibliography sections of both "Norman Cota" and "The Battle of the Huertgen Forrest" for which I use the same public source (referenced as well). I hope that it is now following Wiki's guidelines? JRfougnazal (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was unnecessary, as I already added the required attribution, as part of citation #15. Please see this edit. — Diannaa (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Will remember for future references. JRfougnazal (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

It has been found that you have been using one or more accounts abusively or have edited logged out to avoid scrutiny. Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publicly and plainly disclosed on both your and the other account's userpage.

Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. Spicy (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]