User talk:Jyolleck

Welcome!

A cartoon centipede reads books and types on a laptop. — The Wikipede and the Picture Tutorial. *(image credit)*

Welcome!

Hello, Jyolleck, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that some of your recent edits show an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.

Did you know that ...

...Wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
...most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
...Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
...freely-licensed images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images where they can be used on all Wikipedia projects?
...we recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process - at least until you get the hang of things?

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 {{Help me}} on your user 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marchjuly, thanks so much for your welcome. You're right! I am a new user. I've since been made aware about the issue with that particular photograph. I'm working on fixing the attributions for that photograph.--Jyolleck (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Marchjuly, I've removed file you flagged until I find correct copyright info. I've also created the Victor Laredo and would like to know what happens now - is it reviewed by editors? Thanks again.--Jyolleck (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, new editors trying to create an article for the first time are advised to first create a draft and then submit their draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation (AfC) for review. This gives a more experienced editor a chance to assess the draft for Wikipedia:Notability, etc. and determine whether it's a subject suitable to have a written article written about it. This is not mandatory but many new editors find it helpful and it helps keep Wikipedia with a rush of new articles which have lots of problems (sometimes ones which cannot be easily fixed). Once something has been added as an article, it's there for anyone anywhere around the world to edit as they see fit as explained in WP:OWN. Wikipedia hopes that these will be edits to try and improve the article and that these editors will be doing so for the right reasons, but they aren't always. Many people mean well, but just make edits that aren't suitable for Wikipedia. Sometimes, unfortunately to the article's creator perhaps, articles are nominated or tagged for deletion because there are problems associated it with it which cannot be fixed. This often happens when the article is created by a new editor who means well, but is so focused on creating this one particular article that they might not have taken the time to familiarize themselves with things like WP:42 and WP:BIO or maybe even WP:COISELF and WP:PAID. Again, mostly these new editors mean well, but they unexpectedly find themselves having all kinds of problems which might possibly been avoided if they submitted their "draft" for review instead of just creating the article themselves.

Victor Laredo is not a horrible first effort, but there are some issues associated with it. There are some formatting problems and other WP:MOS things that are fairly easy to cleanup, but the main "problem" is that it lacks any citations to independent/secondary sources which show that he has received the significant coverage needed to justify writing a Wikipedia article about him, even per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. All you're citing as sources is books that he has written himself and these are likely going to be considered to be primary sources depending on the context of how they are being cited. The fact that an author has written books may be encyclopedically relevant and OK to mention in an article, but just writing the books themselves is not something which cannot really be used to establish Wikipedia notability; what needs to be shown is that these books and the author have received significant coverage from others. In other words, Wikipedia isn't really interested in what the author or anyone connected to the author has to say, but rather in what independent secondary reliable sources have to say about the author.

Since there are reasonable concerns about Laredo's Wikipedia notability (at least at the moment), I've asked an experienced AfC reviewer named Robert McClenon to take a look at the article. Perhaps he will see things differently than me, but it might also be the case where it might be a good idea to WP:DRAFTIFY this article so that you can continue to work on improving it and then submit it to AfC for review when you think its ready. This might seem like a step backwards to you, but doing this might help you avoid having the article nominated for deletion, which can be a bit discouraging for a first time article creator. Drafts are still subject to all of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and they can still be edited by anyone at anytime, but most people will leave them be unless there are serious policy/guideline problems which need action asap. Drafts are seldom nominated/tagged for deletion as long as they keep being improved and aren't abandoned and they aren't so filled with impossible to fix problems that they simply will never be approved as an article.

While you're waiting for Robert to pop in (people sometimes get WP:BUSY so it may take some time), you might want to look at WP:YFA and WP:REFB for some general advice on writing article. You may also want to look at MOS:SECTIONCAPS, MOS:HEAD, WP:SURNAME, and WP:MAJORWORKS for some information on some formatting/MOS things you can cleanup. Finally, if there's any connection between you and the subject of the article, I strongly suggest that you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest because this is one way that new well-meaning editors can quickly find themselves having problems. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:New York, A Photographic Portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:New York, A Photographic Portrait.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 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Jyolleck! You created a thread called inserting a photo help - at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Victor Laredo 1980.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Victor Laredo 1980.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The license on the Flickr image you giving as the source of this photo is not licensed as {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}; it's licensed as "All rights reserved" which means it's not compatible with WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files. There are two options here as explained in c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?: (1) have the Flickr account owner change the licensing on the file to one that Wikipedia accepts or (2) have them send a consent email to Wikimedia OTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marchjuly, Thank you for the guidance. I have taken down the picture as I think I may not be able to get the permission from the p hotographer. If I do, I will add it and send the correct attributions/permissions. Jyolleck (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflcit of interest editing

Hello, Jyolleck. 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 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) 21:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above in my post in #Welcome!, editors (particularly new editors) who mean well but are so focused on creating one particular article do sometimes have a conflict of interest when it comes to the subject of the article. If this applies to you, you probably need to carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to make sure you're familiar with relevant policies and guidelines on this type of thing. Although COI editing is not expressly prohibited, it is highly discouraged for some very good reasons; moreover, if, by chance, your conflict of interest is "financial" or you are otherwise being "compensated" for your editing, you will need to comply with WP:PAID. Undeclared paid/compensated editing is something which is expressly prohibited by the Wikimedia Foundation and is considered a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. I'm not accusing you of anything wrong here; just trying to point out some things that you might not be aware of when it comes to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marchjuly, Thanks very much for your message. I am new at putting up a page and can only work on it on and off, so please excuse my delay in responding. I do not have COI with Victor Laredo or any people associated with him and am not being paid to put up the page. I have had a long interest in the photographer Victor Laredo (probably because my parents met in New York city in the 1940s-50s). I once heard a lecture on Victor Laredo given by Andre Laredo - his son and took notes at the time, but do not know him. I thought it would be a good wiki page and have done a lot of of research on the topic. I am beginning to understand the kinds of things that can and cannot be put up because of your notes, my reading on wiki and help from my library. I appreciate your help and will continue to try to do my best. I have no external relationship with the subject and my primary role is to further interest of the encyclopedia. Thank you. Jyolleck (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Carmen Herrera by-Victor Laredo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Carmen Herrera by-Victor Laredo.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 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder needs to agree to give their explicit consent to anyone, not just you for use on Wikipedia, to download this photo at any time and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. If they are willing to do that, they should send a WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia OTRS for verification purposes; verbal permission between you and the copyright holder is insufficient here. Any licenses which places any restrictions on commercial re-use or derivative use, like the ones listed here, are not going to be accepted by Wikipedia per c:Commons:LIcensing. So, if the copyright holder isn't willing to agree to start letting people download this file and then use it on T-shirts or coffee mugs, etc. they shouldn't upload it (or agree for it to be uploaded) to Wikipedia under a free license. Moreover, if they do agree to this, the license will be non-revocable even if they change their mind at a later date and people can continue to use the image under the terms of the free license pretty much forever. You should really make sure that the copyright holder fully understands these type of thing and agrees to it asap because people can start re-using this file asap. If you or the copyright holder don't agree to these things, you should tag the file with Template:db-g7 so that it's deleted from Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]