User talk:Lizdavenport777

Welcome

Hello, Lizdavenport777, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Davenport

Hello, for the Liz Davenport article, I highly recommend you remove the quotes as they are not relevant. I'd also chop down some information as you seem to have a little too much. For example, mentioning the age where Liz found her passion is not needed at all. Wiki articles are not supposed to be e-books, but rather precise encylopedic content. I'm making these suggestions to prevent your article from being in any danger since you did put in a lot of work. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Grim, points taken mate. I'm finishing work now but I'll be working on it in the morning and tomorrow. I'll slim it right back mate and cut ou1 all of the pointless quotes etc. I see what you mean, it's good having the feedback. It is a bit flowery. Thanks Mate if it's ok please give me another 24hrs and check it again. :) Lizdavenport777 (talk)

No problem, I'll help out in a few hours as I'm goin to bed right now. I'll re-word some stuff and whatnot later. PS. don't forget to sign ur posts with four of ~ KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Liz Davenport

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Liz Davenport, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.lizdavenport.com.au/UserFiles/Media/Life%20Story.pdf. As a copyright violation, Liz Davenport appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Liz Davenport has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Liz Davenport and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Liz Davenport with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Liz Davenport.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. 99.156.70.163 (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted per WP:CSD#G11 as spam. – Athaenara ✉ 07:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has all been edited as reqested. Lizdavenport777 (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Hello Lizdavenport777. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest, or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. 99.156.70.163 (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks this has all been edited and rewriten as requested Lizdavenport777 (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was requested - and you do not have to read far between the lines here, since the words say "Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating" - is that you stop using wikipedia for shameless self publicity, and that you stop editing an article about yourself. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Tagishsimon but I'm not Liz Davenport, I work with her she's not really a wikipedia person. Neither am I for that matter. If you look at all of the major Fashion Designers on wikipedia Carla Zampatti Georgio Armani Etc they all have profile pages. I'm adding more references at the moment however I'm not totally clear why you are not entirely happy with the page "shameless self publicity" is not the case. Liz has been a prominant designer for over 35 years in Australia and has been recognised for here achievements with an OAM. I'll add even more refrences to back up this fact. Hopefully I'll get this right mate. Any constructive feedback would be appreciated. Lizdavenport777 (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My constructive feedback would be that you read and act on the advice already proffered. What part of "Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization" are you failing to understand? Having deleted yesterday's hagiography, here is Liz Davenport, or an employee of Liz Davenport, recreating the article. It really is that simple: you have a conflict of interest which is best disposed of by not editing the article. Yesterday's article shrieked "we don't care about wikipedia policies and guidelines, we simply see an opportunity to promote Davenport". Today's shrieks "we still don't care about wikipedia, even after its policies have been pointed out to us. We simply care that we get more publicity for our principal." That is a disgusting and deplorable attitude, made all the more ironic by claims to her being a finalist in a good citizen competition. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have acted mate and there is no conflict of interest if the new page is factual and fully referenced. Liz has served the community here in Australia and been recognised at the highest level. I'm sorry to ask this but what country are you in because in Australia she is a household name. The reason why I was asked to add this page is because there wasn't one on the site. It was red text on other pages mentioning her. Do you think I should cut down the honors. What would make you happy, I do respect your opinion but she deserves a page on Wikipedia and other editors have agreed and been helping me. I mean she's currently working with so many people on so many different charities and has done for 35 years. I mean she has an OAM which is like getting knighted. Come on give a brother a break. Tell me how to make the page so you're completely 100% cool.Lizdavenport777 (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would make me cool is if a corporate shill were not editing the article. I think I've made that pretty clear. I'm sorry that you "I work with her" cannot see that you have a conflict of interest. Whether she's notable is not the point. The point is that you have a conflict of interest. How does that translate into a practical problem? You think, for instance, that an award of a Medal of the Order of Australia is equivalent to a knighthood. It's not. It is the lowest division of the award, similar to an OBE, and between you and me, that's insufficient to justify notability. Other claims are as weak. The "ambassador for Australian wool" seems, upon examining the reference, to be that she is one of about 30 people or companies supporting a wool board marketing initiative. Or "Philanthropist". That's a nice thing to be called. (We call it a peacock term.) The claim is completely unsupported by the three references adduced by you. So, really, your claim to have no conflict of interest is by your own admission completely bogus. And in even a short article, you have failed to avoid puffing up your principal - exactly the reason we say that people who have close connections with the principal should not create or edit articles on the person. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look around at the other fashion designers on wikipedia and the references provided, the profile looks pretty standard, other designers have little or no references or accolades and links directly to thier website. She's earn't her stripes mate. The last thing I need is to piss you off. I'm sorry if I've upset you in anyway. I respect what you're saying and what you've said above are valid points and you are more correct than me about the OAM stuff, I have to admit I know less than you about this. Basically Liz Deserves to be on Wikipedia and her 30,000 loyal fashion followers would agree, it has to be done. Lizdavenport777 (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said in one of your edit comment "I'm adding a photo now". If you have a photo that can be released under a GFDL or Creative Commons license (i.e. you own the copyright and/or are authorised to grant a license to use the image) then - should you need - I'd be happy to assist in getting it added. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]