User talk:Mark RBraff

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Cannella.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! avs5221^{(talk|contrib)} 20:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Cannella.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 17:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frank Cannella.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Barry Frey Photo.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Barry Frey Photo.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. Eeekster (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was commissioned by DPAA and I work for DPAA and am authorized by them to edit the DPAA Wikipedia page. Mark RBraff (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to userspace

I've moved the article to your userspace at User:Mark RBraff/Digital Place-based Advertising Association.

That said, I have to ask... are you a paid editor for the company or a company employee for DPAA? If so, you really need to disclose that somewhere, such as on your user page. You don't have to go into detail, just say that you have a conflict of interest with the company. The reason I mention that is because if you don't disclose it, someone can assume that you are here only to promote the company. I'll be honest: you'll get a lot of guff over it, but nowhere near as much as you'd get if you didn't disclose it and someone caught on. The reason I ask is because a lot of your pages are highly promotional in tone and read as if you're someone who works predominantly or solely in public relations. It's pretty common for a PR person to get paid to create Wikipedia articles that read like personal web pages or press releases. It's very, very discouraged for people to edit with a COI for this very reason, not because you're getting paid (although some people dislike the idea of paid editing) but because so many people come on here with absolutely zero idea of how Wikipedia works and their only goal is to make the client happy by posting Wikipedia articles. I'm not saying that you're doing this, but you need to understand the common conception of paid editors: a lot of people assume that they're only here to promote, that they have no desire to learn Wikipedia guidelines, and that some of them have no scruples- meaning that they'll take money from people and promise to keep spamming Wikipedia with copies of the article until they're officially banned and the person's article is salted to prevent recreation. We've had some pretty awful paid editors come on here and essentially ruin it for everyone. Yet at the same time we've had some pretty ethical paid editors come on here as well. I'm almost completely certain that you're the same Braff who shows up as a public relations company and if you are, I'd like to humbly request that you disclose this up front. I'd also like to request that you not promise your clients Wikipedia pages. Don't do that. The problem is that you can't guarantee that they pass notability guidelines and in most cases the people who have to pay to get things created don't pass notability guidelines. Some of them are fairly unaware of this and get upset with you (the PR company) because you're promising things that you didn't deliver on. On one hand you are unaware of notability guidelines and you're not aware that they wouldn't pass, but on the other hand you owe it to your clients to get versed on notability and neutrality. Think of it this way: you would think it reckless for someone with zero experience or knowledge about the PR business to start taking customers and promise them everything. They wouldn't know how to phrase things properly, they wouldn't know who to talk to about setting up interviews or the like- things like that. It's irresponsible of them to start working a PR company without knowing a firm knowledge of the PR world. This applies to creating Wikipedia articles as well.

I've left more about sourcing and other stuff on my talk page, but I wanted to drop one more note about COI and notability. One of the biggest problems we've come across with COI editors is that you're personally involved with the subject at hand. You want your client to do well and be seen well, not only for your company to get a better reputation, but also because you care about their company to a reasonable extent. You wouldn't be a PR person if you didn't care about the customer to some extent. (Forgive me if you aren't a PR person.) However this COI also makes you possibly see notability where there is none. Being the only version of something or popular doesn't mean that the person passes WP:GNG. We've had a lot of subject matters that come awfully close, but still ultimately fail notability guidelines. However in many cases the people who have a COI tend to see more notability than there is because they want the article to pass so badly. Of course with paid editing there's also the belief that someone might have to refund some money to someone, but that might not always be the case. On a side note, you might want to be aware that paid editing can sometimes backfire on a company. If someone believes there's a COI, the article gets marked as such and sometimes the comments on the talk page can get sort of heated. Many times it becomes pretty aware that the integrity of the article is compromised pretty hard, which means that the first thing people will notice is that the article looks to be a press release masquerading as an article... which means that people won't take the article seriously because they assume it's essentially a press release. There are some articles out there about this, which is why Wikipedia has become to get less respected as a source in general. People don't see an article as a badge of honor as much anymore because it's so common to see paid editors creating pages. Sorry if this sounds harsh or anti-paid editor, but I really want you to understand how paid editing is seen here and why it's so desperately important for you to learn guidelines here to the letter- especially if you're a paid editor. There's a sharp learning curve here. Now on another side note, if you're debating about not coming forward with any COI then I want to say that this doesn't guarantee safety. Nor would it even if you weren't a paid editor. People who have zero association with a subject have gotten blocked as spam editors because they kept editing in ways that didn't follow guidelines and eventually were blocked as disruptive. Again, emphasizing this because you need to learn the guidelines. You can talk to other editors, but if they're not telling you essentially what I am, then odds are that they could stand to go through the notability guidelines themselves. I'm pretty active in the AfD circuit, so I can vouch that the current article and sourcing isn't enough. It wouldn't survive AfD.

Now one editor I can absolutely recommend for help is User:Chiswick Chap. He's pretty well versed in most areas of Wikipedia and I trust his judgement. He's used to dealing with new editors in general and he's good with digging for sources. User:DGG is the one who nominated the page for deletion and while he's strict, he is also good for finding sources and fixing issues as long as you're willing to put in the work. Both of them are very trustworthy and won't steer you wrong. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add there's a somewhat greater tolerance for G11 in user space than as an article, because there needs to be a chance that it might be improved, but the tolerance is not unlimited: anyone who thinks it's hopeless could list it even now. And it cannot stay in user space indefinitely. After 6 months, we usually list it for a deletion process.

As some suggestions, to avoid an article looking like advertising, avoid using jargon of the sort that advertising uses, make sure there are no adjectives of praise--in fact, as few adjectives as possible, make no claims that cannot be backed up by completely reliable totally independent sources not based of PR, be very conservative about making links from other articles, and include only what the general public might want to know, not what the subject might desire to say. I have consistently supported the right to do paid editing, if it is done right. In my experience, it rarely is. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Frank Cannella for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frank Cannella 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/Frank Cannella 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. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Barry Frey Photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Barry Frey Photo.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. January (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer, Ben Asen, sent me an email yesterday confirming my authorized use of the photo. I, in turn, forwarded the email to the permission email address that was provided above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.160.229 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Barry Frey- Head Shot 2016.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Barry Frey- Head Shot 2016.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]