User talk:Mlavric
|
An extended welcome
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.
Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.
Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.
I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
August 2020
[edit]
Hello Mlavric. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Vijay Govindarajan, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Mlavric. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Mlavric|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Whpq (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Good morning - I do not receive, nor do I expect to receive, compensation for my edits. I work for the same higher education institution as Professor Govindarajan but do not report to him nor do I work for him directly. I'm happy to provide more detailed information should it be required. 73.17.212.196 (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for any confusion resulting from the above message - I was not logged in because I opened the email in the wrong window. Mlavric (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Whether you "report" to him or work for him directly is irrelevant, if you work for the same institution. Also, although Whpq has chosen to give you a message saying "if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed", that form of words may not make it clear that if your editing is part of your paid work, then that is included, whether or not you receive a specific payment for your editing of Wikipedia, separate from your other pay. JBW (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok - I have added the tag to my user page per your request above. What else do you need me to do in order to reinstate the photo I uploaded this morning? This photo is owned by the Tuck School of Business and Professor Govindarajan has permission to use it. Mlavric (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- The image needs to be provided under a free license with permission and licensing confirmed through WP:OTRS. You should be following the process you used when you uploaded File:Vijay Govindarajan.jpg, the image currently in use. See also WP:DONATEIMAGE. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Professor Vijay Govindarajan, 2013.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Professor Vijay Govindarajan, 2013.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the file description page and add the text
{{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing<your reason>with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. - On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
