User talk:Patricklavista

Replaceable fair use File:Patrick Thomas London May 2011.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Patrick Thomas London May 2011.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Patrick Thomas.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Patrick Thomas.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 10:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Artist v Graphic Designer

I think a 'Graphic Artist' or 'Graphic Art' category is missing from Wikipedia. Currently I Patrick Thomas (graphic artist) am listed as a Graphic Artist which then links to Graphic Designer category. I regard the two disciplines as being quite different and as the vast majority of my work I make is not commissioned consider this a misinformation. I think that there are enough "Graphic Artists' listed on Wikipedia to warrant starting a category in its own right. Thank you.

October 2013

Hello, Patricklavista. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Patrick Thomas (graphic artist), 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 ensuring their edits are verified by 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see that you make quite clear above that you are Patrick Thomas. Welcome to Wikipedia! However, in general, editors here are strongly advised not to edit articles about themselves; clicking some of the links in the template above will explain why not. You are of course welcome at any time to suggest additions or improvements to Patrick Thomas (graphic artist) on the talkpage of that article. Other editors will probably make those changes if they seem reasonable and are supported by reliable sources. I've also put a template on the talkpage to attract the attention of editors (by clicking where it says "click here"!). Just out of curiosity, could you clear something up for me: did you go to Saint Martin's or to CSM, or were you there at the time of the merger? (you first put Saint Martin's in the article, then changed it, I wondered why). Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you / CSM issue etc

Dear Justlettersandnumbers

Thank you for taking the time to write with your observations and advice. I have made a note of everything. As you will have seen, the edits I made yesterday were minor, (impartial/neutral point of view) i.e. purely factual. I apologise if I have inadvertently broken any Wikipedia rules. My most significant edit was the addition of the news that I have just been made a Professor at Stuttgart Academy (starting 14 10 2013), again purely factual. I tried to link to the https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatliche_Akademie_der_Bildenden_Künste_Stuttgart entry but was unable to. I assume that this is because it is not possible to cross reference between languages, ie English and German in this case. (For the record, my details will be posted on the Academy website during October).

Regarding the CSM / Saint Martins issue, well spotted! I studied there (1984-1987) during the merger of Central School of Art and Saint Martins. I was in the first year that worked between the Saint Martins building on Long Acre, Covent Garden and Central School of Art building on Southampton Row, Holborn, London. I was taught by staff from both colleges. However I have just checked the CSM Wikipedia entry and it states that the colleges were officially merged and CSM was constituted in 1989, two years after I left! I will seek to verify this with them in due course as I graduated with a CSM degree in 1987 not a Saint Martins degree, so something is amiss somewhere. In the meantime may I ask you or another editor to revert my entry back to Saint Martins?

Many thanks again for your time and for clarifying Wikipedia etiquette. Best regards,

Patricklavista (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]