User talk:Studio707

Image copyright problem with Image:Hdw1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hdw1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. 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 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 OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Meteor Vineyard

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Meteor Vineyard, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Meteor Vineyard is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Meteor Vineyard, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dawnine Dyer-photoJohnMcJunkin.jpg

Hello. Could you please clarify the licensing situation on Image:Dawnine Dyer-photoJohnMcJunkin.jpg? Wikipedia can not accept non-commericial-only or wikipedia-only licensed images, because it intends all content to be available to anyone, even for resale by others for profit. If you really mean GFDL-self licensing, then please clarify. If you really mean wikipedia-only, the GFDL-self licensing tag isn't right, and the image will be deleted in a few days. Drop me a note on my talk page if you have a question. Gimmetrow 05:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Studio707 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

66.166.16.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is a blatant violation of our username policy - it is obviously profane, attacks or impersonates another person, or clearly suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and trolling or other disruptive behavior will not be tolerated.

COI account of a public relations firm

Blocking administrator: Orangemike (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: This account has the name of a company whose website describes it as a public relations firm (f/k/a Hunter Public Relations). The articles created by this account have been blatantly linked to clients of this firm. The account name is a violation of our rules on company accounts. There is strong evidence of conflict of interest on this account's every edit. There is no evidence of any supposed "independent journalist" involved in this process; the edits are coming from this company account. — Orange Mike

I am hoping to have a dialogue with you.

You block entries from public relations agencies. I appreciate this for all the obvious reasons. However, we do not actually function as a p.r. firm. Also, an independent journalist wrote the purely informational pieces without direction or editing from us.

Please respond and let me know your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studio707 (talk • contribs)

Dear Orange Mike, I was wondering if you had the chance to communicate with Holly. Like I said earlier, she has been unbiastly writing these encyclopedia accounts. I have been simply adding them to Wikipedia because I am rather computer savvy. I look forward to your response.

Do you need help with anything? Gimmetrow 00:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gimmetrow. Yes I need help! Our independant writer is trying to make changes so that the we will not be flagged. I cannot make any changes. I have been blocked because of a conflict of interest. However, we hired someone to write these pieces so they were unbiased. Any suggestions on how to reactivate my account? The writer was hired to obviously write and I was hired to add these notable places and people to Wikipedia. Adding these accounts is not easy for all, I have a relative understanding of html etc.. I completely understand the issues with biased articles however we are not biased. I just want to add the correct information and be a part of Wikipedia. Also, I have wonderful photos to add to these entries that were taken and licensed to us from a photographer. Wikipedia will not allow these photos to be posted. Please help! Thank-you.

Let's start with the photos. When you uploaded them originally, you chose either the "wikipedia-only" or "non-commercial-only" licensing, which are pretty much incompatible with en.wikipedia. You also added the "GFDL" tag though. Do you understand that releases the images for anyone to use or modify, including in commercial (for profit) contexts? If that's what you want, we can probably get the images restored with that licensing.

As a stylistic issue, your writer produced text which is a little too promotional. This can be cleaned up, but if there is more in the future, it should sound more detached. You don't really need to know any html for a wiki article; you don't need br elements. And you did a nice job with the ref tags for a starting editor! Gimmetrow 00:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gimmetrow! Does this mean you are lifting the lockout! Can I edit or even interract once again with Wikipedia?! In regards to the photos whatever needs to be done so that I can use the imagery. The photographer, John McJunkin, took the photos for us to use as we choose. So, users can use them also. When I uploaded them I don't recall what I chose. So, next time, if there is a next time!, what should I choose? Lastly, we would like to update Barry Schuler's entry. There are numerous issues with his current page. Will there be an issue if I change this as well? How can you change a table? If I gave you the text, could you adapt his bio? Again, thank-you for your help. P.S. I even figured out the category thing! I actually really enjoyed working on Wikipedia! It is quite sad that I was banned.

There's a problem with this username being identifiable as a company name, so no, I don't think I can unblock right now, but I'll ask over at the admin noticeboard if you want. As far as I can tell, you are "blocked", not "banned". Since the problem is mainly with the username, you could get this account renamed.

As for the photos, note that text on wikipedia is licensed under GFDL. Photos can be GFDL too, or licensed as public domain, or under one of the creative commons licenses. I generally suggest CC-BY-SA to require attribution and similar licensing for derivative works. You do understand that this sort of licensing allows people to modify and use an image for criticism or parody, and you can't stop them so long as they attribute you for the image origin? Gimmetrow 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to rename and create another account but it said my IP was blocked. Any suggestions? I would love if you would not mind to post on the admin board if you think this will change the situration at hand. Our writer, Holly Hubbard Preston, said you can also look up her credentials at IHT.com. Lastly, I think that your suggestion for CC-BY-SA sounds best. I definatley do not want any individual to modify the photos but they can use them if they would like to do so. I will try and change that if I can get back onto Wiki. Thanks again for your help. Studio707, 8 December 2007

Photo rules here has a bit of a learning curve. You cannot disallow "derivative works" and be compatible with Wiki. People must be able to edit and modify photos just like they do text. Wiki, of course, doesn't allow personal attacks, but if you license any image under a "free" license (like PD, GFDL or CC-BY-SA), you let go of many of your rights. It's acceptable for someone to use that image for parody. If you want to disallow that, you have to retain certain rights, which generally means Wiki would have to use the image under its version of "fair use", which is quite restrictive. Gimmetrow 01:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rehabilitating articles

I'm hoping we can cleanse (if you call it that) the articles here of any advertising / conflict concerns. That would conceivably mean nominating some for deletion or removing content, but it may also mean in other courses reviewing the sources or adding others, and agreeing that a business is notable or a claim fair to make. There has to be a light at the end of the tunnel - the article either gets deleted, fixed, or approved, without a conflict tag remaining on it forever.

To that end, it would help greatly if I could get a list of articles on which a conflict has been noted, and a statement from this editor on which of those, if any, they actually ad (or did not have) a connection with - as client, colleague, competitor of a client, etc. You seem to say above that you are simply doing independent journalism and not working for any of these companies. Is that so? You have no professional / financial interest in what the articles say? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the language above: "we hired someone to write these pieces"! This "independent journalist" was functioning as an employee or contractor of Studio 707. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status here? Gimmetrow 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Meteor Vineyard

A tag has been placed on Meteor Vineyard requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Merzbow (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:QW1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:QW1.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.

And also:

File:DawnineDyer-photobyJohnMcJunkin.jpg

✗plicit 02:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]