User talk:Bernie44

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Replaceable fair use File:Olivia Somerlyn Parachute 2014.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Olivia Somerlyn Parachute 2014.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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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. Peripitus (Talk) 23:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for failure to disclose in a manner prescribed in the Wikimedia Terms of Use information regarding your paid editing. Specifically, there is no declaration at the Seph Lawless talk page, an article you created, or at any of the other places designated by the Terms of Use for such declarations.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  SpinningSpark 00:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bernie44 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I acknowledge and understand the reason for the block. My aim is to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, within its guidelines, and I apologize for failing to comply with the updated Terms of Use. If I am unblocked, I will comply with the Terms of Use for paid editing by adding a statement on my user page, and/or on the talk page or in the edit summary of any page I am paid to create or edit.

Accept reason:

Accepted SpinningSpark 09:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Disambiguation link notification for March 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited STX Entertainment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom McGrath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shmuly Yanklowitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Journal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Disclosures[edit]

Disclosing a COI isn't a carte blanche. Until someone has had time to verify that the content is suitable and verifiable, the {{coi}} tag should remain. As the person with a COI, you really, really, shouldn't be removing it. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. I appreciate the explanation here. I realize you are the editor who nominated him for deletion last August. I really feel that my entry is neutral and proves his notability, and I have to say I think the tags are unfair. Hopefully someone will come along and properly verify the entry's contents.--Bernie44 (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, this is the only new source to directly address the subject in which case notability is still not certain per WP:42 and I think another AFD is probably necessary. I also think that while the content is reasonably neutral, there is a great deal of superfluous detail that is unrelated to the subject e.g. the current ref 11 which barely even mentions him. Similarly, why include the "In August 2014, Lee flew to Kansas City ..." This is the kind of thing that makes the coi tag necessary. I'd prefer to be certain of notability prior to trying to clean it up though. SmartSE (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't see what was in the versions that were deleted, so I'm not sure what was in there or the tone of those entries, etc. But since it was deleted in August, there has been some significant new press - along with the Variety article you point out, there was also this piece in The New Yorker and this from the Kansas City Star, among others. Those articles may not be profiles on Swade, but it seems to me there has been regular coverage of Swade's activities since 2012. And as for what you say is superfluous detail, I was attempting to describe what the documentaries are about. I know I'm probably not going to change your opinion, but I have to disagree with such tight scrutiny on an entry about a filmmaker who has made a feature and several shorts that have gained decent coverage, and is now heading the video arm of Rolling Stone. --Bernie44 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Transparency as a COI editor[edit]

Hi! Disclosing your COI isn't the only think you need to do as a COI editor. Among other several things, you need to be transparent to other editors. You could start by answering some simple questions at Talk:Perforce Software#Paid editing disclosure that I pinged at you some time ago.

You need to understand that while you reap the profits for writing the articles, you also induce a cost to the volunteer community of Wikipedia, to review, maintain and potentially fix up your work. Thus volunteers will expect you to be forthcoming and go the extra mile. -- intgr [talk] 09:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi intgr [talk]. First off, I'm sorry, I somehow missed responding to your previous questions. I'm responding to them here so there's not a back and forth in multiple places. A few years ago I received some press for writing Wikipedia articles, so people generally find me that way. I have an interest in technology and tech companies, which is why I enjoy working on those types of entries. As for my writing background, I'd sum it up as a serious hobby I guess. I mostly work on films. Overall I feel like I am being transparent to other editors, by disclosing when I'm paid to work on an entry. In general I try to create and revise entries, paid or not, that don't need "fixing up". I understand that other users will at times feel otherwise. I feel like the tag you put atop the Perforce Software page is unnecessary, since I disclosed my COI and you already revised the entry as you see fit. But I hear what you're saying about going the extra mile, and I'll make a stronger effort to do that from here on out. --Bernie44 (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)