User talk:Dcstagg

May 2014

Hello, Dcstagg. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest.

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.
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. This is in relation to any articles related to HM (magazine) and the reviews provided by it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Walter. I have every intention of remaining neutral. We are merely making sure when our magazine is quoted, it accurately reflects what was printed. In addition, we are making sure our reviews are also accurately reflected on their respective album pages. Dcstagg (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Well, I am glad to see that you have come to help make Wikipedia a better place. I am a Christian music editor on here, but we have some others such as 3family6 and Toa_Nidhiki05, which don't forget about Mr. Walter Gorlitz. I am the one that has been utilizing your publication on here in terms of reviews. I do have somewhat of a gripe with HM Magazine because sometimes your Issues ratings do not match the html article rating, such as just recently Passion: Take It All, which in the May 2013 issue you have rated it as but in the html version it is .HotHat (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gripe accepted! That is my fault as they go to print at different times, or the authors of the reviews are different. That shouldn't happen from here on out, though. Dcstagg (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to add that your publication is an invaluable asset to the Christian music arena. But I am miffed at Christianity Today because they just upped sticks, and quit doing music reviews.HotHat (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We believe so. I have no intention of being bias; I am merely contributing to the fabric of our society as we know it. I think it is important. Dcstagg (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can get to my template by going and clicking here.HotHat (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is fantastic! Thank you! Dcstagg (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I want to know which rating that I should trust? The one in the issue or the one in each individual web page (HTML)?HotHat (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check for the print issue rating first. If it is not in the print issue, use the online rating. Dcstagg (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Wrongdoers (album), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Please stop branding your links Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I'm not aware what branded links are. Can you clarify? We'll make sure to comply!

Orphaned non-free image File:St-thomas.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:St-thomas.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]