User talk:JSHibbard

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cnv0107.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cnv0107.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germ Out spamming

A tag has been placed on Germ Out, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Pascal.Tesson 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Hibbard, while I appreciate your concern, I do note that your sole contributions to Wikipedia have been related to the product that your company is attempting to market. This, I am sure you realize, can hardly be considered otherwise than spamming Wikipedia so as to give credibility to your product. I have no problem in seeing a section on rubs in the alcohol gel article, provided it remains neutral in tone and in spirit. There is no reason from an encyclopedic point of view to have separate articles for these two closely related products. Pascal.Tesson 16:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"new" Alcohol rub article

Hi - please take a look at the "new" Alcohol rub article. I tried to merge the information from the Alcohol gel and Alcohol rubs articles, but I kept some information our that lacked sources. Feel free to add back pertinent information, but please use in-line references, not just a list of sources at the end of the article. If you need help with the formatting of references, let me know. By the way, the text from the alcohol rubs article can be found here. Thanks in advance. — Zaui (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"new" Alcohol rub article

Hello - We reviewed the "new" Alcohol rub article. The new article is very good. We appreciate all the hard work you did to merge the two articles. With your encouragement, we added two new sentences and two new references to the article. We believe the new information and references will strengthen and improve the science of the article. When we added the references we followed your directions. Please review the new additions and contact us if we need to make any corrections. Thank you again for your help and cooperation. JSHibabrd (talk) 28:56, 27 April 2007

You're welcome, I'm glad to help. But I've found a contradiction - go to the article's talk page for details. — Zaui (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation in Hand hygiene

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Hand hygiene, by Onorem, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Hand hygiene is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Hand hygiene, 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Hand hygiene itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Hand hygiene

Message posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Hand hygiene. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/hand-hygiene-truths-myths-and-misinformation-10882.html in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Hand hygiene with a link to where we can find that note;
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Hand hygiene with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Hand hygiene saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Onorem Dil 12:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the original author, then there are directions above to follow. --Onorem Dil 19:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't undelete anything. I'm just a regular editor. Your justification of "I'm the author" wouldn't be good enough though. Again, from above:

If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Hand hygiene with a link to the details.

That's what you need to do to have the copyright text appear. It's not anyone here's job to verify who was the author of what and where it came from.
Your most recent edit to my talk page, which says you are the author and that the information is posted on your own website, does make me think that it would not qualify as a reliable source if that's the case. --Onorem Dil 14:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking. Look at the references for the Hand Hygiene article. They are very reliable and solid references. They are not my references or my opinion. All of the statements in the article are taken directly from those references. I believe the deletion of the Hand Hygiene article was arbitrary and capricious. I have a Ph.D. in microbiology and over 10 years experience with antiseptics which includes hand sanitizers and hygiene. I have authored and co-authored over eight publications in peer reviewed journals on topical antiseptics. It is very frustrating to write a scientifically sound article with solid references and have it deleted from Wikipedia. Scientific journals are peer reviewed. Perhaps Wikipedia should consider using the same review process before articles are deleted. What person or persons do I contact to discuss the deletion of the Hand Hygiene article? Thank you for your consideration. --JSHibbard 00:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, your credentials don't earn you any extra rights here. Second, the deletion was per copyright policy, and was not "arbitrary or capricious." Third, why would it be frustrating? You wrote a scientifically sound article for your website and then copy/pasted it to Wikipedia. In any case, I've already posted 3 times in this section what steps you need to take if you want to have copyright material in an article on Wikipedia. If you are going to continue to ignore that, please do not post on my talk page anymore. I'm sorry you didn't like my answer. My answer won't change. If you're looking for another answer, ask someone else. --Onorem Dil 04:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onorem, according to Wikipedia guidelines, credentials do earn rights. Wikipedia guidlines state that "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." I also was not ingnoring your information on releasing copyright material. I simply did not understand those instructions. I have attempted to follow the directions by posting a note on the Hand Hygiene web pages and on the Hand Hygiene Talk Page. Please tell me if I have followed the directions correctly. Thank you for your help and consideration.--JSHibbard 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that this is a grey area for me and I'm not sure if that works or not. As far as I am concerned, what you have done should be enough, but there is still a copyright notice on the bottom of the page and I honestly don't know whether or not that is an issue. I would hope it's alright, but the place to make sure would be on the help desk. If you would like me to bring the question there for you, I'd be more than happy to.

I would also like to suggest that you format the article differently, and use your page as a source instead of copying the text. The question and answer format doesn't really feel like an encyclopedia article. Just presenting the facts from your pages would be better than reposting the article in the same format. That's just my opinion. And now, after spending 20 minutes writing this reply, I realize that this would have taken care of the issue from the beginning. Using your page as a source wouldn't have been a copyright issue as long as you didn't cut and paste the material...

I also want to apologize for what must seem like a bunch of red tape to you. I hope you can understand that anyone can copy and paste from a website while claiming that they hold the copyright. Without having the GFDL comment, or an email confirmation, there's no way of being sure that the person is who they say they are. Someone with bad intentions could have registered your name with the goal of behaving for a month or two, and then purposely vandalizing articles in an attempt to make a bad name for you. I hope you can understand and accept that as the reason why your article was deleted in the first place.

If you have any other comments or questions, or would like me to ask about the GFDL notice appearing along with a copyright notice, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I don't know how everything works around here, but I don't mind asking around if you have a question that I don't have the answer to. --Onorem Dil 02:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purell

John, while I appreciate your dedication to your product, Germ Out, we cannot allow you to ignore two of the three main tenets of wikipedia: Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. Many products have their product images and logos in their articles. An encyclopedia is meant to be informative. Images can be far more informative than text. The Purell article is written in a Neutral Point of View with verifiable data. You are too close to Germ Out to have even a marginally neutral point of view of either product. ForestJay 21:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ForestJay, if you were truely neutral you would recognize that parts of the Purell article are blatant advertising and not informative. If a person wants specific information about Purell, they can go to their website or hundreds of others for specific information or pictures of the product. Information is information and advertising is advertising. Please look at the rewrite I did for the Purell article and consider modifying the Purell article to strictly information not advertising.--JSHibbard 14:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All references to the several multinational companies, the web site, and the picture of Purell should be removed. Otherwise it is blatant advertising." In your proposed re-write you are saying a the link to their page should be removed. How will a researcher find their website if it's not in the article? The mention of pfizer is important because it relates to the products history, which is well documented by the associated press. ForestJay 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I do a search on google news I find 32 articles on Purell. Find 10 articles about Germ Out on google news and I'll agree with you. ForestJay 02:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ForestJay, I just completed a search on Google News and found no articles on Purell.--JSHibbard 21:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you two are still interested, there are approximately 1,600 articles on Google News about Purell. [1] Ante lan ^talk 20:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hand Hygiene

Please restore the Hand Hygiene article to Wikipedia. If you look at http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/hand-hygiene-truths-myths-and-misinformation-10882.html you will notice that JSHibbard is the author. That is me. The article was written by me (JSHIbbard) as part of the information about Hand Hygiene on my web site www.germout.com. This is a very well documented, very neutral, and very informative article on Hand Hygiene. I am extremely disappointed it was deleted without looking at the author on the web site. Please restore the article. Thank you. --JSHibbard 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hand Hygiene Reply

Thanks for mentioning your concern. I didn't discuss the tag placement because I felt that the tags were self-descriptive. The WP:MOS may be of help in updating the wording to be more encyclopedic. However, there has been a suggestion on the WP:Medicine talk page that this article be redirected to "hand washing". Since you are clearly an expert in the field, we really need your contributions, and I encourage you to get involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Ante lan ^talk 20:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on Hand Hygiene

I'm not debating the facts of the article, merely that it's not written according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Listing assumptions to be proven or debunked isn't how articles are supposed to be organized. Please see WP:MOS. Scott5834 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reorganizing the article as quickly as possible. This information needs to be disclosed to the general public as soon as possible I am hoping I will have help from one of your Medical Wikipedia editors (Axl) Thank you for your patience and understanding.--JSHibbard 16:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Removed Picture of Alcohol Gel

I have replied at my talk page although a reply there is not necessary. A reply at the actual talk page would be more efficient so that everyone can participate in this discussion.

Seraphim ^Whipp 21:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Picture Again

The logo is not the problem. You do not need a logo to recognize your bottle of alcohol gel. That is advertising. The article is a generic description of ALL alcohol rubs not one alcohol gel product. Please do not add the image back to this article or we will need to resolve the problem in arbitration. Thank you.--JSHibbard 01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol rub deletion

Please do not delete content from the article without explanation, as you did here. Please discuss such deletions on the talk page, and use an edit summary. Dforest (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License for "Foam Alcohol Rub.jpg"

Please ensure that the license for the image "Foam Alcohol Rub.jpg" is provided correctly. --AB (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Cnv0107.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi JSHibbard!
We thank you for uploading Image:Cnv0107.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New wikipediapage

A tag has been placed on New wikipediapage, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of New wikipediapage and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — ERcheck (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you likely meant to create the page Germ Out, rather than a page entitled New wikipediapage. — ERcheck (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest concern on Germ Out

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Germ Out, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request on Germ Out article

In that case that the creator of an article is the only substantial contributor, the creator can request a speedy deletion (this falls under this criterion):

"Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a pagemove, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the page prior to the move.) If the author blanks the page (outside user space), this can be taken as a deletion request.

If you edit the Germ Out article, do the following:

Add {{db-author}} to the top of the article; in addition, you can blank out the content of the article.
In the edit summary, add "Article creator and only substantial contributor requesting speedy deletion." You can also add additional comment in the edit summary on your reason for the request. The deletion request will be reviewed and acted on by an administrator.

Note that if an article has had substantive edits by another editor since its creation, a speedy deletion would not be the route to take. It would have to go through an "AFD" or "prod" process. — ERcheck (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to your question on the Germ Out talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request [2], as you were the only substantial contributor, I've acted on your good faith request. The article has been deleted.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. — ERcheck (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello salesman, my name is carley. u did a good job here. I want to order 100 sansitizer. thank you and have a happy sales.

Non-free rationale for File:Liquid Alcohol Rub.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Liquid Alcohol Rub.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 08:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]