User talk:Jdhoyes

Image copyright problem with Image:OliverShield.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:OliverShield.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Debt consolidation. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Gwernol 15:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission problem with Image:OliverChilledPlow.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:OliverChilledPlow.jpg. I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL 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 did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image 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 in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Royal broil 18:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First there is no verification of the license. Even if there was, I see no reason that this image is Public Domain because there's no one left at the company to license it. Other websites cannot release someone else's logo into public domain. Same with the following image.Royal broil 18:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission problem with Image:OliverTractorShield.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:OliverTractorShield.JPG. I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL 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 did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image 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 in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Royal broil 18:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bankruptcy alternatives

The article Bankruptcy alternatives has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is closer to a how to essay then an article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ridernyc (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oliver60RowCrop1944.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oliver60RowCrop1944.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Doug Hoyes (August 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SportingFlyer were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No inline references to support notability. Article is also written very promotionally and may not have a neutral point of view.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Doug Hoyes and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Doug Hoyes, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SportingFlyer talk 04:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jdhoyes! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SportingFlyer talk 04:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Doug Hoyes

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Doug Hoyes, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but it appears you have written or added to an article about yourself, at Draft:Doug Hoyes. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

– Athaenara ✉ 09:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I would like to appeal the block on my account because I believe it is no longer necessary. My account was blocked due to spam or advertising. Looking at my contribution history, I understand why the administrator would think I am on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of promotion. My most recent contribution was an autobiography that was ultimately deleted. I honestly did not know that I should not create an autobiography on this website. I had even indicated that I am the author of the page in an effort to promote transparency. I had also included detailed references to back my claims on the page. In any case, I have no intention of re-posting another autobiography or any content that will be deemed as spam for that matter. I read the article on Spam and will make every effort going forward to abide by its rules. I am more than happy to receive additional feedback on this matter. Thank you very much in advance.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

unblock discussion

Inclined to unblock. What constructive contributions would you make?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question; do you explicitly agree to not add links to websites that you own or are affiliated with? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: @Ohnoitsjamie: Hi there, thank you to both of you for your time and questions. I'll answer them in order - 1. I am a Canadian bankruptcy expert, a Licensed Insolvency Trustee in the Province of Ontario. The only contributions that I would ever make would relate to Canadian bankruptcy, consumer proposal, and debt relief options, in which I have over 20 years of professional experience. In my effort to prevent spam contributions, I will ensure that any edits I suggest have been reviewed (and agreed upon) in the talk section of a particular page by other editors. My goal here is to provide facts, not self-promote, so I will be delighted to have additional thoughts on the appropriateness of my suggested edits. 2. I understand this is considered spamming, so no, I will not add links to websites I own or am affiliated with. Thanks again. Jdhoyes (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I would like to appeal the block on my account again. As I stated in my first appeal, I have absolutely no intention of posting any content that will be deemed spam. I have thoroughly read the article on Spam and will make every effort going forward to abide by its rules. My main purpose on Wikipedia is to make contributions related to Canadian bankruptcy, consumer proposal, and debt relief options. I am a Canadian Licensed Insolvency Trustee, based in Ontario, with over 20 years of professional experience. Any contributions I want to make to Canadian bankruptcy related content will first go through the talk section of a particular page for review and approval. I also explicitly agree to not add links to websites that I own or am affiliated with. If you have any further questions, please feel free to share and I will answer them. Thank you very much in advance for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhoyes (talk • contribs) 14:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocked per discussion. O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Athaenara as blocking admin, Dlohcierekim and Ohnoitsjamie: any objections to an unblock here given the answers to questions above? O Still Small Voice of Clam 09:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about acknowledging that all content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. As opposed to personal knowledge. The rest is OK, but editors with professional/expert experience sometimes have trouble with the concept of the importance of setting aside that expertise and basing edits on RS. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I'm still leaning toward unblock. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jdhoye's pledge above to not add links to sites they own or are affiliated with, I don't object to an unblock. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object either. – Athaenara ✉ 17:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: @Athaenara: Hi there, I'll acknowledge in writing that all and any content will be cited from a reliable source, unconnected to me, the subject. I understand the issue of sharing just based on personal knowledge. I will refrain from doing so and post only citing reliable sources. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdhoyes (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked - welcome back. One other point - not related to your block, but still important. When you leave a message on a talk page, please remember to sign and date it by add ing four tildes (~~~~) at the end, to make it clear who said what and when. Thanks, and good luck. O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]