User talk:OpticalHistorian

This is OpticalHistorian's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anna Estelle Glancy (April 29)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Anna Estelle Glancy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! OpticalHistorian, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anna Estelle Glancy (May 24)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Omni Flames was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Anna Estelle Glancy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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.

Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 08:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anna Estelle Glancy has been accepted[edit]

Anna Estelle Glancy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Daniel kenneth (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Estelle Glancy[edit]

You're still making basic mistakes with regard to copyright of other people's materials in Anna Estelle Glancy. This time, it's your upload of File:EstelleGlancy.jpg to Wikimedia commons. I do not believe that you are the photographer and that you took this photo in 2016. Therefore, it is not valid for you to claim that you own the copyright and can release it under a creative commons license. Please fix the licensing quickly to reflect who really took the picture, whether it is still under copyright or old enough to be in the public domain, and why it should be usable under a free license here. If it does not have a valid free license, it needs to be removed from Wikimedia commons. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I attempted to start correcting the page by fixing the clarity of the image used.

This file is from our own company archives. I work at the international vision company ZEISS, and therefore we own the rights to any associated imagery belonging to American Optical. Just trying to upload the image quickly as we are completely happy for this image to be used as it already appears on our social media pages. This image is also edited from the original (cropped to cut out text and marks on the page etc...) and therefore thought it could classify as my own work for the purposes of a quick upload.

Additionally, given our involvement in the subject, we paid for a number of works to be written on Dr. Glancy and therefore, could it be possible that the plagiarism issues from the article came from one of these sources? How would this affect the copyright etc. moving forward? - Thanks for any clarification here.

If you are a paid contributor and have not already disclosed that information then you may be in violation of Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy).

That aside, was the photograph produced as a work for hire by the photographer, with the copyright owned by Zeiss, or was it (as often happens) the copyright of the photographer? If Zeiss does own the copyright, and wants to release the photo under an open source license, that can be done, but the image needs to be tagged with the correct copyright, photographer, and date information, and the release needs to be verified; see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for details.

Similar copyright release issues also apply to text taken from the Zeiss corporate web sites. However, in that case, even if those web sites are released under an open source license, the text may still not be appropriate for Wikipedia, if it is written in promotional language or cannot be matched to reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing to my attention that I could be in violation of Paid Editing policies etc. however I definitely am not writing this with any intent for promotion etc. The image is taken from a scanned page of an AO Wellsworth magazine from the 1930's. Aside from the scans I do not know if we have any more information readily available, but I will have a look regardless. In the meantime I have requested for the image to be deleted. This article was intended to simply provide additional value to our vintage social media campaign on Estelle Glancy a few months back. We are currently sponsoring the Optical Heritage Museum in Southbridge, MA (feel free to take a look) and although yes, we use the content to link to our current products, this Wikipedia article was only ever going to be an extension of the campaign, providing additional information to anyone interested. E.g. the facebook post would have sounded like this... "Remember Estelle Glancy? we now have a Wikipedia page outlining her achievements. Take a look for yourself...".

At first, the article may have contained peacock terms, but it is not our intention to promote ZEISS in any way throughout this article. It's simply a social media campaign to provide a little more value to those interested in the museum... given it comes from the museum account and not a ZEISS account. As I'm sure you recall, there was no mention of ZEISS in the original article, nor was their any information outside of what she accomplished in her life. I guess it wouldn't have passed otherwise.

I do appreciate the help you have provided and I am sorry if I have come across forceful at any time, however I do have other priorities that need attention and do not have time to rewrite the whole article at this moment and am quite disappointed it's been left in limbo. Is there anything that can be done to restore the page?

Thanks. I do appreciate your prompt responses.