I see you've recently created an article about Erin Dolgan. The first paragraph contains whole sentences that were published in this press release. Based on your username I suspect you are the publicist mentioned in the press release and may have originally written it, which probably makes it not a copyright violation, however please note that Wikipedia is not to be used for any type of self-promotion or advertising, see WP:NOT. In this case, I think you clearly have a conflict of interest and should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
We welcome new editors, but not people whose purpose here is to promote their own or a client's work. If, instead, you're interested in working on a free content encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view (see Wikipedia:Five pillars), you'll find yourself in a community of thousands of supportive volunteers.
- I have restored the article to the state of Rick Block's last edit. I feel that she may be more notable that I previously thought. I would be happy to entertain opinions of other editors in this matter. --rogerd (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Rhonda. I see (from this edit) you've found the administrator who deleted the article. I had previously contacted him about it, and I think your post confuses his role in this with my (meant to be supportive) comments.
- Responding to your comments on his talk page:
- you said: Hi, I am a contributor of this article and was surprised to see that I had been contacted about this article. No contact was ever made. I am sorry that the article sounded like PR piece. I was just trying to get in all the information.
- I am offended that you gived no merit to the National Independent Publisher Awards of which she was one of thousands of books entered.onl Apparently you consider only commercially published books worthy of merit. You'd be amazed at the famous books that began as independents.
- My main interest here is the new user, not the article itself. I wanted to leave an example for her of the difference between a press release and the start of an article. I would think that as a new user you would try to help me correct my errors instead of "trying to teach me a lesson". You don't want any new authors here? I thought this was the purpose of the site.
- The new user hasn't apparently been back, so it's probably not worth restoring the article and taking it to AFD. I definitely agree that the original intent was blatant advertising No this was NOT BLATANT advertising. The blatant part was to list an author and tell her bio. She is an award winning author writing a book to PREVENT CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE. At no place did I place instructions on where to go to buy the book, the price or the book, or even reference her website. Author=bio. No advertising!
- Please reconsider, and feel free to edit to your heart's content to make sure it follows the guidelines. I respect this site and had no intentions on violating it's guidelines. Feel free to contact me by e-mail if you wish.
- What you've quoted in italics are my words from my post to his page. What happened is I rewrote the article (leaving a much shorter piece referencing the IPPY award with a reference), and left you the message above (dated 17 Nov). user:Rogerd then deleted the (rewritten) article, citing the blatant advertising criteria for speedy deletion (general #11). My post to him was questioning this deletion, and he volunteered to restore the article but nominate it for deletion following the procedures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You hadn't responded to my post to you, so I surmised that your intent here was more about PR and less about adding to the encyclopedia (and didn't take him up on his offer).
- The quoted sentence (My main interest here is ... ) is me (Rick) talking, not Roger. You are still my main interest here. I rewrote the article in hopes that you would see it (in its rewritten form) to help you, not to "teach you a lesson". Per my message above, we do want new editors here.
- The other quoted sentence (... I agree the original intent was blatant advertising) is also me (Rick), not Roger. Your original version was really not much different from your press release (which I assume you meant to be advertising). Roger considered my rewritten version (restored here) to be blatant advertising.
- Per his comment above, Roger has restored the article. He hasn't (yet) nominated it for deletion, but the question there would probably boil down to whether Erin Dolgan satisfies Wikipedia's guideline for notability (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). The absolute best way to counter this would be to edit the article to include multiple independent Wikipedia:reliable sources as references.
- I generally communicate through talk pages (like this one) rather than email. If email is vastly more convenient for you, please let me know and I suspect we can work something out.
Thank you for understanding. This was my first time being a publicist and I think I may have made some mistakes in that area too. I am trying to learn. Actually I was just trying to get Erin listed for the people who try to look her up after hearing her on radio and television. I am used to html sites and I must confess the format of this site does confuse me.
Again, I was no trying to sneak one through, and I apoligize for the appearance of advertising. I also now see that I agree it came off that way. I am willing to accept any editing of this piece so that it conforms to the guidelines. RKChesnutt (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to apologize - we were all new users at one point. If you haven't already, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Five pillars. It hits all the most important rules and guidelines. The two biggies for content are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability (which, in turn, implies Wikipedia:No original research). The notability guideline I mention above is a guideline rather than a policy. The idea is an article about a person can't be written from a neutral point of view unless there are multiple verifiable sources (independent of the person, so the sources aren't biased). When writing about yourself or something you're heavily involved with personally or professionally, it's difficult to preserve a neutral point of view and to stick to facts published by 3rd parties. Because of this, writing about yourself or things you're involved with is highly discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest).
- If you're interested in contributing here another unusual aspect is that everything you type here is licensed under the GFDL. Unlike most regular copyrights, this one follows the principles of copyleft making Wikipedia's content (and anything derived from it) permanently available for use by anyone for any purpose (including commercial purposes) but only so long as whoever uses it also licenses it the same way.
- If you have more content to add to Erin Dolgan (keeping in mind that it should be from an independent source that you can reference), please do. Sources like the Denver Post or Rocky Mountain News are fine. Professional journals would be even better.
- Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Rick, Is this more acceptable? If it is I would post this.
Erin Dolgan (born Denver, CO) M.A., LPC and Clinical Psycho-therapist is also a children’s book author, known for her message of “Relative Danger”. Erin has won a 2007 IPPY bronze medal from the Independent Publisher Book Association for children’s book (ages 7 and above) for Please Knock.
Dolgan grew up in Denver, Colorado. In 1995, she received her Masters Degree in Clinical Counseling from Lesley Graduate School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Licensed in the State of Colorado she is a practicing clinician and a provider for the Colorado Sexual Offender Management Board.
Her message is simple, to dispel the myth of “Stranger Danger” and reveal the true threat… ”Relative Danger” for children. With 97% of all child sexual abuse victims having a prior relationship with their abuser, most abuse is done by family, friends, and trusted community members. She takes the information given by sexual offenders and uses it to get a message to parents.
Currently, Ms. Dolgan lives in Denver, Colorado.
Rhonda - I made a couple of formatting changes (links mostly). The main problem with this version is there are absolutely no references. The current stub (at Erin Dolgan) has a reference to the IPBA site that announces the IPPY award. This version would need references for:
- her degrees (you know this, but how would I verify this? is it published somewhere?)
- known for her message (says who?)
- the IPPY award (the reference from the current stub would be fine)
- grew up in Denver (is this from a published bio? if so, where? the point is how could I verify this?)
- masters from Lesley (again, is this published knowledge? where?)
- licensed in Colorado (is this verifiable?)
- provider for Colorado Sex Offender Mgmt Board (is there a list someplace that would allow me to verify this? where?)
- her message ... (where is this information from? someplace published?)
- currently lives in Denver (is this published somewhere?)
The point is not that I don't believe these things are true, but that Wikipedia's content must be verifiable. If you can't find a published source (independent of the subject) for some fact, don't include it (the rule isn't exactly quite that strict, but that's a pretty good starting point). If you can find references for these things, great. If not, and particularly if they're from your own personal knowledge, then you simply shouldn't include them. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Rick- I just added 5 references to this listing. Are they acceptable? I think I may have lost the editing to the links that you did. Someone else was editing it while I was editing it and it all got very confusing. What do you think now?RKChesnutt
- I've edited the article a bit, and added a note about the "message" paragraph (which I deleted) to talk:Erin Dolgan. I think it's appropriate to continue the discussion about the article there. Referencing her website (for bio details) is a little weak. Self published information (like this) is generally treated very carefully, see WP:SPS. Please let me know if you need anything else. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Please Knock Cover Ippy.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Please Knock Cover Ippy.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
db-attack nomination for File:Please Knock Cover Ippy.jpg
Sorry, as the author of the article on Erin Dolgan I was just trying to make sure that all related content was deleted and not just orphaned. I have deleted the article.