User talk:SorchaKav

August 2018

Hello, I'm Guliolopez. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Using Wikipedia for promotion or as a "soapbox" is against Wikipedia policy and is not permitted. This includes updating multiple articles with links or text which serve to promote or otherwise draw attention to a single subject or person. Editors are generally expected to edit in the interests of improving the project, not to edit in the interests of themselves or others. And, in particular, not in the interests of people or organisations with which they may have an association. In short: please stop peppering the project with mentions of a single author (or that author's works). And certainly not in such broad strokes as to linkspam every remotely associated article that you can think of. Thank you. Guliolopez (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely rude and uncalled for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SorchaKav (talk • contribs)

Admittedly the word "peppered" is slightly loaded. But it is not remotely "uncalled-for" to have a policy against promotion or COI. Not is it inherently "rude" to draw attention to it. On the other hand, overlooking or overriding the core principles of the project (including those which, quite reasonably, expect editors to edit in the interest of the project rather than in their own interests) is, definitively, not in keeping with editing etiquette and editing guidelines. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought one of the core principles of the project was to ensure the information included is accurate. Therefore if an author is omitted from a page where they should be included, should it not be updated to include them. I think your approach to new contributors is terrible, this should be an encouraging forum.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SorchaKav (talk • contribs)

Hi.

Yes. One of the 'core principles' of the project (the five pillars as we call 'em) is for information to be accurate. But the other 'core principles' (not overridden or trumped by an 'accuracy' goal) is that information be neutral (i.e. not promotional), be verifiable (i.e. not unreferenced), and be intended to advance the project (i.e. not to advance another agenda).

And. Yes. New contributors are encouraged. But new contributors are not encouraged to act contrary to project principles.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christine Dwyer Hickey (September 3)

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft was clearly written to praise its subject rather than to describe her neutrally. If a critic says that she is one of Ireland's best known writers, quote them. The subject does appear to be notable. The issue with this draft is one of tone.

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:Christine Dwyer Hickey 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:Christine Dwyer Hickey, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SorchaKav! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christine Dwyer Hickey has been accepted

Christine Dwyer Hickey, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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!

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Frayæ . I will look into the grading scheme and review that article for improvements.

File permission problem with File:Christine Dwyer Hickey at Limerick University.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Christine Dwyer Hickey at Limerick University.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA 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 take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file 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}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File 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 created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 15:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]