Irvinghexham
|
Duplicate images uploaded
editThanks for uploading Image:Karla Poewe-2003.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Karla Poewe-2003.JPG. The copy called Image:Karla Poewe-2003.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Irving Hexham-2007.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Irving Hexham-2007.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Karla Poewe-2003.jpg
edit
Thank you for uploading Image:Karla Poewe-2003.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shell babelfish 13:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Irv-sm copy.gif
edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Irv-sm copy.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Karla Poewe
edit
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Karla Poewe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. HrafnTalkStalk 06:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
August 2008
edit Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Irving Hexham, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing. Deconstructhis (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Irving Hexham, 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. This also applies to the article on your wife Karla Poewe. HrafnTalkStalk 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Irving Hexham , as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. (also Christian apologetics, Hugo Anthony Meynell, Karla Poewe) HrafnTalkStalk 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This image was not licensed, so I added the GDFL license. Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
editHi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you I appreciate this advice. Hope this works. Irving HexhamIrvinghexham (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Pseudonyms
editPerhaps someone can explain to me why Wikipedia allows editors to use pseudonyms. Surely, in the interest of truth and openness all editors ought to clearly identify themselves to allow readers to judge the value of their comments and whether or not they are qualified to comment on technical issues. Irvinghexham (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- i actually agree with what you are saying. on wikipedia, it's possible for some anonymous, unqualified high school student to have as much influence on an article as a noted expert in the field, except the noted expert might be disqualified for editing due to a conflict of interest! it does indeed sound ridiculous. unfortunately, this is just how wikipedia works. if you hope to change this, i believe there are proper channels to appeal to in order to change policy. but as it stands, discussion pages for articles should only have discussions that directly relate to the article itself. if you wish to express your opinions in a talk page or your userspace, that would be more appropriate. that is why i have moved this comment to your talkpage. also, please don't remove maintenance tags from articles until the situation has been deemed rectified by administrators. it will honestly just make the situation a lot worse. i write you this because i sympathize with your plight, but you have to understand that wikipedia is a bit of a bureaucracy that strictly adheres to its policies and protocols. i trust that your edits thus far have been performed with the best of intentions; however, now that certain policies have been explained to you, you should try not to violate them. good luck Theserialcomma (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Irvinghexham (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- If each article were single-sourced, I might have to accept your line of thinking, Irving. However, the veracity, content, and reputation of Wikipedia is based on references and not on personal knowledge or the resume (CV) of any editor. Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammed himself would need to provide citations and references if he edited an article -- and if he didn't, he'd probably find his addition reverted (removed). The other qualifications/features of an editor, e.g. style, vocabulary, etc., are name-independent -- that is, these features are right out there on the page for all to see. Therefore, pseudonyms help mask extraneous characteristics and allow editors to focus on the quality of the article instead of the credentials of the editor. Madman (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Though you have been here a while, I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia, professor Hexham, so I'll spam you with a welcome template above. I agree that the templates should stay on on your wife's article for now, but there are a couple of imprecisions in the mostly correct explanations above. Like most templates, they can be removed or reinserted by anyone, not only administrators (the exceptions are explained in the exceptional templates). But since the concerns have some validity, and there is no race to get a perfect article, they should remain until there is a consensus that they should come off, or if no one objects to removing one.
- A template is usually a sign to discuss the issue on the article talk page. There are clear suggestions to not edit articles where one has a conflict of interest, but there is no absolute prohibition. (Only when "noted experts" behave in a way disruptive to the encyclopedia do they ever become disqualified from editing in a particular area.) And to be honest, I have seen much worse cases where COI's have distorted articles. While there are some areas of concern in Karla Poewe, and sometimes the tone is not neutrally/citably encyclopedic, they seem fixable, largely by adherence to technical rules. Most of the rules are there for a reason, and we are particularly picky about biographies of living people see WP:BLP. Scrupulous sourcing, probably more exacting than academic practice, is the goal -for there are plenty of people who enjoy wreaking havoc in biographical articles and know how to sneakily do so if people aren't watching closely.
- For example, the word "groundbreaking" for Reflections of a Woman Anthropologist really needs some kind of cite, as does the story about the pseudonmym (and Hrafn just put a tag on that sentence). I noted this when I was researching it, before removing the prod - PROposed Deletion - tag, but saw that the book likely deserves this adjective. I also note that there are page numbers cited in the books in the bibliography - but it is not clear what statements in the article these are meant to support. If you could indicate this in any way, I am sure people will be willing to clean up the wiki syntax to get them to appear nicely. For an author, independent reviews of works are a standard source for an article, too. There may be things that are reasonable biographical details well known to you but hard to find citations for - which would be disallowed under the WP:OR policy (or that is the usual problem, but here there are two autobiographies to draw on.) I'll try to edit the article myself a little by and by. Again, welcome; it would be great if you (and your wife?) could edit or create other articles in your fields of expertise at Wikipedia, e.g. the ones with red links in the biographical ones.John Z (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I use a pseudonym because I feel that this name reflects more of my interests and purposes here than my real name can. Also, it negates the possibilities of social miscues, i.e., they can call me this without having to worry about formalities or the like. My name is also very common, and there are over 26,000 hits with my name via yahoo, so using my name does not actually shine any more on my identity than otherwise. Also, there is a long standing tradition of using pen names that more accurately reflect the author. Regardless, I have taken the liberty to alter and edit yours and your wife's article to make sure that the conflict of interest problem is negated, along with dispersing disputes over if they are "notable" or not. I will, if you don't mind, check through the other pages and solve any problems. When in doubt, put quotes and citations in a talk page so others can have a chance to look through. But there shouldn't be any major problems. My talk page and email are here if you ever need to get a hold of me. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The file File:Karla Poewe-2003.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
