Latency23

October 2015

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to United States Pony Clubs because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(talk) 18:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Latency23, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Latency23! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! ChamithN (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wren's (shoe polish)

The article Wren's (shoe polish) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Wren's Since 1889 Logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Wren's Since 1889 Logo.jpg, which you've attributed to your designer. 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 on 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

As I explained at the Teahouse, you do not have to worry about deletion. If your designer did not release the work under a free license, just let us know, and we will correct the copyright status accordingly. If you need help, please contact me on my talk page. Mz7 (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Latency23. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Mz7 (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Re: Wren's logo copyright status and COI

See original message

Thank you for clarifying that about your logo's status. Fortunately, I don't believe there is any need for them to send an email with permission anymore. We believe that the use of logos on Wikipedia constitutes fair use under U.S. copyright law, so no permission is necessary. The only reason we needed permission before was because you listed the file under a license that allows anyone, not just Wikipedia, to freely use it, which we need explicit permission for. Since that's not what you wanted, we no longer need this permission.

---

On a somewhat unrelated note, I need to point out that, since you seem to be professionally connected with Wren's Super Wax Shoe Polish, you may have what we call a conflict of interest ("COI"). Wikipedia is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia whose content is built on three fundamental principles we call the "core content policies". They are that Wikipedia articles:

1. must be verifiable (meaning that readers should be able to check that what is being written is true),
2. written from a neutral point of view (meaning that all opinions and viewpoints on a topic are represented fairly and without bias), and
3. must not contain original research (meaning we only write about what reliable sources have written about).

Jointly interpreted, these three policies form the backbone for almost every other content policy or guideline we have here.

Writing an article about one's employer or company is strongly discouraged, because the topic deals with something you may be too closely connected with. Editors with a conflict of interest in a topic area often have an unintentionally distorted view of that topic area, and this conflict of interest has a significant potential to go against some of our core content policies. For example, you might unconsciously over-embellish your company, or perhaps omit verifiable facts that may be negative or controversial—this would violate neutral point of view. Alternatively, you might inadvertently add details that haven't been published in reliable sources—a violation of verifiability and no original research. Because of this potential, the Wikipedia community strongly discourages editing in areas you have a conflict of interest in.

Although we discourage it, we don't outright prohibit editing with a COI either. To do so successfully, you must have an especially solid understanding and strong command of our expectations. (Consider editing other topics for a while to gain experience.) Carefully read our guideline on conflict of interest editing. The page Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations gives some good advice too. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know on my talk page. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)