Vermontmountainboy

January 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Matthew Christopher has been reverted.
Your edit here to Matthew Christopher was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://twitter.com/@Matthewbridal) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

autobiographies and citing sources

Hi, I reverted your edits to Matthew Christopher and thought I'd leave a note explaining why. The far and away biggest problem is that when you add statements about people (people especially, but really all subjects) on Wikipedia, you should include citations of reliable sources which both verify and establish what is due weight to include. Also, Wikipedia has rules about conflict of interest that look like they apply. In general, it's a very bad idea to write about yourself, your company, friends, family, business associates, etc. My recommendation would be to provide suggested changes, along with sources, on the article talk page and ask someone else to make the edits. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Vermontmountainboy. You have new messages at Rhododendrites's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your username

Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created Matthew Christopher, and I noticed that your username, "Matthewchristopher", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Trammel Museum of Art". However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", and "WidgetFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please create a new account or request a change of username, by completing this form, that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Since you yourself are not Matthew Christopher, you should not operate an account under his name. Please choose a new username. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Image licensing issues

Hello. I wanted to make sure you were aware that I flagged File:Head shot of US couture designer Matthew Christopher IMG 7443 2 MB.JPG for deletion. Sorry about that, but wikipedia has very strict (and sometimes very tedious) rules about how it handles copyright. It looks like the photo came from an official press packet or similar, is that right? The image was used in October 2014 at this NY Post article, where it's attributed to Rafael Astorga. If you own the copyright to that image, you will need to send an email verifying that before it can be used at Wikimedia Commons. Take a look at Commons:OTRS for more on how to do this. Being on Commons means the image can legally be used by anyone for any purpose with few restrictions, irrevocably. This is partly why licensing is so important. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. I was notified of your comments to me on Rhododendrites's talk page. I think Rhododendrites pretty much covered it, but if you would like to discuss something with me, you can do so here on this talk page. I have added this page to my watchlist, so I will (sooner or later) see it and be able to respond. You can just edit this page as you did Rhododendrites's talk page. If this is specifically about changes made to the article, the best place to talk about it is Talk:Matthew Christopher. If you need technical advice on talk pages, you may find Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines helpful.

Oh, one more thing: the image has not been deleted yet, (and it can be reuploaded if it is), it just needs proper licensing or it will be deleted relatively soon. Again, Commons:Commons:OTRS explains what you would need to do to license it for Wikipedia. I hope that's helpful. Grayfell (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Business logo.png

A tag has been placed on File:Business logo.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Image licensing issues, again

Hello. The above notice is for File:Business logo.png, which is identical to File:Matthew Christopher Inc. Company Logo.png. Both look like they are properly licensed, but there's no reason for Wikipedia to host two copies of the same file, and "business logo" is too generic as a file name, so I've requested that it be deleted. The other one is fine, so this is a strictly technical issue.

More importantly:, File:MatthewChristopher wiki.jpg has the same issues as the previous images you've uploaded. It's been published before on the Internet in higher resolution, such as here in 2011, so Wikimedia will need confirmation from the person who owns the copyright for the image, and that you personally have the legal right to publish it at Wikimedia Commons. I've already explained this above, so if you have any questions, let me know. Please acknowledge that you've read this. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I think I made the mistake and uploaded the duplicate Matthew Christopher logo. Also. I did receive an e-mail from Raphel stating free use of the image but do I need to get a hard copy of this permission and send i to wiki?

Thanks for helping out on this. Appreciate it.

Vermontmountainboy (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. You don't need to get a hard copy, thankfully, but Commons (Wikipedia's sister-project for images) does need permission directly from the copyright holder. That's Rafael Astorga, correct? If you've gotten an email from Rafael agreeing to release it under a free license (see: Commons:Commons:Licensing) then the steps are laid out here: Commons:Commons:OTRS#If you are not the copyright holder. Add the the line {{subst:OP}} to the file on Commons. If we are talking about a picture which was already deleted, you can re-upload it, as long as you also add that line. After that, you must request that Raphael (or whoever the copyright holder is for the specific image) forward your email correspondence about the license to Commons, with a link to the image. The best way to structure that email is by using this template: Commons:Commons:Email templates. This also helps the copyright holder understands which license the image is being released under. That link also has the email address. The email has to come from the copyright holder, otherwise it's no good. If that doesn't happen, the image will be deleted again.

Sorry for the inconvenience. The system can be frustrating and seem bureaucratic, but it's trying to use volunteer effort prevent a lot of very different problems, some of which are very serious, so patience is appreciated. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Matthew Christopher Inc. Company Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Matthew Christopher Inc. Company Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)