User talk:StylusGuru

Problems with upload of File:Eden POW Camp, Malton, Yorkshire, England.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Eden POW Camp, Malton, Yorkshire, England.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Eden POW Camp, Malton, Yorkshire, England.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Eden POW Camp, Malton, Yorkshire, England.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits are consistent: you promote the work of a single author, including idiosyncratic theories published only by that author and represented as fact. This clearly indicates a conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Re the copyright problem over an image of Eden Camp, I can confirm that I took the photograph and copyright belongs to me. I tried more than once to enter the relevant details but there seemed to be a technical problem with the website at the time and the information I provided did not register.

On the subject of Charles Wells, the original article was only a few lines in length and contained some inaccuracies. I expanded it considerably, and corrected the errors, using my research on Charles Wells, which, as his biographer, I had amassed over a period of several years. Nearly all of the other references (to contemporary newspapers, other books, official papers) were found by me, and proper acknowledgement was duly made in the revised article.

Guy suggests that my comment that Charles Wells put a Ponzi scheme into practice before Ponzi himself is an idiosyncratic theory. But Wells perpetrated a fraud of this kind in 1911, and Ponzi used an almost identical scheme a decade later. These are facts, substantiated by documentary evidence from the period in question, and therefore neither idiosyncratic, nor a theory. Perhaps I'm missing the point, but is it really helpful for an article about an individual to have all references to that person's biography removed, especially when the book in question is the source of the majority of information comprising that article?

The first and most important point is: do not add your own work to Wikipedia. You are writing from primary sources, Wikipedia requires reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your file is fine and located at File:Yorkshire_157.JPG Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing yourself is rather frowned upon. If you believe your own book would make a significant addition to the article, it's better to propose such changes and additions on the article's talk page and to leave it to uninvolved editors to assess how much weight the book should be given. I'll also note that "He was possibly the first criminal to set up a Ponzi scheme, pre-dating the swindles of Charles Ponzi himself by ten years." is wrong since our Ponzi scheme article notes examples going back to the 1880s. Huon (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And it is hard to find a single edit by this user that does not reference the work of one writer. And the Ponzi claim has no other cited source, but was added to multiple articles. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this explanation. Sincere apologies for non-compliance with your COI policy. I've now studied your rules on this. The moral of the story is, I think, Read the instructions first! StylusGuru (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

The Wikipedia article on Charles Wells (gambler) is largely composed of material which I contributed. Previously the article was only a few lines in length, and I expanded it considerably. Most of the information comes from research I carried out for my biography of Wells ('The Man who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo, Charles Deville Wells, gambler and fraudster extraordinaire). Recently all references to my book have been deleted owing to concerns about conflict of interest, a policy which I now understand and fully accept.

I do feel, however, that the very existence of a biography is of importance in an article about an individual, and should at least be mentioned — if only as "further reading". (I note that a 1935 film and a 1983 novel are included in the article on Wells, even though they have only the slightest relevance to his story).

Under the COI rules I cannot make the edit myself, but would be grateful if consideration could please be given to my suggestion.

StylusGuru (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the place for such suggestions is the article's talk page at Talk:Charles Wells (gambler). You can add the code {{edit requested}} to such a proposal to make it more visiblel. That said, I rather don't think the existence of a biography is of particular importance in the article. Our readers' understanding of Wells doesn't depend on whether or not they know that someone wrote a book about him. Also, just imagine what the article on, say, George Washington would look like if we mentioned all biographies written about him. Huon (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]