User talk:Morgan martin

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. As you know I already reversed a couple of your edits. Generally speaking single purpose accounts that just serve to promote a particular product - in this case the work of Edward Colver - are frowned on at Wikipedia, as they usually indicate a conflict of interest. It may well be that Colver deserves some recognition for his contributions for popular culture, but heavy-handed adding of links willy-nilly is just likely to get reversed once an admin spots it. You'd be better of researching a full article on Colver, with references, and posting that. One normally does this in one's sandbox till it's up to scratch. As and if that passes the notable test it will be natural that it will link with the other articles and vice versa. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Wwwhatsup[reply]

License tagging for File:Edward-Colvers-Flip-Shot.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Edward-Colvers-Flip-Shot.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article User:Morgan martin/Edward Colver, 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, 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; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you :) It's well worth reading the links given above, what it boils down to is that you have to make sure, as much as is humanly possible, that all and any facts and claims are well referenced to secondary sources, and avoid flowery adjectives. Keep going & I will do my best, as an impartial editor, to ensure you come up with a decent and acceptable article. Find my comments here. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 08:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Edward-Colvers-Flip-Shot.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Edward-Colvers-Flip-Shot.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you will see above. I am trying to assist this editor, who is new to Wikipedia. I have added a dispute tag to the image, based on its use within the article as the best known example of the article subject's style. As such it is, without doubt, irreplaceable. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again Wwwhatsup, I thought this was just a rough draft, I had no idea the whole world was watching my every move here...in your case, I'm so glad you are. I think once you start uploading images to the commons, you are in the spotlight I guess. Again, this is ONLY a rough draft, I have not asked anyone to review this yet for a reason. (I've only just begun this article and I'm not ready for a review yet). I was hoping to add a few more images here...can you help me get the other image tagged correctly? I already owe you one. thanks again for your valuable assistance and encouragement. Morgan Martin 23:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, nearly every new editor comes to Wikipedia the same way you have, first attempting to fix some aspect of personal expertise, and then having to go though the rite of passage of comprehending exactly what making a free encyclopedia entails, as worked out through the experiences of 1000's of contributors over time. The need for, as mentioned by others above, neutral point of view and verifiability are major stumbling blocks, but necessary for creating encyclopedic quality content - a very different animal to promotional copy. Also vital is the full understanding that - for content to be truly "free" as in "freedom" - you have cross all your t's and dot your i's when it comes to copyright. The whole point of wikipedia is that not only is it free to access but it also free to copy and share. The potential penalties for a pattern of encouraging wholesale copyright infringement are serious, hence the vigilance.

Given that, as I point out here, you are on dubious ground with the portrait pic, as it's pretty evident that you absolutely DO NOT have permission of of the author, and the fact that you claim that you do is not helping your credibility as an editor. Your best bet here is to correct it to read truthfully (unknown) author, delete the licence and put an OTRS pending tag, mentioning that you are making every effort to contact the author for permission, and do that. Very likely the author, when found, will be happy to give it. In the meantime, if it gets deleted.. well, you can just add it when you get that sorted. As a rule, unless one is using definitely "free" images it's a good idea to leave them til last, as you are learning the hard way. It's also true of the lo-res watermarked version of the 'flip' image - it could well be that Mr. Colver is himself quite prepared to release that under the cc-by-sa licence that Wikipedia requires, you could approach him as described at Commons:OTRS. Problems solved. In the meantime you may have to be philosophical if other editors come to the consensus that it doesn't pass fair use criteria. Don't worry about the pix for now, though, work on the story.

As to the article, what you should really be looking for is good authoritative refs. Try searching on "Edward Culver" and "punk" on Google News - there's a couple of LA Times exhibit mentions - you'll have to work around the PPV to get the meat - but that'll be enough for notability should anyone challenge. Then try and build a chronological narrative from the refs. Start with publications and exhibits.

A particular note. Refrain from using "peacock" style language, just the facts. If you find such a term, e.g. "famous", in something like the LA Times you can well write something like "well known" with a direct ref, otherwise avoid.. It's obvious you haven't quite grasped this approach from the reference to "top" producers on your user page. It's a vital component of Wikipedia style.

You could take a look at Glen E. Friedman - it's by no means a perfect article, but it's further down the road. Take a look at the talk page and see the path it has taken, could save some grief.. Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Morgan martin

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Morgan martin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional because Edward Colver was featured prominently and centrally in the Sony pictures film "American Hardcore" as well as the book by the same name and has been featured in the LA Times at least four times and a long list of magazines some of which are documented in the external links. He has been called "the most important photographer" of the movement by Director Steven Blush. Do a search in Wikipedia or in google and you'll see he has been discussed and referenced rather extensively. I think the editor who has flagged this is far from objective himself and is seeking to obstruct our progress with this meaningful and significant article. In the beginning perhaps he was right, but since then I have removed adjectives and adopted a far more neutral tone as requested. The other editors have been far more supportive and encouraging to me as a first time author here. This article is a work in progress and by any reasonable standards I should be permitted to develop this further and to completion if I am able. I have no doubt that this article will be approved ultimately based on the facts and nothing more.

Morgan Martin 20:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:UP - your user page is supposed to be about you in the context of your activities on Wikipedia. It is not a place for "Look at me and how successful I am".--ukexpat (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Colver (2).
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Fumitol|talk|cont 15:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Colver (2) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Colver (2), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Colver (2) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Colver (2), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Colver (2) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Colver (2), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Colver (2)

Hello Morgan martin. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Edward Colver (2)".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Colver (2)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]