User talk:Qvort

License tagging for File:House.gif

Thanks for uploading File:House.gif. 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) 11:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:House.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:House.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:House.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:House.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Hello Qvort. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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.

I've given you this warning due to your noting your association with Human Rights House Network. Writing about yourself or the organization you are representing is strongly discouraged. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of why such COI editing is strongly discouraged; almost all the references in User:Qvort/Human Rights House Network are self referential. We have to have independent sources to verify the content of articles. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. If we permitted articles about organizations based virtually entirely on what they right about themselves, then Wikipedia would be turned into a marketing platform. This article will need to be entirely re-written from scratch in order to be encyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, it is also rather spammy IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI

As I made clear, I am a new comer, so I don't want to be bitten because of the following questions and concerns, as I feel I might be. I have written an article where, yes I might have a conflict of interest, but I understand that I can still write an article as long as it is as neutral as possible and referenced properly. Also if I make it clear that I am affiliated with the HRHN, which I have done so. I have written the page Human Rights House Network to the best of my knowledge and would appreciate if more experienced editors could look at the page Human Rights House Network and help me with things I might have done wrong. Is it possible to leave the page the way it is and hope that someone else will expand it and edit it better? Should I make it a stub instead? The page has just been launched. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qvort (talk • contribs)

Self-referencial

I have added a few non-HRHN references, to make it less self-referencial Are they enough? How many do I need to make it ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qvort (talk • contribs)

Responding to both this section and the prior section. There isn't a question of whether you might or might not have a conflict of interest (COI). You do. It is usually very strongly discouraged for an organization or a person working for an organization to write an article about that organization. We have more than 100,000 active editors here, with more than 3.6 million articles created to date. That's not to say our coverage is complete. It isn't. But, there's a very good chance that if a given organization is notable via secondary sources, we've got an article on it already. If we don't, we will, and we don't have to rely on people with conflicts of interest to generate those articles. I'm not going to so far as to say it's impossible for a person with a COI to write an article on the subject. It can be done. But, it's very difficult and usually requires a great deal of input from other editors to work its way forward. An example I can think of is Bellin Run, largely created by a person who works for the organization chiefly responsible for putting on the run every year. But, such examples are exceedingly rare, and for good reason.
One of the problems that frequently arises from COI editing is the editor using text from publications produced by their organization. This is a copyright violation. Why? Because the copyright agent for the organization has not released the text under a free license, which is what we must have. Instead, we almost always get the answer that "I have permission to use it on our article". That's completely insufficient. No surprise, this article contains several copyright violations and could be tagged for speedy deletion under Wikipedia:CSD#G12. You simply can't copy text from your organization and use it on an article here unless we have explicit release of that content.
Another frequent problem with COI is tone and bias in an article. COI editors, even trying to be as unbiased as possible, bring a bias to an article. They do not have an external, analytical, and critical point of view because of the unavoidable and inherent bias they bring to the table. It's not your 'fault' per se, it's just what you come to the table with. Just taking the "The_Secretariat_-_Human_Rights_House_Foundation" section; it reads like a marketing pamphlet. Because of this and many other heavily biased sections of this article, plus the heavy reliance on primary sources to the organization itself, it could be construed as a candidate for speedy deletion Wikipedia:CSD#G11.
I've tagged the article with three different warning templates. Further, I have moved it back to your userspace for further development because it is not by any means ready for 'prime time'. Lastly, when sufficient work has been done to clear up these problems, rather than moving it into mainspace, you should place {{subst:AFC submission}} on the top of the page, which places it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Experienced and unbiased editors can then review it before 'going live'.
The page is now available at User:Qvort/Human Rights House Network. I hope all of this helps. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

Welcome to Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

submitted it to articles for creation

Thank you Hammersoft. Yes it was helpful. I have now submitted it to articles for creation as you suggested. Hopefully someone will help me there with developing a page for HRHN, if it is possible, because it seems to me that due to the lack of information outside our website about us, a wikipedia page is not possible. Thank you anyway. I'm going to just leave it there, hopefully at least a stub will come out of this. Qvort--Qvort (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and some issues were found because of which it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Human Rights House Network. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 22:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Human Rights House Network concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Human Rights House Network, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 15:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Human Rights House Network

Hello Qvort. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Human Rights House Network.

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, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the 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/Human Rights House Network}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]