Cavalber

Fair use rationale for File:CGIStudio_lighting.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CGIStudio_lighting.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:CGIStudio_materials.jpg

I have tagged File:CGIStudio_materials.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:CGIStudio_clouds.jpg

I have tagged File:CGIStudio_clouds.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and promotion

Welcome to Wikipedia. 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:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. 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.

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

editing contentious articles

hi cavalber - quick note. when editing an article where there are people with different points of view than you, here are some things that will really help you. 1) please keep WP:BRD in mind. it is great to be bold, but if you introduce changes and they are reverted, it is up to you to initiate a discussion of those changes on the Talk page. 2) edit in small chunks. if you change lots of things at once, you leave little choice for those who disagree with one or two parts; those who disagree can either revert the whole thing, or they can take a bunch of their own time and fix the things they disagree with. much better for everybody if you edit in small chunks. 3) be really aware of relevant sourcing guidelines WP:RS in general and WP:MEDRS for anything health related. be very clear, when there are disagreements, about what parts of your argument are solidly grounded on policy, and which are just about your preference. the negotiation is very different depending on which it is. 4) finally - bring the absolute best sources you can and strive to write really excellent, NPOV content; edit with your "opponent" in mind such that the sources you bring and the content you generate are unimpeachable. That's it - good luck!