User talk:Annabellavery1997

Welcome!

 * }

January 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Sonia Poulton has been reverted. Your edit here to Sonia Poulton 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 (http://www.twitter.com/soniapoulton) 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) 13:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Sonia Poulton, Sam Furlong, SWNS.COM, DailyMail February 2010.png
Thanks for uploading File:Sonia Poulton, Sam Furlong, SWNS.COM, DailyMail February 2010.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item 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 creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media 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 the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Sonia Poulton, November 2014.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sonia Poulton, November 2014.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sonia Poulton
Hi. It looks to me like you know Sonia Poulton in some capacity. I have a few suggestions:
 * If you want a better picture of Ms Poulton uploaded, the best way to do this is to take one yourself, and upload it as "own work". The problem with third-party photos is that is difficult to prove the subject really is okay to licence the image as public domain. The Volunteer Response Team can accept licence requests, but uploading files as "own work" is much easier.
 * I have cleaned up her article today as best as I can, adhering strictly to high-quality reliable sources including The Guardian, The Independent and BBC Radio 4. I can't tell you whether the article will be kept at the moment, but could I advise you to refrain from editing it at the moment? I know you mean well, but biographies of living people on Wikipedia are a minefield of problems - ever since the Wikipedia biography controversy nearly 10 years ago, we really have taken a strict and conservative stance. An article about someone is not necessarily a good thing, and if mainstream high-quality sources criticise what she does, Wikipedia will mention it without taking sides. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Update : This edit removed tags for information that is not in the source. Unless you can give a reliable, third-party source that confirms Poulton's age, it should not be in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)