User talk:ArchitectureGrrl

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.-- VViking Talk Edits 13:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Review of Bailey, Architecture and Urbanism in the French Atlantic Empire.pdf
Thank you for uploading File:Review of Bailey, Architecture and Urbanism in the French Atlantic Empire.pdf. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Review of Bailey, Architecture and Urbanism in the French Atlantic Empire.pdf
Thanks for uploading File:Review of Bailey, Architecture and Urbanism in the French Atlantic Empire.pdf. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

April 2020
Hello ArchitectureGrrl. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:ArchitectureGrrl. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear I do not receive nor expect to receive compensation for my edits to this page. Most of the information on this page also appears on the subject's university web page and CV link

The reference to is important as it is an academic website built by the subject and his students and funded by grants from both the Canadian and US Government.

I also believe that the interviews should be returned to the site as they are of interest to the subject's colleagues, students, and former students and instead of the second photograph that you have left I would recommend the one in which the subject is teaching a class. ArchitectureGrrl (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)ArchitectureGrrl
 * The page isn't meant to be a CV though and it's an encyclopedia, not meant to be for his colleagues, students, and former students. I will take your word that you are not being formally paid but if you personally know the subject that should also be dislcosed. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear I am a colleague of the subject and know him professionally. ArchitectureGrrl (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)ArchitectureGrrl
 * ArchitectureGrrl, thank you so much for the disclosure. I appreciate your efforts to try and increase such a notable individual's presence but unfortunately, Wikipedia has very strict rules about editing with a conflict of interest. See, us volunteer editors often resent that paid or conflict of interest editors write non-neutrally, displaying obvious bias toward themselves or their clients, and write promotionally. A neutral point of view is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and is non-negotiable. The problem is, all of your edits are being added to promote him (like a CV). The encyclopedia is here for knowledge, it isn't here to be used as a personal website. Note that editing with a conflict of interest is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared (you should use WP:Edit requests on the articles talk page if you are editing beyond removing vandalism or copyediting though). HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear I understand that Wikipedia is not a personal website. I am also not the only person to have contributed to it. Since the material on there now matches what is on the subject's university web page and is all properly cited I do not see the need to continue having the tag present.ArchitectureGrrl (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)ArchitectureGrrl