User talk:Bernard Sfez

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. Comments below refer to your version of 08:54, August 21, 2017 to clarify the issues, not to my subsequent edits
 * it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, press releases, Youtube, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. At least three of your references were affiliated to the company, press releases or otherwise not independent third-party sources, and the worst parts of the text were completely unreferenced.
 * In the text, there is little evidence of why you meet the notability criteria. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits. You mention these in the info box, but not the text. Your newspaper sources seem restricted to a small area of the US. I'm not sure that "big in South Florida" is adequate
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Most of your text is simply telling us what the company sells or otherwise promoting its interests.
 * Specific examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: his recognition that the switch from paper to digita... and a myriad of other revenue cycle/HIM challenges would revolutionize the way hospitals and other healthcare facilities collect patient information, code it, communicate with multiple insurance companies and collect revenue in a timely manner.
 * While "Further reading" might be justified in a science article, here it appears to be just cherry-picked mentions in the media
 * If you feel you have to list the (unsourced) organisations the company belongs to, I'm not sure why you use a bullet list rather than normal prose


 * Apart from two tiny edits to article mentioning people who share your name, this article is your only contribution, which suggests that you have a conflict of interest when editing about this company, which you must declare. In particular, if you work directly or indirectly for the company, or are otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, 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:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:    . If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

I have to say that if this article had been posted directly, rather than a draft, or if I had found the draft before you asked me about it, I would have speedy-deleted on sight. as it is, you have a chance to salvage it. You might benefit from reading independent third party sources and this important guidance. Note that you must reply to the COI request above before you make any further edits. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Reply
Hi Jim and thanks for your comments !

As I wrote I’m really new to this and your guidance will certainly help me.


 * First point understood and it make perfectly sense. Thanks I will search for more than the first result in google. :)
 * Ok I understand I can use the same source (like the number of employees, turnover or profits) and eventually extend the details.
 * Mmm This I need to practice more. I’m not sure I see how I could have wrote this differently. It is a 7 years company and it has a mission, results and reviews.
 * Ok yes sound like a promotional, agree, thanks
 * Ok (it look to me like styling, but I understand there are convention)
 * Ok "Further reading", your comment make sense
 * I registered long ago but never really stepped in. I’m actually collecting (voluntary) to collect information and I wanted to start updating pages around the Galil communties (jewish, Muslim, Druzes, Christian, etc) in the North of Israel. While working on this I had a friend that explained to me that he did try to create the page for Harmony Healthcare and that it was rejected. I was curious about it and told him It will be a good sample for me to learn how to respect the guideline (I need more practice than reading usually). That’s the story.

However this is actually in my sandbox right ? I believe that I can edit it as long as I want as long as I don’t create the page, right ?

Thanks Jim for your time and precious advices, I will rework this (online or offline).

Bernard Sfez (talk)


 * If you want me to see your reply, you can do so by leaving a message on this page, and I will know you have done so if you start it with my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~ when you post it. That will send me an alert, it's just chance I looked again. Note that sandboxes don't have unlimited immunity. Anything copied from any non-public domain web page (almost all) or too promotional in content can be be deleted even in user space. Thank you for responding to the COI query Jimfbleak - talk to me?  17:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Migav logo en.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Migav logo en.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Uploader is aware of the issue, and has been advised accordingly.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply to ShakespeareFan00 | Speedy deletion Misgav new logo
User: ShakespeareFan00 Thank you checking this, but the template you pasted is a bit broken with non working situation (there is no contest the nomination button anywhere on the page).

I think I added clear information about where comes that image from : http://www.misgav.org.il/objDoc.asp?PID=478377&OID=722555&DivID=1 A page that was created with ShareAlike license as it was requested by Wikipedia requirement to avoid such problem as this organisation "Misgav Regional Council" updated its logo a year ago (displayed on the Hebrew page but not on the English page).

I updated the file page, added more details and added linked to Wikipedia policies in case something wasn’t clear enough.

If you think something is wrong with that, please tell me (in clear) what should be done and point me to the wikipedia policies according to your claim.

Thanks for your help to keep Wikipedia updated and clean !

Bernard Sfez (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can't use media under Non-Commerical licenses, see WP:NONCOM and the references linked there. Either the logo will have to be under "fair use" rules or you will need to provided proof that the license on the logo has been updated to one without the non-commerical clause. I will look into why the CSD tag didn't have the "contest this" language you asked about.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Migav_logo_en.jpg&oldid=830746478 is where the "Contest this deletion" button was. It seems that as it logo was in use, I'd updated the license tag so that the logo was under 'fair-use' rules, and removed the CSD tag from the logo, but for some reason didn't remove the notification you received, automatically.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I would also strongly suggest you get the Regional council concerned to drop a note to the OTRS permissions queue confirming that it's okay to use it on Wikipedia.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply to User: ShakespeareFan00 Thank you for providing clear course of action. Next week I will: -- You should send an email using the language from the template at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries: (1) From an address associated with the original publication to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; (2) Then upload the file to Wikimedia Commons and place OTRS pending on the image page. Someone will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received. But I also note that there is a 248 days of backlog. -- Is it relevant to do this ? Bernard Sfez (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Check with them to have the logo under "fair use" rules or if it is ok to updated to one without the non-commerical clause. (it is their property and my best guess is that they want it published no matter what).
 * Have them drop a note to the OTRS permissions queue confirming that it's okay to use it on Wikipedia. Saying this, they mandated me to take care of updating their logo as they don’t have internal resources that can deal with their web presence. Following the document you sent me to I read;
 * Getting something in OTRS is relevant, not much I can do about the OTRS backlog ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)



Reply to User: ShakespeareFan00; Solved, as we discussed:
 * Misgav updated the graphic usage to : Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (without the non-commercial clause).
 * I contacted OTRS and send them email containing details of the permission.
 * I placed the OTRS pending template on the logo page.

THANK YOU for assisting me on this, permission granted Ticket#2018032710004488 (without waiting 298days ;))