User talk:Danbrazda

Image copyright problem with Image:HD Logo.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:HD Logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Lisa Figueroa.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lisa Figueroa.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 22:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on VCU-TV/HD, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Whispe ring  17:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page of VCU-TV/HD
I was editing while the page got deleted, so for completeness sake I will copy the discussion here. --Pekaje 23:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly denotes this page as promotion for a company? VCU-TV/HD is not for profit and we gain nothing by promoting it on Wikipedia. This is an informational page not unlike any of thousands of other submission throughout Wikipedia. Colleges (who are far from non-profit) post all over this site as do network television stations both of which should be considered much more a promotion than our VCU-TV/HD submission. Perhaps you objected to my post on the talk page welcoming comments on our website? If that is the problem I went ahead and deleted it. PLEASE ADVISE WITH MORE DEATIL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbrazda (talk • contribs) 18:34, August 19, 2007
 * Whether you be non-profit or not is completely immaterial. The entire article is written like one big advertisement, and would need a major rewrite to be of acceptable tone.  You should also generally not write about projects that you are personally involved in, as that may be a conflict of interest.  The article is also littered with links back to your own website, which is a common tactic to boost search engine rankings because Wikipedia is generally high on their ranking.  Even if rewritten, the article would probably not survive a deletion debate, as the subject does not appear notable.  Excluding links from your university, Google can find little of consequence.  Claims to notability should be backed up by verifiable and reliable sources.  In short, I suggest you wait until someone else bothers to write about you.  --Pekaje 19:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pekaje, who are you and what are your credentials? "Whether you be non-profit or not is completely immaterial"- hardly. I assume the objection to advertising on Wikipedia is to keep spammers from making money off of the popularity of the site. "The article is also littered with links back to your own website, which is a common tactic to boost search engine rankings because Wikipedia is generally high on their ranking". You're telling me that submissions to Wikipedia rarely provide links to their websites? That one really floored me. "Excluding links from your university, Google can find little of consequence." So now Google is the expert on what is worthy of people's attention? Step away from your keyboard and realize that people are smart enough to decide what they are interested in and what they want to avoid. Your "expertise" is nothing short of censorship as I think most who care to enter this debate will agree that there is nothing unworthy of Wikipedia in this entry. Danbrazda 21:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am an editor on Wikipedia, and whatever credentials I consider relevant are displayed on my user page (click my signature). Whether you believe it to be true or not, it does in fact not matter whether an article is about a non-profit organization or not.  If it is written like an advertisement, it will get treated like an advertisement.  That generally means speedy deletion criterion G11.  I suggest you read the relevant guideline here.  As for the links, yes it is common for an article about a company to have its website listed.  That is encyclopedic content.  Your short article has a whopping 18(!) links to the vcu.edu domain, of which 8 are direct links to vcutvhd.vcu.edu.  That is not encyclopedic, and it is definitely not an independent source for any claims being made.  The reason I bring up Google is that it is a common metric of what might be notable and what might not be.  It is commonly used in deletion debates, if the notability of the subject is unclear.  It is not hard evidence, just an indication.  Since I was not the one to mark the article for speedy deletion, I'm definitely not the only one to think that this is something that is not ready for Wikipedia yet.  Wikipedia is not censored, but it is also not a soapbox.  As a final note, may I ask you to keep the tone civil and factual?  I realize that it can be hard when facing deletion of an article about something you're personally involved with.  That is one of the reasons one should not write that kind of articles in the first place. --Pekaje 22:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the tone of my prior post but I am still having difficulty seeing anything that puts the VCU-TV/HD entry into the category of "advertisement". I am more than willing to reduce the number of links if that is a big objection- they are there as a convenience for the reader in case their interest is piqued at any given point of the entry and they want further info (hence the redundancy of the same links throughout).  If my personal posting of the entry is considered too much of a "conflict of interest", I'm sure I can find a neutral party to submit it, but, I would venture to say that the vast majority of entries to Wikipedia are put forth by people with a vested interest in the subject matter.  Is that a conflict of interest? If anyone has any other SPECIFIC issues with the entry I would be happy to reply and/or take care of them. Danbrazda 22:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For future reference, I would suggest just a single link to the main website in an External links section, to reduce the spamming impression one gets from the article in its present form. While it is true that articles are usually contributed to by people who have some interest in the subject, it is also possible to get too close to be able to write about it in a balanced way.  My main concern with the article is actually not how it is written in this case (some copyediting would probably help a lot), but more that I fail to see what makes this subject notable.  Has it, for instance, been the subject of independent news coverage?  It is also not entirely clear to me exactly what it is you do.  Depending on interpretation, one might consider you a local TV station, which might barely satisfy the notability criteria on its own.  If you can show something that would convince me that the subject is notable enough to not get deleted, I'll be happy to help clean up the article.  Of course, in a user subpage at first, so it isn't deleted in an unfinished form.  Don't worry if you don't have a copy of the article.  Most admins will gladly provide the deleted text on request (since it's not copyright violation or libelous material). --Pekaje 23:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)