User talk:Estelle1960

August 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Martin Gilbert has been reverted. Your edit here to Martin Gilbert 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://facebook.com/sirmartingilbert) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. 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) 10:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Be careful editing for your employer
Hello, Estelle1960. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Martin Gilbert, you may have a conflict of interest.

Editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. If you have a conflict of interest, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with (see WP:COI);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. You self-identified as an employee of Gilbert in the license summary of File:Sir Martin Gilbert.jpg; that's the reason for this message. —C.Fred (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Estelle1960. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Martin Gilbert,. 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. 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. 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, 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. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  14:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of File:Sir Martin Gilbert.jpg
Just to be clear, Sir Martin and his office realize that they've released File:Sir Martin Gilbert.jpg under a free license, and it may be used anywhere in the world, including commercial reuse, with nothing more than attribution of the source needed? —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Sir Martin Gilbert.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sir Martin Gilbert.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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Majora (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Sir Martin Gilbert.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Sir Martin Gilbert.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 removed 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. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)