User talk:Factor-ies

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Welcome!

Welcome message
Hello, Factor-ies, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited was Louis Lozowick, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! – S. Rich (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

More advice
I posted the message above because I saw your comments on the ANI page. Perhaps a belated welcome will help you understand what is going on. Two difficulties are apparent: One, you have a conflict of interest in adding material which refers to your gallery and the artists that exhibit there. Two, the material you've added does not have citations based on reliable sources. In Wikipedia, the burden is on the editor who wants to add or remove material to justify the edit. In your case, you did not meet the burden in providing a source for the material. Your nemesis, Hullaballo, was entirely correct in removing it. So, what should you do? First, don't expect much to result from the ANI you posted. That is an area of Wikipedia that more experienced editors get involved in and you were in over your head when posting the notice. Not a problem, though, because that discussion will be closed with no action taken. But your COI remains. I recommend adding information about yourself on your WP:USERPAGE and declare your COI. At that point, when you want to post something about your gallery or yourself, you post something on the article talk page and justify the proposed addition. For example, when the NYT has an article about an artist in your gallery, you say "This NYT article discusses such-and-such (and provide the citation) which I would like to add to the article. I raise this because I am the owner of the gallery in question." If, after a while, no one objects you go ahead and post the info. Be advised, though, that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY will apply. So even if the NYT has an article that does not mean the info is encyclopedic. Lastly, I suggest you post something on the ANI that says "I have received guidance about COI on my talk page. I intend to review it and abide by WP policies. Please close this discussion." If you've got questions, post them here. I will watch this page for a week or so. Happy editing. And Happy Fourth of July! – S. Rich (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear S. Rich, I want to thank you for your comments, which I whole-heartedly appreciate. I have a question. Your recommendation is excellent, that when I have information about myself or my gallery to add to an article, I post it first on the article talk page and allow for comment within the Wikipedia community. Yours is a wise idea, and I shall follow your advice. Only out of curiosity, is that an actual Wikipedia set policy, a Wikipedia suggestion, or your own common sense. Even if it is a set policy, you are the only one to suggest it--so kudos to you! The second difficulty you raise, that my material did not have citations based on reliable sources, indicates, I think, that you  had not read my contributions before writing this letter to me. That is understandable, as you are offering me general advise. In your good nature, you are accepting Mr. Wolfowitz' version of the facts. In reality some of the articles he deleted as "unsourced" were perfectly sourced. Now, in a new development, Mr. Wolfowitz wrote a comment on the ANI  that verifies my contention that his edits were personally, not neutrally, motivated. His motivation seems to be a retribution for some imagined wrong that he perceives me to have done to my artist and friend, Al Hirschfeld. Given this new development, I am not asking the discussion to be closed. I have responded to his comment some hours ago. In the near future I may accept your kind offer to review my contributions before I upload them. But for now I will close this letter with Happy Seventh of July! Margo Feiden [[User:Factor-ies|Factor-ies (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps to clarify. WP:RS refers to reliable source, like the NYT. Along with that, we have verifiability, meaning other editors can get to the source via the internet, or in published material. When it comes to citing yourself, e.g., articles/books/etc. that you may have written, look at WP:SELFCITE. I am not going to parse the particular edits that you and Wolfwitz made, but I have the feeling that Wolfwitz was correct in the various changes. But I and many other editors remain accessible to answer your questions. For but one example/resource, look at WP:HELPDESK. – S. Rich (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please give me some credit--the contributions that I say were sourced were certainly not self-sourced. HW has a history of very disruptive editing, and has been blocked because of that on at least one occasion. He also repeatedly broke with Wikipedia's policies, and when other editors unknown to me undid his edits, HW went back and deleted the material all over again. Factor-ies (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC) (This post continues on for 3 more sentences)I'm afraid that before one can make a sound judgment in this case, one must go through it contribution by contribution. However, I expect to follow your excellent suggestion and post my contribution first on the article talk page and allow for comment within the Wikipedia community, That should steel me against HW continuing to behave as he has done. Factor-ies (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's what I recommend WRT (with regard to) the ANI you posted. Put resolved at the top of your comments/top of the section. (Just copy & paste .) These ANI threads become mere drama, and they often turn on the person who started the thread. By posting resolved, everyone can move on.  – S. Rich (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As you said you did not want to continue the discussion, I posted resolved on the ANI. At this point I am taking your userpage off of my watchlist. If you'd like to contact me, please feel free to do so by adding a comment on this page. And add (TB) on my talk page. This will let me know you've left a message here and I will respond. Happy editing.  – S. Rich (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you leave the ANI discussion alone. The particular discussion you started will automatically archive after 36 hours of inactivity. If you respond, the 36 hour clock will restart. IMHO, there is nothing to be gained by keeping the discussion open. I am not offering any opinion as to whether Hullaballo is correct or not. Only that the matter is one which is basically closed as far as the allegations and counter-allegations go. (As above, if you want me to answer here, leave a "Talk back" message on my user page.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again for your excellent advice. I have proposed some new content at Talk: Don Freeman and Talk: Ruth Gikow as you suggested. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks again, Factor-ies (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken a quick look. Right off the bat, using a paid advert as a reference is not going to work. So modify your proposed edit by striking out that line. (See the Wiki markup immediately below.) Next, you are going to face resistance over the fact that most of the references are simply "Goings on". From my visits to NYC, I recall looking at that New Yorker section to find events, but that did not make the occurrence of such events significant in and of themselves. Compare, if the artists are exhibiting in MMOA that is significant because MMOA has its own notability. Next, two of the references you post are the CSM and Daily News. They are good WP:RS (especially when compared with Goings on). Well, with that in mind you can modify the edit so that the references can be incorporated into the article. But you must make your edits about Freeman and Gikow. The involvement of the gallery is incidental, so as written the proposed edit won't work because of the weight given to the gallery. Lastly, you might post your proposed edits (after modification) on the WikiProject Visual Arts talk page (See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts.) Be a Wikipedian first, and galleryist second. Look at Ideological Turing Test for guidance.  – S. Rich (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions
You might put in the following template at the top of the talk pages where you have a request. edit request. Click on the link for more information. As a real life example, look at Talk:Education Management Corporation. Also, a connected contributor template on the top of those other articles may be appropriate. Regards. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Al Hirschfeld's drawing of theater press agent Richard Maney, Drumming Up Business on Broadway.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Al Hirschfeld's drawing of theater press agent Richard Maney, Drumming Up Business on Broadway.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Margo Feiden Galleries.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Margo Feiden Galleries.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

New message from Shearonink
Shearonink (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing
Hi Factor-ies. It seems that you've been previously advised about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest due to your connection to Margo Feiden, but still seem to be directly editing the article anyways. Although nobody particularly "owns" a Wikipedia article as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content and all editors are welcome to be bold in improving articles, there are no special editing privileges granted to the creators of articles, the subjects of articles, or persons connected to the subjects of articles; all editors are going to be expected to do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines or else their edits may be revised or partially/totally reverted by others. When there are disagreements over article content, editors are expected to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to establish a Wikipedia:Consensus for the changes they wish to make. Since you've been claiming over the years to be Margo Feiden, you should refrain from directly editing the article pretty much at all times except as mentioned in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and instead should be following Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Please note that Wikipedia defines an "uncontroversial edit" in a very specific way and any edit you make which is subsequently undone by another editor is considered "controversial" in nature regardless of how much time passes since the original edit was made. In other words, anything that involves adding or removing content (including images) that is more than a simple typo or grammar correction, should be proposed on the article's talk page first.Your best chance at ensuring the content of the article is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines is to request assistance on the article's talk page per Wikipedia:Edit requests or by asking for help at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. This will make other editors aware any concerns you may have, allow them to assess these concerns, and figure out what (if anything) needs to be done about them per relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia cannot force you to adhere to its various policies and guidelines and is willing to assume good faith when mistakes are made, but editors who either continuously choose not to do so or appear to be unable to do so often find their behavior discussed at one of Wikipedia's various administrator noticeboards which can lead to an administrator stepping in and taking action to prevent any disruption to Wikipedia. If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to ask them below and I or another editor will try to answer them or at least point you to a place where you might find someone to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Your username and the way you've been identifying yourself
Hi again Factor-ies. Over the years, you been either directly stating that you're Margo Feiden or signing as Feiden in various posts you've made. There's nothing wrong with this per se as long as you are really Margo Feiden. Please understand that nobody can know for sure who you really are online and people can easily claim to be someone they aren't without anyone being none the wiser. The Wikipedia community is willing to assume good faith and editors are even allowed to use their real names as their user names if they want, which many do choose to do. However, in cases where an editor shares that same name as a specific identifiable person (particularly someone who is written about on Wikipedia), then the community may request some sort of formal verification of the editor's identity as explained in Wikipedia:Username policy and sometimes an account may be soft-blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation until proper verification can be made. Your username "Factor-ies" is technically fine, but continuing to identify yourself as Feiden may cause others to be concerned about the possibility that you are someone just pretending to be her. You could go along way in making sure that there are no such misunderstandings by sending an email to Wikipedia OTRS and verifying that you are indeed Feiden and not someone else. An OTRS volunteer will review your email and add Template:Verified account to your user page if everything checks out. Having your identify verified by OTRS doesn't mean you are no longer subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines like Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, but it may prevent others for mistaking you for someone impersonating you or trying to make others believe you are someone else.Now, if you wish to edit under your real name but didn't realize that you could do so, then you can customize your signature if you want or you may even try Wikipedia:Changing username. On the other hand, if you want to keep things as is, then you can as well. Just be advised that Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines (including those related to conflict of interest) apply to the person behind the account, not the username being used, and some other editors are likely going to keep reminding you of things such as conflict of interest simply because you have been identifying yourself as Feiden.Finally, if you're not really Feiden, then you need to stop identifying yourself as her immediately. If, by chance, you thought that claiming to be Feiden would somehow make your editing of content related to her seem more credible, then you've made a common mistake. It's OK to make a mistake and the Wikipedia community will assume good faith when they happen, but only to a certain degree. Knowingly impersonating someone else is one of the things that the Wikipedia community has very little tolerance for and often leads to a swift administrator response to prevent any violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I didn't post this last bit to accuse you of doing something wrong, but rather just to point out that the Wikipedia community has established policies regarding such things to try and prevent any damaging impersonation of any kind as much as possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)