User talk:Jbecker88

Spam in Red Wing Framing Gallery
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Red Wing Framing Gallery, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Red Wing Framing Gallery is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Red Wing Framing Gallery, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Red Wing Framing Gallery
I have nominated Red Wing Framing Gallery, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Red Wing Framing Gallery. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, JBecker88. It's true that there is no sales language in your article; I apologize and have withdrawn the characterization as spam. However, let me explain why your article is being discussed for deletion, since it seems to me that you may not understand what we mean by "Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion".
 * First, let me emphasize that our discussion is not about what we think of the gallery, or of you. In fact, from what I've seen in the references you included it appears that the company is doing fine work and providing valuable services to its community.
 * The main problem is that your article doesn't show that the gallery meets what Wikipedia calls its notability criterion. You've listed several impressive and interesting exhibitions it has hosted, thinking that that makes it obvious to everyone that the gallery is noteworthy. Unfortunately, that's not quite the same concept as notability. For notability, what we need is for somebody else--somebody who's well-known, considered an expert, widely trusted, and objective--to make the claim of noteworthiness (usually implicitly, by publishing something nontrivial about the company).
 * You might think we should include articles like yours and leave it up to the readers to form their own conclusions about whether the subject is noteworthy, but consider what a disaster that would be. We'd have articles about every cockamamie idea under the sun, and our readers would think the encyclopedia was full of hogwash. That would taint our good, well-referenced articles with distrust by association.
 * You might also think we should only exclude ridiculous fringe theories and outlandish material, and include articles like yours. But there's much too much gray area in the middle, and we can't do that. The editors of Wikipedia number in the tens of thousands, and there's no way we could come to any kind of consensus on which gray-area material should get the nod. Even if we worked out some way to cull out the deadwood, many of our readers would set the bar higher or lower and think our standards were arbitrary. So we have to rely on reliable third-party sources to tell us what's notable, by actually taking note of it. These sources have been vetted in the forum of public opinion, and already have the public's trust. We base our articles on what they say so that we can borrow that trust.
 * So you see, we have to insist that all our articles be based on experts' published opinions. If you can find a reliable source who has something nontrivial to say about the gallery, by all means add it to your article's references and paraphrase or summarize it in the text. (Note that less widely-known experts, such as local TV commentators or feature reporters, won't be weighed as heavily as better-known experts, but if you can find several of those that may be enough to demonstrate notability.) In any case, your article was just right in most ways: grammar, structure, style, neutral POV, etc., and I hope you'll consider writing other articles--with appropriate sources, of course. Wikipedia needs more editors with your skills. --Unconventional (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:RWFG-2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:RWFG-2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:RWFGlogo.svg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:RWFGlogo.svg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)