User talk:KateFisherGA

December 2021
Hello KateFisherGA. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. 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. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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, broadly construed, 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:KateFisherGA. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. ''Please stop adding poor quality images to articles, per MOS:IMAGES. If your employer wants these images displayed publicly, then add them to your employer's corporate website. Wikipedia is not a personal photo gallery. Thanks for your understanding.'' Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

What you are doing, vs. what Wiki wants you to be doing.
Your library has a bunch of photos which it wants to give to Wiki. You are therefore adding them almost willy-nilly to articles, despite the fact that are often not suited. This raises the hackles of yer average wikipedgian, for reasons alluded to above.

Instead, you might want to consider adding the pictures to Wikimedia Commons, with appropriate documentation of whatever rights release your library is giving to them. At this point, all of the myriad technogeeks that inhabit the backwater swamps of Wikiland can take the images, clean them up, edit them so the Reader is not seeing double, &cet, &cet, ad naus. (The things that some folk here can do with photos are so jarringly extensive that it is probably proscribed by several verses in Leviticus, to say nothing of the Hague and Geneva Conventions). Then other folk will want to use the images, and they will wind up visible on Wiki, and everybody is happy. Qwirkle (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Please also see the edits of User:MorrisClark,User:Rosieacooper, and User:Ma'amBushey. Same employer, and appear to have been instructed dump images into Wikipedia articles.  Most images are poor quality stereo images, or images completely unrelated to the article.  I agree, they are a huge benefit on the Commons. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I can only agree with that, these are a great asset for Commons, and very welcome there: thanks to your library for making them available.

I'd say the best thing you can be doing is increasing their utility at Commons by making sure that they have clear descriptions and categories there. Some of them are only categorised as "Media contributed by Middle Georgia Archives", with a very brief description, but could also be classified by where they were taken and what they show (and also put into "Category:Stereo cards" so that researchers looking specifically for stereographs can find them), and given a more detailed description of what's happening in the photo.

You are still very welcome to add images to Wikipedia articles where they provide a useful illustration, and I'd recommend the cropping tool at https://croptool.toolforge.org to reduce the stereographs to a single image, where the stereographic nature isn't crucial to the illustration and the reader would be better served by a single frame displayed at a larger size. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for a communication channel
Magnolia677 notes above that several of your colleagues (User:AdrianWilliamsGA1, User:Edwardsn09, User:AHAbneyMGRL and User:Liascrivani are four more) have been adding stereograph photos to articles all year, nearly all of which have been removed again by other editors. This doesn't seem a good use of library staff's time, if their work is all being undone!

It looks like you're all working under the same instructions to add stereographs and make an edit summary like "Added relevant image from collection", and if you're following somebody's library tutorial, it could use an update to suggest cropping the image and making sure they add value to the article. Can whoever's in charge of this project get in touch with us, maybe on this user talk page, to talk about it? --Lord Belbury (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)