User talk:Isabellam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wateraid

No problem :) My mistake.  -- Run!  19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:EWP.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:EWP.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 14:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicts of Interest

Please be aware of Wikipedia's rather stringent guidelines about conflict of interest. Your edits to such articles as WaterAid and End Water Poverty seem to represent such conflicts of interest, and may have adverse effects on the articles, as this can be deemed advertisement for the organizations. I have made some edits to diminish this effect (it is forbidden, for example, to put a "how to join" notice in an article). Please study our guidelines on maintaining a Neutral Point of View as well. --Orange Mike 15:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for that. Is there any way I can make my case or a process (like sticking my edits up for review) that I can follow to get all the conflict of interest / neutrality doubt tags removed? Thanks for your help Isabellam 15:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea is not to remove substantive content from articles, but to maintain the ol' Neutral Point of View. Re-write, don't delete. The articles as written are more like advertisements, advocating the causes of the organizations. Look at an article on a cause to which you are indifferent or even vaguely hostile; examine what language is used to avoid an appearance either of support or condemnation of the cause, presenting instead only information (fully sourced from impartial third parties). What we seek is a more neutral presentation, without advocacy or denunciation. As a rule of thumb, people like yourself are generally advised to edit articles where there is no COI, with the specific exception of removal of overtly false material (and you should be prepared to document the falsity if challenged); apply your expertise to other topics instead. Does this clarify? --Orange Mike 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)