User talk:Imjustvisiting

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Imjustvisiting! Thank you for your contributions. I am Rosiestep and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Rosiestep (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Thanks for creating this account. Now, before we go any further, you need to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin D. Fuller. Edwardx had nominated the article for deletion discussion on the grounds that Fuller simply isn't notable enough for an article. That was not actually determined by a discussion because of my speedy deletion. However, you will have to decide whether to take the chance on it being nominated for deletion again on the same basis. You will also see my reasons for deletion at the top of the page.

Please read the following very carefully.

you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that he meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to him or his organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the he claims or interviewing him. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls. In the deleted text, nearly all the sources are his own books, blogs, articles and social media. You will have to replace those with genuine independent third-party sources as defined in the link.
You will have to show how he meets the notability guidelines. It's not obvious to me that he does, and if you can't write an article that makes it clear, you will be wasting your time
you must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Because the article was sourced to his own writings, or to his company it's full of self-praise, such as His results included the creation of 80,000 new jobs worldwide... He offers guidance on management in any culture with respect and sensitivity... the book also explores his own career journey, describing how he built Marriott International's global presence, all lavishly decorated with self-quotes.
there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
you must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article, please make sure that he meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. Have a look also at some of the articles here to see how it should be done.

If you still wish to proceed, I'll restore the article as a draft, remove the obvious spam and inadequate sources and indicate where proper sources are needed (nearly everywhere. Please don't underestimate the challenge you face in getting this to an acceptable form, but let me know on my talk page if you want me to restore as an edited draft, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored as Draft:Edwin D. Fuller. I've removed promotional text. As I indicated, the problem was that nearly everything was sourced to him writing or speaking about himself, not independent third party sources. For example, the claimed board memberships in the last section should be sourced to those organisations, not his own website. Some of the surviving refs are bare urls and need formatting (most lack a title, so refill won't fix it) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for latest post. First note that paid editing of any kind is strongly discouraged, and I would probably be stripped of my admin rights if I accepted payments. A donation to Wikipedia would be great, but I wouldn't even be aware of it, and it wouldn't make any difference to me.

I actually think the current draft is a reasonable basis. If you are just stating bare facts about his career, the referencing doesn't need to be quite so impeccable. It's unlikely that anyone will challenge whether he was president of Marriott as long as the source isn't too blatantly promotional, and for minor stuff you might get away without a source. What you need to be careful about is stuff like long-term strategy development that applied corporate philosophies, delivered on brand promise and enabled ethical decisions which is giving an opinion on his competence in specific area; although the reference is fine in this case, it doesn't actually say what you claim. Better to just say he won the award.

Go through and check that what you say is purely factual, without comments on his competence, don't be drawn into things like a couple of paras about Laguna, which looks a promo for the company, just stick with the first, referenced sentence.

I appreciate you may not be able to reference everything, but I would have thought that there would be public record of an award ceremony attended by the Prince of Wales?

The article isn't far off, but it needs a bit more because its troubled history means that it will get closer attention than it might otherwise merit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

Yes, you need to fix bare urls, I'd also add a publisher= field to those refs where it's not obvious what the source is, eg <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/Articles/13071/Ed-Fullers-career-comes-full-circle-at-Marriott | title=Ed Fuller's career comes full circle at Marriott}}</ref> would be better as <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/Articles/13071/Ed-Fullers-career-comes-full-circle-at-Marriott | title=Ed Fuller's career comes full circle at Marriott|publisher =Hotelnewsnow}}</ref> giving "Ed Fuller's career comes full circle at Marriott". Hotelnewsnow.

The other problem is the book. You have it as the first section, even before his professional career, which looks like a sales pitch. Normally publications are the last section, and that's where this should be. Secondly, you shouldn't use the book as a ref to itself. Add a subsection called Bibliography and put just the book publication details in it. Also, your summary of the book is taken from iTunes, a commercial sales site, find something independent, reviewers just won't accept sites like Amazon or iTunes.

His military career seems oddly placed, presumably this was early in his life, yet you place it after a mention of something in 2013

I don't like the Awards and Recognition heading, it sounds promotional, and I'm not clear that some of these are actually either. Better to move the industry awards into his professional career and have something like "Other activities" for this section

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:E.Fuller.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:E.Fuller.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), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (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:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 01:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More[edit]

It's looking better. One minor formatting thing is that there shouldn't be spaces between punctuation and a ref or between two refs. You could move it to article space, but it might be better to add {{subst:submit}} to the page inviting a formal review. However, there is a backlog there.

The image was deleted because it didn't have a valid licence or fair use claim. You can't publish it as fair use because he's still alive and a free-to-use image could be taken. If you re-upload it, do so here and follow the wizard. These are your options

If it's your own image, you can say so when asked. Note that if the image has been previously published elsewhere on the internet, you will fail on this claim unless it was with a specific public domain tag
If you have copied it from an explicitly PD image on the internet, give the source. Apart from US government sites and Wikipedia, few images are explicitly free to use for for any purpose
If I remember correctly, the image is the same as the one on this page, which isn't marked as public domain, and in fact the page is tagged All rights reserved. Pictures uploaded at Commons on on Wikipedia must be verifiability free to use for any purpose, including commercial, and that must be clearly stated.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Ed Fuller 2004.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ed Fuller 2004.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 Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia: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 in section F11 of the 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ed Fuller 2004.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Ed Fuller 2004.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 text or images taken 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 the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 deleted 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI[edit]

A long time ago, I asked you if you were Fuller or representing him, and you claimed, despite your former user name, that you didn't have a conflict of interest. You have now said to RHaworth that you can get a copyright release, which suggests that you have not been totally transparent about your personal involvememnt. I'll remind you again that if you have a conflict of interest, you must state it on your user page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue above seems unresolved. I simply don't believe now that you don't have a conflict of interest, and until that's addressed, as I've indicated above, I see no reason to involve myself further with this article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you started off editing with his name as your user name; you've spent months trying to get this this posted, including approaching third parties to get copyright release; you haven't made a single edit to any other article on Wikipedia. I've tried to assume good faith, but I simply don't believe that you are a completely disinterested observer who has decided to make it their mission in life to write a Wikipedia article about someone they have no connection with. This article was protected because of repeated spamming from now-blocked sock puppet accounts, so there is a limit to how trusting I am with your contributions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]