User talk:Meganmaguire13

Meganmaguire13, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Meganmaguire13!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-free logo for CoorsTek

Hi @Meganmaguire13 You recently uploaded the file File:CoorsTek_Tag-01.png with a free use license. As the logo is a registered trademark of CoorsTek, then I believe that it is not a free use image and therefore the description you entered for the license is incorrect. I suggest that you update the file description and its license summary to reflect the true situation. The older File:CoorsTek Logo.PNG file description is probably a good example of what a file description for a non-free logo should have. I would be able to update the description for you if you could tell me the source of the logo file. My Gussie (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello - This is the new official CoorsTek logo . I am an employee of CoorsTek and uploaded the logo. Can you please help me update the description so that it is correct? Meganmaguire13 (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Meganmaguire13 I have taken the liberty of moving your reply here from my talk page to your talk page, where it belongs. I can understand that this method of communicating may initially appear to be confusing. If you reply by typing below this, our discussion will become easy for anyone to follow. I will get a notification when you reply, as long as you include a link to my user name. The colons at the start of each successive reply will automatically indent it, to make the conversation easier to read.

I will gladly help you correct the description of the new CoorsTek logo that you have uploaded. To do so, I would like to confirm two things. First of all, I am assuming that the logo is copyrighted by CoorsTek and may even be a registered trade mark. If this is not the case, we will need a different license description. Secondly, please provide a simple description of where the logo was sourced from. This source description allows readers to know where it came from. As I see that the new logo appears on your company's web site, the source description can be the web site URL, or even the URL of the specific page from where the image could be copied.

If you can confirm these two facts, then you can copy the description of the old CoorsTek logo, which you can see when clicking on this link. The fancy formatting you see is created by two templates, which are quite easy to use, but you will only be able to see if you click on the Edit tab on the page of the old logo. The templates have double curly brackets ("{{ }}") around them. The parameters of the templates (after each "|") are what you fill in to determine the specific details of the particular logo you are describing. The first template provides a description of the rationale for the use of the logo, and the second template describes the license for use of the file. You can copy and paste all the text of the two templates to the new logo's page, under the appropriate section headings, and don't forget to delete the current incorrect templates that state that the image is for free use! You should check each parameter to make sure that it's correct and you should preview your changes before saving. You can read the Wikipedia guidelines for the required descriptions at WP:FUG.

If you are not comfortable making these changes, please let me know here and I can do them for you. My Gussie (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi again @Meganmaguire13  :) This is not a cause for alarm, but I thought that it would be good if you were made aware that I have requested that the copy of the logo that is uploaded in Wikimedia Commons (which is a different place to the English Wikipedia) be deleted. If you have not seen it already, your notice of this request is at this link. I understand that the fact that the logo is in an entirely different Wikimedia project may appear to be complicated. It has to do with legal issues and Wikimedia policies. I have stated that a copy of the logo file should be kept for the CoorsTek article. This copy is in the English Wikipedia and is the one that will get the corrected description. If this all seems too complicated, please let me know, and I will help. If you prefer, you may contact me privately by clicking on Email this user on my talk page (it's under Tools on the left). My Gussie (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Editing your employer's article

Hi @Meganmaguire13 I have put this discussion under a separate section. I do not want to discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia, and providing accurate descriptions for your company's logos is acceptable. However you should be aware that making any but the most innocuous changes to your employer's article puts you in a conflict of interest situation. I suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia's guidelines in this regard, which you can find at WP:CONFLICT. You will see that there are suggestions for ways to allow CoorsTek and people who may be in conflict (such as yourself) to contribute to the CoorsTek article. Some of these suggestions involve asking editors such as myself and many others to make the changes on CoorsTek's behalf. This is something that many editors, including myself will do.

Do not let conflict of interest discourage you from editing. You are invited and strongly encouraged to contribute more broadly to Wikipedia, especially as you have gained the skills and interest to do so. Almost every article awaits your edits, and even the simplest typo correction is valuable. A great place to get more information is WP:QUESTIONS, especially the section on the right under the title Questions about using and contributing to Wikipedia. My Gussie (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)