User talk:Brunasofia

File permission problem with File:Barbara Arrowsmith Young.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Barbara Arrowsmith Young.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 on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 05:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Barbara Arrowsmith Young (May 6)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barbara Arrowsmith Young.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Brunasofia, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Please leave an edit summary[edit]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Eaqq (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowsmith Program affiliation[edit]

Hello, Brunasofia. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Eaqq (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014 warning[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Arrowsmith School, you may be blocked from editing. --Taeyebaar (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Taeyebaar (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Check the bottom of the page)

December 2014[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for having a promotion-only account. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brunasofia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I am affiliated with the Arrowsmith Program, however have been cautious to make exclusively impartial changes to the page in order to clarify any content that was or is being misrepresented. The language used by user: Taeyebaar has consistently been unrepresentative of the program and this user's edits have been almost exclusively negative in nature. We've gone back and forth on several occasions on the sections around research. I've listed existing research with impartial links, which keep getting removed. For example, this section which has been entirely removed:

Link to article

Another example has been the back and forth around the language "A lot of doubt and criticism has emerged" which I have changed to "Doubt and criticism has emerged" on multiple occasions, only to have it changed back by the user Taeyebaar. I'm happy to abstain indefinitely from editing this page in order to have my wikipedia privileges returned, as I have linked this account to my person and not my work. I would also appreciate some investigation into user Taeyebaar's use of wikipedia, especially in relation to this page.

Decline reason:

I have checked your last few edits, and they pretty much all consisted of adding promotional content based on primary sources (at least once in violation of copyright) while removing reliably-sourced but less flattering content. Apparently you're unable to recognize even in retrospect how that's not acceptable. Huon (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please clean up this request so it is legible; as it stands, it can't be processed.--Jpgordon 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]