User talk:Berenice at John Cabot University

File copyright problem with File:JCU 40th anniversary logo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:JCU 40th anniversary logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. SKATER ^{Is Back} 13:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, JCUcommunications. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article John Cabot University, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation'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.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I do not understand why so much content has been deleted from the John Cabot University page, leaving very little information. I do not believe there were any copyright infringements. Question: why are only the most recent revisions accessible (November 15, 2015)? Why is not possible to access previous versions of the page?

Hi! Yes, it's been cleaned up. I think my edit summary was fairly clear: "Reverted to revision 36668355 by Kjam1980: Revert to last clean version before the first of many copyright violations from the website, https://web.archive.org/web/20051028192359/http://www.johncabot.edu/welcometojcu/university/university.htm". People apparently connected with the college had copied chunks of text from its website into Wikipedia; we do not tolerate copyright violation, so they were removed, and the revisions that contained them hidden from view. If I recall correctly, I then added some independent reliable sources and rewrote the content based on what they say, in accordance with our policy on verifiability.

If, as appears likely, you are connected with the school, please read the notice I left you immediately above this section. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., Talk:John Cabot University). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice on that page. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact.

Lastly (sorry about all this!), if you intend to edit here you will need to change your username, as we don't allow names that give the impression of shared or institutional use, as "JCUcommunications" so clearly does. User accounts are for individual, not collective, use. There's guidance on how to request a change at Wikipedia:Changing username. If you have questions and ask them here, I should see that you have done so, and will answer if I can. I'm also leaving you an invitation below, which I encourage you to accept. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello! Berenice at John Cabot University, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. It's a good place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please give this a try! It's enough to go there and say "I need help", and people will help you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes about editing

Hi Berenice. I saw your request at John Cabot University, and reviewed the struggles you've had here. I work on COI issues in Wikipedia, and if I may, I would like to explain some things. There are some non-intuitive things about editing here, that I can zip through ~pretty~ quickly....

The first, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with accepted knowledge, neutrally presented, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. Not be a directory, or showcase, or to promote anything - but to provide the world with accepted knowledge.

As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via loads of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS. (there is a whole forest of things, in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus. See? And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. Those are the norms. We call them policies and guidelines. There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is very quick rundown:

WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing, and all the things WP is not, but that people mistaken try to use Wikipedia for)
WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health
WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article. I reckon this will be of special interest to you.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are:

WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
WP:DR - if you get into an argument with someone. Try to work it. If you cannot, then use one of the methods here to get wider input.
WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or the one in the article about you: Talk:YYY

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how to build an article

SO - if you take all that into account, here is the way to build an article:

look for independent sources that comply with WP:RS. Start with great sources.
Look at those sources and only those sources, and see if you have enough per WP:Golden rule to even go forward. If you don't, then just stop.
Forget everything you already know. Read the sources you found, and identify the main and minor themes to guide you with regard to WP:WEIGHT - be wary of distortions in weight due to WP:RECENTISM or due to what you already know or believe
Go look at manual of style guideline created by the relevant WikiProject, to guide the sectioning and other style matters (you can look at articles on similar topics but be ginger b/c WP has lots of bad content) - create an outline.
Start writing the body, based only what is in the sources you have, and source each sentence as you go.
Make sure you write in neutral language.
When you are done, write the LEAD per WP:LEAD, infobox, external links, etc.

The completed work should have nothing unsourced (because the sources drove everything you wrote, not prior knowledge or personal experiences or what the client wanted; there is no original research nor WP:PROMO in it.

I hope that makes sense. The draft article you created, has a bunch of unsourced content in it, and is based on a bunch of non-independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest #2

Hi! Would you kindly take the time to re-read the extensive advice you've been given on this page? As I've already said, conflict of interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles; in practice, that discouragement often takes the form of immediate reversion of any such edit. If there are changes you want made to your employer's page here, you should make request on the talk page, Talk:John Cabot University. Unfortunately the whole project is pretty much overwhelmed with editors trying to push their corporate agenda here, so it might be some time before you get a response. Requests that are too long, are not supported by reliable sources, or are not in accordance with our policy of neutrality, are very unlikely to be accepted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for the reminder. I will make the request on the talk page. Berenice at John Cabot University (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Cabot University (January 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at John Cabot University instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. 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, go to Draft:John Cabot University and 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.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Cabot University, Rome has been accepted

John Cabot University, Rome, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:JCU 40th anniversary logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JCU 40th anniversary logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]