User talk:Jennshaggy

Welcome!

A cartoon centipede reads books and types on a laptop. — The Wikipede and the Picture Tutorial. *(image credit)*

Welcome!

Hello, Jennshaggy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that some of your recent edits show an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.

Did you know that ...

...Wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
...most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
...Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
...freely-licensed images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images where they can be used on all Wikipedia projects?
...we recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process – at least until you get the hang of things?

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Marchjuly (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:HK Main Photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:HK Main Photo.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 {{permission 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. Here is a list of your uploads. 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jennshaggy. This same photo can be found being used online at www.hunterkelly.com prior to you uploading it to Wikipedia. This means Wikipedia is going to need some formal way of verifying that it has been released under the type of license you used for the file. There's information on how to do this given in the template I added above this post, but basically Wikipedia is going to need some formal way of verifying that the copyright holder of the photo (the person who took the photo) has given their WP:CONSENT for the file to be uploaded to Wikipedia as licensed. If you're that person, then great; all you need to do is send a CONSENT email to Wikimedia VRT; if you're not that person, then Wikipedia can't host this file without the copyright holder's consent and you can ask for that as explained in WP:PERMISSION. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Hunter Kelly with Wynonna and Naomi Judd 2019.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Hunter Kelly with Wynonna and Naomi Judd 2019.jpeg. 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 {{permission 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. Here is a list of your uploads. 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hunter Kelly (January 30)

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

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

A lot of uncited content.

Please also review if images are necessary. Per MOS:IMAGE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative; each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose.

Please also note the WP:PAID notice left on your user talk page.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hunter Kelly and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jennshaggy! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Hello Jennshaggy. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Jennshaggy. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jennshaggy|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobby!

I am not being compensated directly nor indirectly, nor have a financial stake in any of Hunter Kelly's business and personal endeavors. I was a huge fan of Hunter's podcast, Proud Radio.

Is this the only stage in the formal appeals process? I want to make sure to provide whatever is necessary to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia's Terms of Use.

Please let me know how to proceed.

Thank you for reaching out so quickly.

Jenn Jennshaggy (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Hunter Kelly at the Gym.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hunter Kelly at the Gym.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 {{permission 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. Here is a list of your uploads. 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jennshaggy. Are you Hunter Kelly or did you take this photo of Kelly yourself? If the answer to those questions is "no", you can't upload this file as licensed to Wikipedia under a claim of "own work". A "selfie" by definition means a photo taken by the subject of the photograph, right? That means the author of the photo is Hunter Kelly, and Wikipedia needs some formal way of verifying that they've given their WP:CONSENT for the file to be uploaded under such a license. The easiest way to do this would be to ask Kelly or whoever took the photo to email Wikimedia VRT (as described in the notification above) so that their consent can be verified. If Wikipedia is unable to verify copyright holder consent, it won't be able to host this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marchjuly!

I am a fan of and know Hunter Kelly doing this page as a friend. He deserves a Wikipedia page for all he has accomplished in many areas. While he was emailing the requested Wikipedia email directly from his .com email pertaining to the first images I submitted, he decided to scrap one that was tough to verify (couldn't get ahold of the photog.), and sent me the selfie. I can have him email from his .com again, or ask if he'd like to try another image.

I'll go ahead an ask that he do so after reading/replying to your second comment.

Thank you!

Jenn Jennshaggy (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder of a photo is generally considered to be the person who takes the photo, and only that person can decide under which type of license they want to release their photo. So, if this photo was taken by Kelly, then they can release the photo however they want. However, if Kelly wants to be able to use this photo on Wikipedia, they're going to need to release the photo under a copyright license that Wikipedia accepts and Wikipedia is going to need someway of formally verifying their intention to do so. Because the way the Wikimedia Foundation has decided to make Wikipedia available to the world, it only accepts certain kinds of copyright licenses for the media content it hosts. These licenses aren't a transfer of copyright ownership from someone to Wikipedia, but they do only allow minimal restrictions to be put into place.

The types of copyright licenses that are allowed for a photo like this basically require the copyright holder to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the photo at anytime and reuse for any purpose, including commercial and derivative reuse. In other words, Kelly will be giving their advance permission for anyone anywhere to reuse this photo at anytime as long as they do so in compliance with the copyright licensing Kelly chooses for their photo. If Kelly feels others are using their photo outside of Wikipedia in ways that aren't in compliance with this license or in ways that they don't like, Kelly (not the Wikipedia Foundation) is responsible for going after these reusers and enforcing the terms of the license or asking these reusers to stop. There's no way for files licensed in a way OK for Wikipedia to be limited to "Wikipedia use only", "non-commercial use only", "educational use only" and other restrictions like that; so, if Kelly doesn't want to agree to allow this type of thing, they shouldn't give their consent for the file to be uploaded. It's important that you make sure Kelly understands all of this because the types of copyright licenses Wikipedia accepts are considered to be non-revocable; in other words, once a photo is released as such, it's pretty much near impossible to undo. Even if the file were to be deleted from Wikipedia, those who have already downloaded it could continue to use it as long and they comply with the terms of the copyright license.

The draft you're working isn't going to be assessed based on how many photos are being used in it; it's going to be assessed on whether there's a consensus established that Kelly satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. Articles are created all the time about subjects that someone feels "deserve" to be on Wikipedia, but many such articles end up deleted (sometimes rather quickly) because the subject isn't considered to be Wikipedia notable. If that happens in the case of your draft, then there will be really no place to use the photo on Wikipedia. For this reason, you might want to focus on making sure your draft is approved as an article first and only then worry about adding images to it.

Finally, this has been mentioned above by others, but the more it appears you're interacting with Kelly and creating this article on their behalf, the more likely others are going to think you have at least at WP:APPARENTCOI. This doesn't mean you can't continue trying to create an article about Kelly, but it might mean your efforts could be heavily scrutinized by others. You might also want to take a look at WP:OWN, WP:NOT and WP:PROUD for reference too and explain them to Kelly. If you're successful in creating an article about Kelly, neither you, Kelly, Kelly's representation nor anyone else connected to Kelly will have any sort of final editorial control over the article; all article content will be assessed in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and even negative content (if any) could find its way into the article if its in accordance with said policies and guidelines. Bascially, Kelly and his people will have pretty much zero control over the article and won't be able to use in anyway that goes against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lots of people seem to think having a Wikipedia article created about them will give them another way to promote themselves, but they only find out that's not the case at all after its too late. I strongly suggest you ask Kelly to take close look at WP:PROUD (one of the page's I linked to above) to make sure this is something they understand about Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]