Steg.contact
External links on Steganography tools edit
Hi, I'll answer here publicly a question that you have sent me via PM, about the article and external link policy.
- Q. "How to add external links to implementations inside the article?"
- A. "You should not add external links to a specific software, since WP it's not indended to be a software directory."
The standard way is to (1) ask the DMOZ team to include your software and to add to the resources of the article a single link to the DMOZ section related to the steganography tools, in this case. If you have a (2) WP article, inside the mainspace/namespace0, you can surely hyperlink it (see for example: list of portable software). Another exception is (3) adding an external link to an external well-known software directory. Feel free to ask any help about how to contribute to WP, nobody should bite you ! ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Image without license edit
Unspecified source/license for File:StegIcon.png edit
Thanks for uploading File:StegIcon.png. 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) 10:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ste.contact, Greetings. Pls note that your creation of Steg steganography software has been moved to Draft:Steg steganography software. Content added/edited in Wikipedia needs "inline citation" from independent (third party / secondary / tertiary) reliable source (in any language) for verification to gauge the nobility criteria is met. The articles's inline citation is the WP:BURDEN which it is on the person adding the information. Please note official website, records of sport events or individual player records are consider primary source and not independent source, and social network source such as facebook, twitter, instagram, imbd and etc are considered NOT reliable source and can not be used for citing. Independent reliable source are sources are those obtain from major newspaper, such as The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, CNN news and etc. or source obtain from major publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). Pls see
- reliable source - see WP:RS
- primary vs secondary vs tiartiary source - see WP:WPNOTRS
- verification - see WP:V
- notability - see WP:N
- webcite - see WP:CITEWEB and its template -see Template: cite web
Once you have provided inline citations, you could move back the page to "article" to resubmit. For more editing help, you could send your question to the friendly and helpful volunteers at the Teahouse. Lastly, I strongly encourage you to visit WP:The Wikipedia Adventure for there are some short and fun exercises on neutrality, verifiability, collaboration, research and sourcing. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
March 2018 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 15:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Steg steganography software has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Promotional article about unremarkable software.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MER-C 15:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Steg.contact (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is simple freeware software: nobody gain money from it so there is no promotional intent, only informative intent. I can't understand why, for example, the page of similar software "OpenPuff" is ok and my page instead is proposed for deletetion.
Decline reason:
Whether or not you make any money from it is irrelevant, you still cannot use Wikipedia to promote your product. Yunshui 雲水 08:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Steg.contact (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yunshui 雲水 You does not answer to my question: Why the page of OpenPuff, for example, is ok and mine is "promotion"? I simply take OpenPuff page as a template just to do things the right way, I'm not a spammer! Tell me the difference please so that I can understand what's wrong with my page! (and possibly modify it to be accepted).
Decline reason:
The difference is, you have a conflict of interest. Yamla (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Steg.contact (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20859 was submitted on Mar 14, 2018 13:38:15. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Steg.contact (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yunshui 雲水 So...I have a conflict of interest! What exactly is my conflict of interest that the author of OpenPuff does not have? The problem is my identity? Should I ask to someone else to write the same article so there is no conflict of interest? Is this a bit stupid isn't it? If the problem instead is in the contents of the article then let's change it the right way!
Decline reason:
You are free to appeal your block through WP:UTRS if you want, but arguing over the reason for it and calling our policies and guidelines stupid aren't going to get you far. I've revoked your TPA. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
You really need to stop arguing that Wikipedia needs an article about your product because other stuff exists; it's an entirely specious position. The only things that matter, as far as Wikipedia is concerned are: a) does Steg merit a Wikipedia article (does it meet the notability criteria) and b) if it does, are you capable of writing it in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines (it seems likely that you aren't). All of that, however, is largely irrelevant to the block; if you continue posting unblock requests that demand that "my competitor has an article, so I should too!" instead of addressing the actual reasons for the block, you will soon lose your access to this page as well. Yunshui 雲水 15:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Steg steganography software for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steg steganography software is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steg steganography software until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Steg.contact (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20939 was submitted on Mar 20, 2018 13:54:35. This review is now closed.
Speedy deletion nomination of File:StegScreenshot.png edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on File:StegScreenshot.png, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 1989 (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The file File:StegIcon.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Low res / poor quality, no encyclopedic use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 1989 (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)