User talk:Marnad1963

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

You may want to review WP:EL before adding any more links. I saw at least one you added that appears to fail the criteria. Pairadox (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the informal referral to WP:EL doesn't seem to have worked, so...

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Third party reproduction do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pairadox (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parents Via Egg Donation Organization[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Parents Via Egg Donation Organization, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://tpvedo.blogspot.com. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Parents Via Egg Donation Organization[edit]

A tag has been placed on Parents Via Egg Donation Organization requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Toon⁰⁵ 20:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Want some help?[edit]

Hello! I noticed your edit summary to the Parents Via Egg Donation article, and thought I would try to help out. Unfortunately, your article seems to have a copyright violation of this website, so has been tagged for deletion (as obviously we can't have copyrighted material withour permission from the copyright holder).

Now the subject you were creating an article about will need to satisfy our notability guidelines for organisations.
Basically, if there have been a good few news articles, books etc. published about your organisation, then it is notable, and shouldn't be deleted unless there is a copyright violation.
You'll need to provide links to prove the coverage though - they can be books, newspaper articles or online news articles etc, from reliable sources.

If you have anyquestions or anything, write back here and I'll try to help out. - Toon⁰⁵ 20:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Now, unfortunately, wikipedia has inclusion guidelines, covered here: WP:ORG - only organisations which meet this guideline can have an article on wikipedia. Can you provide some news articles, links etc. (preferably not blogs though), to show the org has been "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources"?

Actually the article posted on that blog site would go some way to establish notability - do you have the original link? Or was it in a newspaper? (Also, the copyright concerns can be addressed, but it would be easier to rephrase something to avoid having to prove you own the copyright, plus it would probably sound more neutral. - Toon⁰⁵ 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have any news outlets, such as CNN, or newspapers written an article about Parents Via Egg Donation? That is how we tell whether or not to allow an organisation, person or product to have an article (otherwise we would be flooded with spam articles, and no way of seeing if the info was true or not). If you respond on this page, it'll probably be easier. - Toon⁰⁵ 21:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parents Via Egg Donation Organization[edit]

Hi. I've deleted your article on Parents Via Egg Donation Organization. I notice that you have agreed to license the text under the GDFL, but I still deleted the article because I do not think your organization has received enough attention from reliable sources to allow us to cover it in a neutral manner. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a directory service, and we do have certain inclusion criteria and guidance on how notable something has to be in order for us to cover it. I apologise if you feel I have erred in this matter, and if you wish to pursue this further I would be happy to discuss it or help you seek further input from other Wikipedia editors at a suitable venue, for example our deletion review forum. I also wish you well with your venture, which seems as if it would be very useful. Hiding T 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PVED[edit]

No problem. But seriously, we will need some references from reliable sources, i.e. news articles if this article is to exist at all. - Toon⁰⁵ 22:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, to establish notability, we need to have significant coverage in secondary sources, i.e. newspaper etc.. Primary sources can only be used to verify material in the article. If you see here, the NGDT are referred to in many articles, and are the subject of some too, which proves their notability (although the article doesn't convey this well). Until such time as your organisation gains more coverage in the press, books, papers etc., an article would just get deleted as non-notable. Sorry! When you do get substantial coverage, drop me a message and I'll try to help you build a good article. - Toon⁰⁵ 11:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

If you would care to click this link, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force#Help and advice needed, I have left a message for what I believe to be the best place to find more knowledgeable people on Wikipedia regarding your organization and the issue of its deletion. feel free to chip in to the debate there, especially if there is anything you feel I haven't covered. Best, 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Third party sources are independent sources from reputable sources, e.g. newspaper articles. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PVED[edit]

Hi,

if you want to show what you want to post, you can post it on a subpage of your userpage, eg User:Marnad1963/PVED. Or you could just start the article, add the sources and let others copyedit or comment.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PVED[edit]

Hi,

Someone from this IP contacted me on my talk page with regards to "Parents Via Egg Donation".

To start an article on this topic, (1) the article should be written as if written by someone not related to the organization. It should provide a neutral overview, (2) limit its explanation to facts only, and those objective facts should be referenced from sources, and (3) should provide references to establish notability, i.e. provide references from independent reputable published sources. Coverage in these sources establish if PVED is notable. Good ways to find such sources include Google News; I found no references on Google News, so I doubt that notability can be established for PVED.

For a more detailed discussion of these topics, you can refer to our policies of Neutral point of view, Conflict of interest, Verifiability and Notability.

The article as written here: User:Marnad1963/PVED, does not meet these standards, and therefore I don't think it should become an article unless it meets the standards.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for contacting me. Although most of these sources were already available previously when the article was deleted, I think an article could be written. However, the version you prepared in your userspace is not sufficient. Please refer to the advice I gave you above: (1) the article should be written as if written by someone not related to the organization. It should provide a neutral overview, (2) limit its explanation to facts only, and those objective facts should be referenced from sources.

For example, instead of writing the "History" section from what you know, you should mention only neutral facts which are also mentioned in this reference: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/margie_boule/index.ssf?/base/living/123190725436410.xml&coll=7 . I'll try a quick copy-edit of the version you've prepared to show how it can be improved.

If you have further questions on these issues or if you need more detailed help, don't hesitate to contact me.

cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parents Via Egg Donation - take two[edit]

Hey Marna, it's good to hear from you again! I've taken a look at the links you gave me and done some digging. Your group looks to have come pretty far since the last time we spoke. By what I've read, Parents Via Egg Donation looks to be a notable group in the area it is in; the press coverage of the group is probably nopt enough in itself, but a lot of the sites, blogs, articles which I looked at regarding egg donation mentioned your group. For this reason, I'm pretty convinced that PVED meet the notability guidelines, and would be happy to help you write an article. It is important to note, though, that you have a massive conflict of interest, and it's very important to keep any article neutral. We can't use the wikipedia to promote any cause, the article must be strictly encyclopedic. But I've got no doubt that we'll work out the kinks. Congrats on the progress you've made, it's certainly a very worthy cause! Best, – Toon ^(talk) 22:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey, I've started a page in my user space at: User:Toon05/Parents Via Egg Donation, which you can work on, add details to etc.. It's just a start right now, I'll look into adding more in the coming days. once it's in reasonable shape, I'll move the page into article space. Please, add what you think should be in an encyclopaedia article, I'll give you feedback on anything that needs it. My phrasing will be off in many areas, I'm sure, as I'm no expert in the field! – Toon ^(talk) 22:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page gone live.[edit]

Hey Marna, just to let you know that I've added a couple of references and moved the article into the mainspace - it's now an actual article, located at Parents Via Egg Donation. It's important to keep improving the article, though, and when you get some significant news coverage, let me know and we can use that as another reference and improve the article with the information. Best wishes, – Toon ^(talk) 19:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding your logo[edit]

Hey, to add your logo, go here and follow the instructions on that page. That page is specific for organisation logos, which are used under the Fair Use provision under copyright law - this means it preserves all of the normal copyright provisions. If you upload a picture which isn't a logo in future, go to Wikipedia:Upload instead. I'll take a look when you've done to see if you've missed anything. Best, – Toon ^(talk) 20:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Oh yeah, after uploading, we'll need to add the logo to the article - let me know when you've uploaded it and keep a note of the name of the file. – Toon ^(talk) 20:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine so I've added it to the article. Best, – Toon ^(talk) 11:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 unblock request[edit]

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).

Marnad1963 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi there - I am not sure what I have done to receive a block. Maxim blocked me. I know that Toons has helped with the creation of our Wikipedia Page. Please let me know what rule that I broke and I will make sure I don't ever break it again. And for whatever I did I am humbly and truly sorry. The only thing I am really interested in is adding to our Wiki site so it stays current and accurate. Thank you - Marna

Decline reason:

Under the conflict of interest guidelines, we all agree to avoid writing about ourselves or our own organizations. You haven't indicated that you are interested in any other edits, so I'm declining this request. Don't worry; if your organization is truly notable, it is inevitable that other people will read the books and articles that have been written about it and use them as sources for writing an article about it. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:24, 17 April 2010 (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.

You are blocked because you are believed to be advertising your organization on Wikipedia. If unblocked, what contributions do you intend to make? Sandstein 07:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Hi Folks - I have read your reasons and I can understand your concern. One of the issues I had to prove when I first asked to have a our organizations page on Wikipedia it was to make sure our organization was available as a resource for patients globally who were choosing third party reproduction to create or grow their families. I am not Parents Via Egg Donation I just founded it. Parents Via Egg Donation is on the same lines as the American Fertility Association, The American Diabetes Association, or The American Heart Association, just much much smaller. We have shown growth, and credibility. It's truly a nonprofit organization. While I understand your reasons I guess my argument (not that I am a fan of arguing) is that people do read articles we have written and have used our organization as a resource. It just made sense to list what we have done here on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is the #1 resource for those who wish to research subjects. It's the launching pad sorts when individuals start fact finding a specific subject matter. In regards to contributions, I used to be a contributer to egg donation topics and third party reproduction but to be honest stopped contributing because I wasn't sure if I was contributing appropriately. Sandstein asked if I am unblocked what contributions do I intend to make? My expertise is third party reproduction and infertility. I would be happy to make contributions in those areas. In closing, I hear where you folks are coming from. In my defense I am not a individual who is about self promotion. I just feel or organization is a needed resource and this is one of the best places to start. Thanks for hearing my thoughts. I of course abide peacefully by any decision you choose to make. Thanks:)}}

I'd very much prefer to see you avoid these areas; as has been mentioned, you clearly have a conflict of interest in this area, and your unblock request above does not convince me that you will not continue to post about your organization. Are there any other areas you would be interested in editing? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he has knowledge in the area, I wouldn't personally object to him writing on articles in the subject of egg donation and third-party reproduction. But this unblock request seems to indicate that he intends to keep writing about Parents Via Egg Donation, the organization he founded, and linking to their web site, and that would be a serious violation of the conflict of interest guidelines, in my opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Hello again - Okay so now I totally understand what you are talking about and I just had one of those Oprah *lightbulb* a-ha moments. So what if I state that I will never edit or add anything to do with Parents Via Egg Donation. You will be able to see if I do. I do have quite a lot of knowledge in the field of Infertility, Egg donation, and Third Party Reproduction. I also have a lot of experience in the field of cooking, food, organic farming, parenting, and cardiology. I'd be happy to help in any of those areas. It makes sense why these rules are in place and I do now understand that there is a clear conflict of interest as I did found the organization. My question because I don't know, is how do other organizations listed within Wikipedia keep their information updated without the conflict of interest issue? When Toon's helped our organizations page, I really didn't realize updating it would be a no-no. So in short, I will never ever write about PVED anywhere on Wikipedia, I will leave that to others if they so feel motivated to do so. Thanks. Marna PS. I am a "she" not a "he" if that matters.}}.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I will unblock you now, please remember your promises above. As User:FisherQueen stated we have no problem with your editing egg donation and third-party reproduction articles, just with the articles that you have a direct conflict of interest (i.e. Parents Via Egg Donation) - but always remember that if you do have anything notable for that, you are allowed to make an entry on that talk page (with suitable refs), and hope that another editor will take the data and re-phrase it for you into the Article (but I cannot guarantee that anyone will of course)}.

Request handled by: Ronhjones ^(Talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Marnad1963. You have new messages at Tom Morris's talk page.
Message added 21:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Egg donation[edit]

Hi. I can't comment on the references. All I did was add a link Gbawden (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]