User talk:Stoneworker

Speedy deletion of Bill Gallagher

A tag has been placed on Bill Gallagher requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. —Travis ^talk 02:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Dear Sir Or Ma'am:[reply]

Bill Gallagher here. I have added notability notes (har) at the page you deleted within 5 minutes or so of my publishing it. Said page is just a short biography of me and my work, which, after all these years on the net, is my first attempt, and one I deem pertinent. Many of the rock bands and other author types are featured at length in this encyclopedia. I actually feel funny doing this myself, and may hire it out later, but for now would appreciate an entry at wikipedia.

I did my best to be brief, and I have read the directions: truthfully this was just an experiment. The amended bio did away with certain of the labels which may have offended, such as the name of one of my books. As quickly as you deleted my entry, I am sure you did not review or read any of my work, and if my work itself is not notable enough for you, I think my longevity on the net is an accomplishment worthy of my bio. My presence here is the result of hard work and dedication, and I believe it is a major contribution to the internet in general.

I ask that you retract your deletion, as I have amended the article, citing 2 of my professional works, and I ask that you please be a little more sincere and a little more responsible in your labeling/reviews in the future. I understand your work is not foolproof, and you do your best as well. I trust this message finds you receptive, and if there is anything I can do to further your efforts please do not hesitate to contact me at luxefaire at gmail dot com.

I will be adding more information to the encyclopedia at large in the future, once I get situated here. I appreciate your help and attention in this matter.

Bill Gallagher www.luxefaire.com

Stoneworker (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Bill Gallagher

A tag has been placed on Bill Gallagher, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. Merenta (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Gallagher: Thanks for your note. I will attempt to explain to you some of the relevant Wikipedia policies you may not have noticed that have a direct bearing on the situation which you're finding difficult.

First of all, in general, it's not a good idea to create an article about yourself. The article at this link explains the policy that Wikipedia editors call COI, or "conflict of interest". "Editors proposing to write about themselves ... are strongly advised not to edit or create such articles at all." Conflict of interest usually results in what we call POV, or "point of view" -- articles are written in, or edited into, a neutral tone, or NPOV. Believe me, if you are sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, someone else will be there to write it about you.

Second, the topics of articles in Wikipedia must be notable and that notability must be verifiable. This concept is difficult for many people to grasp, because "notability" in Wikipedia terms has nothing to do with your own opinion of yourself; it has to do with the opinions of others. You have to find an number of impartial, arm's-length, third-party opinion from someone who thinks the topic of the article is "notable" -- above average, special, unusual in some way -- and those opinion must come from people who are experts in that field (so, for instance, opinions about movies must come from professional movie reviewers, not bloggers). I'm looking through your article and I note that you have essentially written it about yourself and given your own opinions of your work and interests. In Wikipedia terms, that is irrelevant. You may well be all those things you've written about yourself, but unless you can find an impartial third-party expert source to say so, your unreferenced opinions won't stay around in Wikipedia. And finally, that impartial third-party expert source must be verifiable; other people must be able to look it up and confirm that, yes, that's what was said and that's who said it.

So, to sum up some of the points you may find troublesome -- self-publication does not by definition confer notability, so the contents of your websites are essentially non-notable unless a third party says they're notable. I suspect that your magazine articles would not, by themselves, be sufficient to confer notability; they would probably have to be remarked upon as being notable by a third-party critic. (And they would have to be much more carefully cited so that people could verify them. For instance, what is the name of the article in Body Art Magazine #22, what pages was it on, etc.)

I hope you find this helpful. I hope you don't find it offensive that I've suggested you're not notable; I'm not personally notable and I don't think I know anyone who is. The word has a specific and special meaning in terms of Wikipedia and non-notability is not meant to be a personal insult. I would recommend that you read up on the topics I've mentioned above before trying to recreate your article (because, as I suspected, another editor has tagged it for deletion and it won't last long), if indeed you do want to try to recreate it. Based on what little I know about your work, I suspect it would be a hard uphill battle to get an article to stay undeleted, and it might have to go through a complex and difficult process. If there's something further I can do to help (there's some further reading I would recommend if you're planning on contributing further) you can leave a note on my talk page. Good luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:PDRM0043.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PDRM0043.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]