User talk:Blairtin

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Blair Tindall‎, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about your WP:COI edits to Blair Tindall before. Please discuss your edits on the article's Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm LuK3. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Blair Tindall without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yochanan Sebastian Winston

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Yochanan Sebastian Winston, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.hatchfund.org/user/yochanansebastianwinston.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Yochanan Sebastian Winston

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 Yochanan Sebastian Winston, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be a clear copyright infringement. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) 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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
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 verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. reddogsix (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi Blair, I received a message from Yochanan Sebastian Winston stating It was deleted for G11 and G12. There is no copyrighted material in the article and she was writing it about me so it can't be "blatant self promotion". I don't reply to emails, and he doesn't appear to have a Wikipedia account, so I'm replying here. I deleted your article because

The article was a copyright violation or close paraphrase of this. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. But in any case the copyrighted text is far too promotional to be useful for Wikipedia's purposes, so there would not be any point in your jumping through all the hoops that are required.
it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: performed throughout the United States, Europe and Latin America... very active as a composer and performs as a soloist or leader in numerous ensembles... provides music for dozens of weddings... He has performed with world-renowned musicians... Critics lauded the work...commercially-available recordings...
The "critics" lauding his work are referenced to non-notable websites edited my people with no obvious qualifications to lead us to respect their opinions.
Your references included at least two spamlinks to sales sites
it did not adequate provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Although you provided references, they were a mix of college newspapers, sales sites, and music websites of no clear value. Nothing referred to major newspapers or the proper music press.
Not a reason for deletion, but if you format references as <ref>[url description]</ref>, they are more intelligible

Please pass on my comments to Dr Winston Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. For something like a name change, it would be OK to reference his website if he says it there, or just leave it unreferenced, I doubt that anyone is likely to challenge it, and there is obviously nothing promotional about the fact. I forgot to say that the picture was deleted (not by me) for the same copyright reason, it appears to have been taken from the same website. You have probably realised that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and an image that has appeared on the web without an explicit PD licence is unlikely to be acceptable.

Even for a trained writer, Wikipedia presents a steep learning curve, so let me know if you have any further questions. You could always start a draft here if you wish, where you (probably) won't get jumped on immediately Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]