User talk:Gillhiscott

Marie Corelli

Hello, Gillhiscott. You have new messages at Junius49's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Upstairs at the Gatehouse

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Upstairs at the Gatehouse, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.upstairsatthegatehouse.com/Main%20Pages/About%20Us.html. 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. See our copyright policy for further details.

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) 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Upstairs at the Gatehouse has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 18:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Upstairs at the Gatehouse constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 18:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Upstairs at the Gatehouse. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gillian Hiscott

A tag has been placed on Gillian Hiscott, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Nuttah (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been temporarily suspended

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Recreating a deleted article is considered disruption, and I have enacted a 24 hour block on this account from editing the encyclopedia (you may still edit this page) so you may use the help facilities to better understand the practices and processes of this site before contributing further. If you wish to work on the material in an attempt to have the content conform to the guidelines I can userfy (place it in a page in your account space) it for you. However, further violations of WP policy and guidelines will likely result in your account being sanctioned for longer periods or indefinitely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 19:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

re Gillian Hiscott

Thank you for your message at my talkpage. Firstly, I would point you toward the discussion that resulted in the article first being deleted; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillian Hiscott. Any text in blue is a link to another Wikipedia page, for instance WP:BIO takes you to the page where the criteria for the inclusion of biographical articles is detailed - and in the above instance there was the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence that the article, as written, reached the standards required. I redeleted because it appeared that the decision made at the review was simply being disregarded, and I blocked for much the same reason.

Primarily, the basis of inclusion of articles on Wikipedia is determined by whether they are notable and this notability can be verified by the use of independent and reliable references - and on biographical articles this is more rigorously applied than normal since the there are real life consequences for the subjects if the content is wrong or maliciously included. However, the high setting of standards does mean that even good faith creation of an article that cannot be referenced to a reputable third party source will fail (and there is the question of whether a subject that cannot provide those references is of sufficient stature to be included.)

As I said, perhaps the best course of action to take is to read through the WP help pages (Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, Help:Contents/Links and especially Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines are good places to start) and see if you can create an article in your userspace which conforms to the guidelines. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your further message - I have now placed the deleted text (last version - if you wish me to do the same for the earlier version I can) at User talk:Gillhiscott/Gillian Hiscott. You need to not only provide references to performances or publication of your theatre work, but also an ISBN number for the novel, plus a reference for it being the best seller of its genre. Once you have had a go you can invite others to review it and make suggestions. When it is ready it can be moved back into mainspace. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Should the article be returned to mainspace, then the Google search facility will start to push that further up the list. However, I have had a look at the further work on the article and need to comment; the isbn number required is for your own book, the numbers for the books you have adapted is not required as they are generally well known works. Your stage adaptations need to be evidenced, preferably by an independent review from a reliable source, or from the theatre/company staging it (and a professional/commercial enterprise would be a minimum requirement). As mentioned previously, if the book was regarded as the best seller in its genre, then you need to supply a verifiable source for that claim - such as a listing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No - the ISBNs I have mentioned don't relate to the original novels but to my published adaptations, which in turn have their own ISBN number and are listed at the ISBN Agency.

With regards the listing at Waterstones. The situation of a publisher being able to call a book a bestseller stems from it having reached a certain level on a reliable list. Hence there being so many apparent "bestsellers" around. The book is still listed but dropped down the list from it's original placing, which was in the 20s and so qualified. The list keeps shifting as books are added and no copy has been kept, my book I think is now about 60 out of 810, mainly because the book is on a re-print. I guess I'll just have to wait and see if it goes up again and make sure a copy is saved. All these things are usually done by a writer's agent and I don't yet have one.

I have written down a few of the papers I have been reviewed in but have yet to add the dates. Still a work in progress. (Gillhiscott (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Ms. Hiscott: First of all, please read our conflict of interest page and this page about what Wikipedia is not, the pages about our standards of notability, and our core policies. This charity strongly discourages persons from using the money of the taxpayers of Florida for their own financial purposes, which is essentially what a person does when they have a conflict of interest in creating and editing their own article. Wikipedia is not a Facebook or web hosting company. We are a neutral, tertiary research tool; secondarily, as a method of creating a community, people must communicate. Sorry, madam, but you are just not notable, according to our standards, which requires more than someone being famous. If you can find reliable secondary sources that prove otherwise by good evidence, please feel free to use our appeal process. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gillhiscott. You have new messages at Snigbrook's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I quite agree. But the article, now visible as mentioned above wasn't written by me. I don't know who wrote it. I will add further info and sources as I find them. (Gillhiscott (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

That is fine. Please locate and add sources about you - such as reviews, newspaper articles, monographs, Who's Who, etc. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at the Wikipedia Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Hello Gillhiscott. You are welcome to join a discussion of your edits that is taking place at WP:COIN#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FGillian_Hiscott. An editor has complained that you are writing to everyone who participated in the AfD to register your discontent with the deletion of an article, one that you apparently created as an autobiography.

Our policy, as expressed in WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Autobiography, strongly discourages people from creating or editing articles about themselves. Since you've already been blocked once, you must be aware that we are serious about this policy, and we encourage you to follow it. You even recreated your own article after it was deleted by an administrator. You've been deleting warning messages that were left on your Talk, which does not suggest great eagerness to understand and comply with policy. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I appologise if I upet anyone it was not my intention to be disrespectful. I have contributed to the discussion. (Gillhiscott (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

No harm, no foul, don't worry about it. Get some sources and have someone review your finished product. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Article draft

Re User talk:Gillhiscott/Gillian Hiscott and your comment to LessHeard_vanU: it's best to avoid the description "bestseller" unless rooted in third-party descriptions based on total sales figures. The problem with online sales rankings is that the algorithms are largely based on sales-per-time, so it's easy to get transient top sales ranking when a book is launched (some authors actively engineer this by giving pricing incentives to buy in a particular narrow time-slot - e.g. 50 books go in a hour, making it a top seller ... for that hour). This only makes a book a bestseller in a technical and somewhat disingenuous sense. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And by the way I didn't do this - the book sold at full price with no promotion, no incentives involved. The proof of the lack of the promotion is now indicated by me now being unable to provide any reviews on the book. (Gillhiscott (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

I have looked over the article, and formatted a couple of sections. I am uncertain whether it is yet in condition to place it in mainspace - that is, I am uncertain whether it will not be deleted again. I really think that there needs to be at least one, and preferably two, external links indicating that your works have been publicly performed - even the one that negatively reviewed a production that was previously included does indicate that the work existed, but I feel that that should only be used in conjunction with another as not to reflect poorly upon the subject. I also attempted to access the websites for archive material without success. As a post graduate, are you still able to access the Exeter University library/database? This may provide you with the links which might prove invaluable.

I also suggest that you request the assistance of the two editors who have also contacted you regarding the article, for their advice. Bearian (talk · contribs) is an experienced editor, as is Gordonofcartoon (talk · contribs) (who I have worked with in culture related articles) as well as having one of the best usernames on Wikipedia. See if they are willing to review the proposed article, put in a little time and knowledge if necessary, and if they are aware of any databases that might provide a link to a review.

I note that earlier you did not consider placing a neutral article into the ether as important as previously, since the negative piece was slipping down the google rankings. If you are prepared to wait a little longer, and divert a little more effort away from your proper job, it may be of benefit in the long term. Regards LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have gone back into the deleted article to see if there were any links I could use - I found only the categories which I have now included in the userfyed article. If you have found some links and am not sure how to format them correctly, place the entire URL(s) somewhere in the article and then I or someone else can do the formatting; use the page as a draft, to be "corrected" in situ when all the available information is present. The better of the editors, which certainly includes Bearian, are able to adapt to the variant English being used in an article, and the formatting and presentation of articles is not reliant upon regional preferences (all English language articles follow the same formats). As for the other editor mentioned, they are also experienced but work to a different regime; there is no malice to their actions, and Wikipedia follows a belief of assume good faith toward all the different contributors who use their particular skills in improving the encyclopedia. Lastly, nothing is ever lost - if something is removed for failing a standard, then once that standard is attainable then it can be returned. All it takes is a little dedication... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have formatted the reviews URLs into the text of the section. With these two references I think there is some chance of the article reaching the standard needed to ensure that it is not deleted. Perhaps you would like a third party to review and confirm, first? LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I haven't finished. Still searching for database reviews and haven't got round to locating the plays (why can't I just divert to the publisher's site) am busy in the real world. It'll be stronger when I've done it but the sooner the article gets back up the better - I'm wild about the self promotional remark made by user Pigman and people will find I don't take criticism lightly and will give as good as I get. Now what has happened is that both this remark by this guy together with the conflict of interest notice are turning up on the net under my name plus I saw somewhere the original article in a cache. The way I'm feeling about it all I shall be opening the conflict of interest debate again - but need to make sure the article is strong and will create a proper user page with a few choice words for everyone. Not only that but the Metro jump on the bandwagon, realise people are looking at the review (the worst I've ever had) and cheat by putting a new date on the article. [[Gillhiscott (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)]]

Far be it for me to tell a fellow 59'er how to live their life, but the object of this exercise is to get an encyclopedic article back into 'netspace. Winning arguments about the methods used does not help that goal (although neither should it hinder it, since the article stands only by its own adherence to the standards required). Try to consider this a win-win situation, you get the article you deserve and they were right to remove the substandard version and to insist that potential personal attachment does not detract from making it a good article stub. You don't have to like it, but only use it to further the creation of a decent piece. Lastly, WP:COI is a guideline - the underlying policy is WP:NPOV - but is there for a reason; like WP:CIVIL, it never hurts to pre-emptively remind people of its existence... LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Third party review

Hello! I've taken a look at the article as an uninvolved party, and I'm still concerned about the overall standard of the article. First of all, there is a statement about "the latest two plays" in the opening paragraph. It needs a citation from a source where you have said it, as it is a qualitative statement about the content of the works, and cannot be taken on authorial intent alone. This is an issue with reliability - what it is supposed to be might not be what others who saw them thought it was, so something to indicate what it is is important. There also need to be links to material stating that the actors mentioned being involved with your plays were indeed involved - this is a verifiability item. Furthermore, reviews are good to have, but there's no way to know what review was for what piece, and I don't know that having claims of reviews that can't be located is necessarily a good idea - it causes a problem with verifiability. A much more pressing problem, however, is that I can get no hit on WorldCat on any of your works. I wouldn't expect it for the play scripts, but the novel, having been reviewed as I hope it was, should have piqued the interest of some library somewhere to get it. Please check the ISBN numbers again.

I did find a few useful things for the article here and there, so I'll be adding them in MSJapan (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you opine whether, notwithstanding the issues above, the article indicates that the subject is notable - being the basis for inclusion. Once it reaches that standard, then the requirements of WP:V are paramount. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In a word, no. The theatrical reviews focus on the performance of the actors and actresses and very little on the scripts themselves - the playwright only gets a mention here and there, which I would consider trivial mentions. Of course, there is the somewhat synthesized idea that the author of a notable work is also notable, but I don't see enough sources to make that assertion (which would be mainly through multiple non-trivial mentions in this case).

The book seems not to be published by a mainstream publisher, it isn't in WorldCat, and there don't appear to be the amount of sources available about the person that would be expected for a notable individual, much less what would be expected for notable works by a person.

As it stands, the article states that some plays were written and a book was published solely on the strength of ISBNs (which are now available for self-published work through places like Lulu.com), and the minimal sourcing thus far does not assert notability. Googling returns the work publishers, the playwright's personal webspace, and this article within the top 10 relevant hits, which while not a certainty, is usually a good indicator of non-notability.MSJapan (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

to Gillian Hiscott

It appears that we have hit a block; while the plays and performances are referenced, there is insufficient sources for the author. While the body of work may be sufficiently notable, it does not transfer notability upon the writer. Have you given any interviews that were published/broadcast? Have you been the subject of an article, or a news story? These appear to be the criteria needed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does - i'm a bit confused really. I recently did an interview for the Western Evening Herald which was just as general interest about me as playwright and my graduation from Exeter, and there was another one. Also the Camden New Journal review clearly starts by commending the playwright. I understood that being an author was acceptable enough as notability so long as the works were not self-published nor published by vanity publishers and both Cressrelles and Jasper are long established play publishers. There is no personal website as yet as mentioned - but listing on the doollee playwrights site which was initially engineered by the site's administrator, Julian Oddy. The quality of a book produced by Lulu would in no way have been acceptable for sale at Waterstones. I've not given up on this yet but need to give it more time, which I haven't got for a week or two - annoyingly I did initially source two of the plays myself fairly easily through the ISBN links on WP, bu can't remember now how I did it. I wouldn't care if WP didn't seek to promote itself by giving the lead to my blocked article under various headings on google (for me at ASK - and for some of my actors with GHits) There's a kind of irony about it all. The article can be viewed anyway by following a process through the conflict of interest google entry. to be continued......... (Gillhiscott (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)) though just found two play under WorldCat! Can't understand why the novel isn't there, but it's on Amazon and the Waterstones site. No it wasn't reviewed - it just sold very well. (Gillhiscott (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

The Western Evening Herald interview sounds promising, in that it is the writer rather than the work that is the focus; that the work has sparked interest in the person creating it. There really only needs to be one or two (and don't worry about the publication being regional - much of the US based publications are regional, and very few raise to the international prominence of the Washington Post, and they suffice) references such as this, and the article has a base. The other thing, is don't fret - these things usually resolve themselves. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh good grief how stupid are the Western Evening Herald. Found the recent article which is still online - but as the person commenting points out the actual introductory paragraph which was in the printed paper has been omitted! So how does this prove it's me? If I can get up the other article by the Western Evening Herald then it'll be seen that the photos are of the same person - hate this one anyway! (Gillhiscott (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

If you can get to a library that keeps older copies of the Herald on microfiche, find the edition the full article was printed in and quote the physical paper with edition number and date. You do not have to provide a "live" link, just a source so that anyone can retrieve it at a later date. If you can also provide an online link, so much the better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been away and very busy but recently had another go at the article on the talk page User talk:Gillhiscott/Gillian Hiscott Think its about as far as I can go to date really. Do you think it can go on the main page now? (Gillhiscott (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

I have moved it into the mainspace - it will either sink or swim, and I will argue for its keeping if it is AfD'ed. I assume that you will also be available. I would also suggest that you provide any more references, etc., the moment you find them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as you are aware that it isn't "safe", but the fact that the plays have been performed is sufficiently notable for the purposes. I may suggest that you note the fact of the performances, especially the Fringe production, as part of the lead paragraph - "GH... is a playwright and author whose works have been produced at the Edinburgh Fringe and... Her novel etc." - so that the notability is immediately apparent. Any time you find another review, or get something published/performed, make sure you put it straight into the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC) ps. Thanks for the thanks!

Well thanks don't cost anything some people seem to forget - I'll have a think about the lead paragraph. Good point. - I'm still writing things - no performances are planned as yet - I'll let you know in the future and leave a comp ticket at the door for you (Gillhiscott (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Heh! That last might come back to haunt the both of us, but, yeah, while it is my responsibility to help build the encyclopedia it would be great to see something in RL grow and develop alongside it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, it has been hit with two templates - Conflict of interest and lack of references; COI is simply addressed because it emphasises the use of reliable third party sources for information supplied by the subject and does not disallow the subject from editing or even creating the article. The sources template is more problematic because of the relative lack of sources regarding yourself, but I have pointed to the those that reference your work and the the fact it has been published and produced by reputable third parties. Keep an eye on the talkpage and answer any query plainly and in a neutral tone (and if you can't, don't answer). Work on the basis that articles are templated in good faith in an effort to improve articles, and are used to stimulate discussion and participation. Do not remove the templates even if you believe you have addressed the concerns - let that be anothers decision. Other than that, let events take their course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult not to be sarcastic about this nuttah guy, but am leaving cool considered answers. He certainly lives up to his name and definitely deletes things without really checking them. He was instrumental in deleting the first article and I checked him out then - wonder what he did with the long list of complaints that were on his page. Also shortly after I note someone had barred him. Then some other idiot unbarred him again. I think he needs to be watched and certainly his integrity on wikipaedia is questionable. I guess there are editors and administrators who use the system to vent their own feelings and inadequacies. I simply can't understand why there are articles on authors who have't had such a hard time to prove themselves. I'm also wondering that perhaps it isn't such a good idea to be using my own name for a username as it's caused some problems here, both with the system and with people who believe it is self promotion. Would it matter if I changed it, or started another account? (Gillhiscott (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)) He's disputing the publication by reputable company point!!! Could you answer this one? Ta (Gillhiscott (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

See the comments below - there are those who work to improve the encyclopedia by removing anything that does not appear to be sufficiently "catchy" (in a search function manner) while others try to include everything that is potentially searchable. The best lays somewhere in between, but of course it is an impossible line to draw and is only arrived at by the combined efforts of both parties in arriving at a workable compromise; in other words, we all contribute according to our talents and inclinations. As GoC says, it does not behove an editor, and certainly one with as much involvement as the subject itself, to question the motives of others - which is another reason why COI influences the approach of many toward articles. Having said that, and acknowledging that most of your post is not in respect of the content but other contributors, this part of the discussion is perhaps best that it occurred on "your" talkpage and not that of the article, and hopefully will end here. As I said above, simply work to the idea that people are trying to improve the article by pointing out its flaws and possible means of addressing them. It is an article they are critiquing, and not the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair points. It is better if I just stand back and let things take their course - whichever way it flows. These things are best left to the fair minded individuals like yourselves who know the sytem. (Gillhiscott (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Fourth party view

I just spotted the article via watchlist from the original WP:COIN discussions.

One immediate comment: now that the article is live, content discussion should move to Talk:Gillian Hiscott.

The article looks much improved by the removal of unverifiable biography, but I have to largely agree with MSJapan above. There's no need for the sales links to the plays: ISBN is sufficient for verification. The book: the criterion isn't reputability but notability: it's self-published and virtually unreviewed. The plays: it's still troubling that the reviews are generally fringe/regional. And to be blunt, it's a rare play that doesn't get a review somewhere: this is not the same as notabiity of the playwright. Compare Sarah Kane, who had a very small corpus of work, but whose biography has a large mainsteam presence.

As to general COI issues: whatever the letter of WP:COI is - i.e. creating/editing articles about yourself isn't forbidden - the spirit, in practice, is that COI editors taking too pushy pro-active a role tends to look like self-promotional intent and create a backlash. Getting snarky with editors who doubt the notability doesn't help dispel that impression. That, not the username, I think is the problem. It's altogether better to step back and let others make the call. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Fair points. It is better if I just stand back and let things take their course - whichever way it flows. These things are best left to the fair minded individuals like yourselves who know the sytem. (Gillhiscott (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC))