User talk:Bassmec

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! -- Scientizzle 23:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mark Fairfax-Harwood
Sorry your experience at Wikipedia has gotten off to a rough start. Please don't take it personally.

The problem with your article was simple: it made claims of notability (which is very important as subjects that don't meet the guidelines of WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, for example, don't last too long) but it lacked sources to back up those claims. Wikipedia policy WP:V requires every claim to be independently verifiable from reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, books, well-respected websites, for example). You didn't present and nobody found any such sources and as such the page was deleted.

I hope this saga hasn't soured your opinion of Wikipedia and you'll be willing to devote some of your time & expertise in music to expanding this encyclopedia. What I would suggest to you is to develop your bio again from scratch on your user page (User:Bassmec), giving you time to mold it to fit WP:MUSIC, WP:V, etc. In the meantime, there are thousands of articles that could use help. -- Scientizzle 23:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply to email...
First off, User talk:Bassmec/Mark Fairfax-Harwood now contains the info you had formerly placed on Talk:Mark Fairfax-Harwood. If you want to recreate Mark Fairfax-Harwood, then write it at User:Bassmec/Mark Fairfax-Harwood. After it's complete, feel free to contact me & I'll look it over to see if it's likely to meet the guidelines and policies on verifiability, original research, biographical articles on living people, and notability. If it's good, I'll help you move it into the regular article space. If I'm not sure, or you're so-inclined, we can take it to deletion review and get wider input on article re-instatement.

As for the content of your email...

I am rarely "surly", but I do find that pages complaining that the deletion of your autobiography was "revenge of the nobodies made easy and possible for nerds by wikipedia" are appropriately delete-able. There was a discussion on the merits of the article that existed two years ago, and you have a decidedly obvious conflict-of-interest. I was actually the most active in trying to help you with the article, but you never responded to my message.

I have no current interest in writing the article for you, particularly if you've such actual disdain for the editors that try to keep this site free of an ever-running torrent of self-promotional crap. Your rambling invective makes a poor case that I or someone else should write an article about you to battle an "unfair world, where there is no credit where credit is due" or that the within-Wikipedia-policy deletion was anything like "raping [your] life", whatever that's supposed to mean.

If you're interested in participating on this site, let me know & I'll offer guidance. If you're only interested in hyperbole and self-promotion, you're on your own. &mdash; Scientizzle 00:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Article draft?
reply to latest email: I'm not sure I see where you mean...User talk:Bassmec/Mark Fairfax-Harwood appears to be just a conglomeration of direct quotes and links. If you mean the last paragraph, there's no sources provided and that would be a major problem regarding Wikipedia policies WP:V & WP:BLP. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, especially, you 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 editing articles related to you, your friends, family and associates, your organization or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; participating in deletion discussions about articles related to the same, linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and you must always: avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography. If you make additions to such articles, you must provide current 3rd party reliable sources which can be verified by those who review the article. Some of the changes you have made to Louise Robey cannot be verified at this time and cannot remain until unrelated outside sources are provided.

In reviewing articles with which you've been involved, as well as pertinent communications with and involving other Wikipedians, and investigating connections alluded to in previous versions of this article, it is clear you have a vested interest in this article. You have added your own name to it twice, both times which were ultimately removed for various reasons.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your note
The issue around material that has been removed from Wikipedia has to do with several points. One is that material must be referenced from reliable 3rd party sources (see WP:CITE), which does not mean using a self-published source written by the subject of the article. Another is that it must be notable (see WP:Notability). Another is that it must meet specific guidelines regarding style and presentation (see WP:MoS). Another is that it must be written from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV) and not constitute a conflict of interest (WP:CoI). Anything that I've removed from articles to which you may or may not have contributed has been because of issues with one or more of these points. A Google search, omitting self-published materials, forums and the like yields less than 20 hits for your name. My name has more hits than that and I am certainly not notable per Wikipedia definition. Meanwhile, who IS your sister? I wasn't on Wikipedia in 2006 when your article was apparently deleted. Nothing to do with it, so please desist in blaming me for wiping out your life's work. A person's notability does not rest on whether there is an article about him or her on Wikipedia. In fact, a person's life work determines whether there will be an article. Establish notability independent of self-promotion that is objectively published in news or similar sources. If you or your sister have reached a level of national prominence, then finding objective 3rd party sources should not be difficult. But in order to support retention of any article, those sources must be included in the article so that they can be verified. That is, for example, why the "citation needed" tag on the Louise Robey article was placed regarding her place of residence and current career status. Verification. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make this short and sweet. Your business website is not considered an objective 3rd party source. Go read WP:RELY. The number (or lack thereof) of Google hits does not determine notability. Go read WP:Notability. The type of hits and the publisher of material in those hits is. I did not say I was notable, I said my name, minus all the vanity hits, returned more hits from Google. Google does not determine what articles are on notable subjects, Wikipedia policy does. I deleted a years old sentence in Louise Robey's article that was no longer true and lacked any citation. Meanwhile, you cannot prove your own notability to support an article, the preponderance of objective 3rd party sources either exist or they don't. Besides it's a conflict of interest to lobby for your own article.
 * When I was born, and by extension my age, is none of your business and is irrelevant. Desist from trying to pry personal information. The length of my presence on Wikipedia has nothing to do with my age. Regardless, I was not on Wikipedia when your article was removed nearly two years ago. Don't harass me about it. Is your security so tenuous that your life lacks veracity without a Wikipedia reference to it? Does it go away? Geez, I hope not.
 * It is not the job of other editors to go hunt down sources to verify material added to a Wikipedia article. It falls upon the contributor to do that, or risk having the material removed. I couldn't care less what you claim your sister designed, if you can't verify it, it doesn't get to stay.


 * I've grown quite weary of this entire dialogue and hearing about your social class. On Wikipedia, your social class counts for squat, Queen Elizabeth still requires reliable, verifiable sourcing, and I'm quite sure you aren't as notable as she. Meanwhile, if there isn't a source other than your word for where a former girlfriend now lives, then it is not reliably sourced and will be removed. You do not own an article on Wikipedia, not even your own. See WP:OWN. It would behoove you to go back to square one and start reading - WP:Help will give you the tools you are lacking to use this website. Further, I find your "trailer park America" comment to be offensive, elitist and judgmental and at this time, I am telling you definitively to desist from contacting me and to stop leaving rambling notes on my talk page. Otherwise I will take it to the administrator noticeboard for intervention. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)