User talk:Imogen Stile

Notability of George Reece
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on George Reece, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because George Reece seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, 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. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting George Reece, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page George Reece has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bmyspace\.com' (link(s): http://www.myspace.com/georgereece http://www.myspace.com/imogenrecords). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, 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:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of George Reece
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article George Reece, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of George Reece
It may be that my inexperience with wikipedia itself is the reason why my citations are unclear. I intend to cite www.georgereece.com and www.imogenrecords.com as my sources, but it is possible that my page editing skills are not developed enough to have made this entirely clear. If, however, those websites do not provide sufficient evidence of notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia, I will consent to the page being removed, and will try again when I have gathered more sources. Please note that I have added to the article details of George Reece's featured performances on national radio. Imogen Stile (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject's own website and that of his own company are notoriously not reliable sources, least of all when it comes to questions of notability. We need impartial third-party sources to attest to why he should have an article in an encyclopedia. Your apparent conflict of interest is also a matter of considerable concern. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll work on gathering sources. Thank you for the advice. I am interested in the question of conflict of interest, however. I do indeed work for George Reece, but I feel I have written an unbiased article. Is it the case that anyone affiliated with the subject may not create the article? Must I wait until an entirely unrelated person writes an article about George Reece? Imogen Stile (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's obvious to everyone that yours is not even remotely an unbiased article, fatally lacking the necessary neutral point of view; and yes, of course we very strongly advise people to "wait until an entirely unrelated person writes an article about" a subject where they have conflicts of interest! Have you not followed the links and read the mesages about COI? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Right-oh. Thanks again for the advice. I'll leave well alone. Nice exclamation mark, by the way.

Conflict of interest, notability
Hi. I just wanted to explain a little more some of the problems currently with the article that you might not recognize, not being familiar with the Wikipedia environment. (Given your blanking of it, it has been deleted, but this information may prove useful to you in the future. It is not impossible for you to create an article about this individual, although as you are employed by him it is discouraged. Sometimes individuals with a conflict of interest will create articles in "user space" and request review at the conflict of interest noticeboard. This can be a good way to get feedback on the neutrality of an article and to make sure that it otherwise complies with the conflict of interest guidelines.)

As a basic rule of thumb, an article on a person must indicate what makes him or her important or significant in an encyclopedic sense. Failing that, an article may be swiftly deleted after creation. However, even if it indicates the importance or significance, it needs to verify this with reliable sources that are separate and distinct from the subject. Newspaper articles and industry websites, for instance, can be helpful with this. Articles must not use original research—that is, information you may know to be true because of your relationship with him but which you cannot verify with reliable sources. It also must not contain commentary. We can quote commentary from reviews and whatnot, but we cannot say such things as "Musings on Morality is a thoughtful album" or "This makes his recordings almost hauntingly homogenous at times, but can also make for extremely knowing exuberance at others." Wikipedia gathers together what critics say about art, but we do not critique it ourselves. Material such as that is generally removed on sight. When it is placed by somebody affiliated with the subject, it may seem overly promotional, as though the article were really a vehicle for advertisement.

I hope that this information will help to familiarize you with the Wikipedia environment so that you don't run into similar problems with any future contributions to the project that you might make. If you have any questions about it, please feel free to let me know at my talk page. Alternatively, you can always ask for feedback at Wikipedia help desk, which is typically manned around the clock by volunteers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)