User talk:Rohancockchild

February 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ro Hancock-Child, 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, 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; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.  Chzz  ► 11:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ro Hancock-Child discussion
I have added this article for discussion at the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Autobiography is a major problem here
Nobody "owns" any article in this encyclopedia. Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ro Hancock-Child. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, instead of writing it yourself, as you did at Ro Hancock-Child. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to No original research, Neutral point of view, and Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Another Wikipedia page that may help you understand the editorial issues that you are beginning to encounter here: An_article_about_yourself_is_nothing_to_be_proud_of.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ro Hancock-Child for deletion
The article Ro Hancock-Child is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ro Hancock-Child until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JohnInDC (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that your experience with Wikipedia has been disappointing. That being said, if you were to take the time to review the various policies and guidelines - all well-established, all achieved by consensus among the editors - you would see that all the people who have been recently revising the article about you (not "your" article) have been proceeding entirely in keeping with those policies and guidelines.  The essential failure of understanding here, I'm afraid, is not with some mid-American guy who fails to appreciate your contributions in the musical field, but with your own misapprehension about what this encyclopedia is and how it is meant to be constructed.  I am, again, sorry that you've found the experience unsettling; but I don't think Wikipedia or its editors have anything to apologize for.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Rohancockchild


A tag has been placed on User:Rohancockchild, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page 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 an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ukexpat (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)