User talk:Streetmagic2

wow so much for assuming you are on the up and up!
For the record, I'll leave these as I am new and want to do things right. But I have NO connection to these pages I put up only that I felt they should be mentioned. I just happened to follow a link to street magic and then noticed that it listed "magicians" that aren't well known that promote themselves but didn't have the most ground breaking magazine to hit the market in 70 years in this industry (magic). In my view, it is worth nothing far more than some of the things that have been allowed to stay up. What makes me upset is that I was jumped on without so much as checking the facts. I even asked permission from the magazine to post this and I've NEVER met them before. I just tried to do the right thing. How is that a "conflict of interest" by any stretch of the imagination??? TJ

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place  on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 00:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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 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 you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. Orderinchaos 03:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Streetmagicmag1.jpg listed for deletion
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Streetmagicmag1.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission.  While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self-no-disclaimers to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you.

Magic Magazines
There's absolutely no problem with them having an article. I've re-reviewed my own decision from the time, and there was two points of contention:


 * There seemed at least some case to make that you were associated with the magazines in question.
 * None of the sources mentioned were independent - that is to say, one could not go into a library or a journal archive and find independently researched information. See WP:CORP

It's quite possible that the other articles to which you refer fall into the same category, without seeing them, I couldn't be sure. If you're looking to write about it, see if you can find a book with ISBN number that addresses them, and use it as a source. Any newspaper archive stuff (I'm sure decade celebrations might be noted in one of the newspapers somewhere, even if quite deep within it) would also help here. If the article's well referenced enough and neutral, probably noone's going to go back to the first point and say it shouldn't be there. Orderinchaos 05:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure I understand your question, but I think the above user should have covered it. If not please let me know. —Pilot guy cleared for takeoff  22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as a note, I only tagged your articles because I felt that they didn't meet Wikipedia standards. I did NOT delete them (although it would seem you've posted the same message on more than my talk page). That was done by an admin (or multiple admins) that evaluated the criteria for deletion and any arguments present. Since they were deleted, this probably meant that the admins agreed with my assessment.


 * In case some of this hasn't been addressed at all or enough:


 * As far as your articles, I can't remember the full extent of my reasoning (I think this was a little while ago), but if I recall, the main problem was notability and a possible tone of advertisement. In general, a subject must be notable to have an article on Wikipedia, per WP:NOTE. Notability generally requires it to be the subject of secondary sources, i.e. sources that are reliable and completely unaffiliated. Unfortunately, word of mouth arguments tend to not prevail on Wikipedia, so just saying that a "community" recognizes something isn't usually enough. Also, the tone of the article must be encyclopedic per WP:MOS, especially in any general article. Any statements that seem to "talk up" certain subjects more than others are usually a neutral point of view issue unless there are reliable sources to back up any statement (I can't quite recall, but I think some statements such as these were present in your article). As far as a generalized article on Magic Magazines, that may be treading on thin ice. Wikipedia has a long list of things it is not. In this case, "Wikipedia is not a directory" applies, unless magic magazines are so notable and important that a very comprehensive encyclopedic article could be generated. However, list pages are often permitted when there isn't a good compiled directory or list readily available already. In this case, you may want to consider making a list of the magazines (with any descriptive information kept short and sweet) and linking to it from the article on magic or magician (you may have to look around for the most appropriate place). Keep in mind that this is just a suggestion and that other editors may take issue with any particular way you choose to execute it. Oh and by the way, you shouldn't use the fact that there are bad articles on Wikipedia as a justification. A lot of editors are doing their best to get around and improve/get rid of bad articles. Ok, enough ranting from me. Good luck. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 04:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)