User talk:Vonsaxen

Welcome
Hello, Vonsaxen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you created appears to be an article about yourself. This is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians—as this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. Your user page, however, is a great place to write about yourself, making sure to stay within user page guidelines. Just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit it normally.

The page you created about yourself has been or will shortly be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, but if you want to use the content from it, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, 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. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Thekillerpenguin    (talk)   01:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Nominated for deletion
The page you just stripped down and rebuilt, Gerard Cornielje, has been nominated for deletion. You will find a link on the page itself that goes to the deletion discussion, which you are welcome to participate in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Gerard Cornielje has been reverted. Your edit here to Gerard Cornielje was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.facebook.com/Cornielje.von.Saxen) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. 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. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. 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) 16:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your request for help
I'm probably not at the top of the list of editors you want to hear responding to your request, but given the lack of other responses, hey, you get me. With your goal of keeping the article: the main problem is establishing that you meet the guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY, and Wikipedia uses the term "notability" a bit different than most folks do - to sum up (and oversimplify), we're not looking for things that significant sources should be talking about, we're looking for things that significant sources are already talking about. WP:MUSICBIO is just a set of standards used to evaluate the significance for musicians, as that's something we see an awful lot of. Just recasting yourself as a poet does not eliminate the need to meet similar notability requirements, those seen at WP:AUTHOR (and as you saw, I did include your poetry when considering whether to call for deletion.) I do not have experience with articles on noble houses (or whatever the proper term is) and the standards for inclusion... but even if the article was recast as that, I suspect that most of the stuff about yourself would be stripped out, as the article would be on the history of the title and not about the current holder. (Similarly, if your article survives the deletion discussion, I suspect that most of the historical portion would be stripped away.) But something you should be considering is: why do you want to save the article on Wikipedia? I know that most of this response is not what you'd want to hear; I hope that it is nonetheless of value to you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in not having wasted the writing effort and continuing to make what you wrote available, you have your own website, where putting what you write doesn't subject you to battling with gomers like me.
 * If your goal is to promote yourself, Wikipedia makes a lousy promotion platform. People don't come here cruising around for blues sax players. When they land here, it's generally because they are searching for a specific topic. Now, when someone enters your name into Google, where do you want them to land? Do you want them to end up on a page where you're in control of the message, where you can paint yourself as wonderful, and where you can directly shuttle them to audio samples or places to buy your tracks... or do you want them to land on a page where your worst enemy has as much right to edit it as you do, without audio samples, and where links to ordering pages are routinely removed?
 * If your goal is to help Wikipedia, that is a fine and admirable goal. However, creating or editing articles where you have a clear conflict of interest is a poor way of achieving that goal, because you're editing against guidelines and every edit will be viewed with suspicion. You have done many things in your life, and surely with your background you will be able to spot overlooked aspects in our articles on the blues, or on travel, or life in Phuket, or... whatever. You could be a very valuable contributor here, and I encourage you to spend some time cruising around articles on interest here and seeing where they could be spiffed up.

Dear Nat Gertler I thank you for your response, even if some of the things you have said do initially seem upsetting, they do make sense and I certainly value the time and thought you have put into this message. I will have to think about the things you said for a bit and ponder over the pros and cons of the different aspects of your response. Most of all: I really appreciate your remarks and will give them thorough consideration. You are a lot nicer than you appeared initially :-) I wish you a great day/night. Best Regards,--Vonsaxen (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kindly response. If you have any specific questions that I can answer (or try to, at least; after years of editing here, there are still many corners of Wikipedia that I've not explored), feel free to post them on my talk page. You'll find a link to it at the end of this message. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again Nat, I have decided to let history take it's flow and not interfere with the issue anymore: being called narcissistic is not really nice, so I'd better shut up ;-) thanks again for everything, even if sometimes your words hurt a bit, you have the best intentions to keep this encyclopedia the way it's meant to be: an encyclopedia!--Vonsaxen (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Consider visiting your welcome links. If you need additional help, contact me at my talk page.

SwisterTwister  talk  22:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Re: Thank you
The article is being nominated for deletion because it fails Notability. You added a list of references but it is challenging to differentiate what references support what. For the future, consider using ref tags, visit this page to learn how to use them. If the article is deleted, I suggest visiting Writing better articles. SwisterTwister  talk  07:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)