Vincent Rocca
Welcome
edit
|
December 2010
edit
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 Vincent Rocca. 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 Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. Cind.amuse 10:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Rebel without a Deal
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Rebel without a Deal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} 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. I42 (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Vincent Rocca
edit If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Vincent Rocca requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} 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. Cind.amuse 10:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Articles you have created
editI see that you have put messages on the talk pages of Rebel without a Deal and Vincent Rocca saying that you own the copyright of the text. However, in my experience it is almost never worth bothering to go through the process of establishing copyright ownership in such cases. This is because when an article is substantially built from material published on web pages associated in this way with the subject of the article, the article is usually liable to deletion for other reasons, even if the copyright issue is cleared up. The commonest reason for this is that the material used is almost invariably written in a promotional way, and this appears to be so in this case, and has been added to the reasons for speedy deletion nomination on these articles. In addition to this, if a subject has enough notability to justify the existence of an encyclopaedia article on it, then probably an independent, uninvolved, person will write an article on it. If no article is written on a subject until the subject of the article comes along and writes it, then it is highly likely that the subject is not very notable, and this again appears to be so in this case, as indicated in the articles. I see that, despite the advice given above on writing about yourself or subjects related to you, you have decided to continue doing so. However, Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself or your work, and I strongly recommend you to reconsider that advice. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Promotion
edit Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. After writing the above advice, I have looked at your other editing history. It is clear that a major part of your editing is intended to promote yourself and your work. For example, your edits to the "Critical reception" section of Kisses and Caroms was blatant promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
"For example, your edits to the "Critical reception" section of Kisses and Caroms was blatant promotion."
They absolutely were not. Cinemablend is misquoted by a malicious attacker. Claiming worship of Kevin Smith, when infact Kevin did endorse the movie.
Read the cinemablend review here http://www.cinemablend.com/review.php?id=1297 NO WHERE does it say "the worst film of its kind released at that time" saying that errant idol worship of Jay and Silent Bob creator Kevin Smith, had led to film to what was described as, "inevitable, and incredibly unfunny implosion."
Kevin's quote is NOT spam Page from book and cover of are dvd here: http://www.rebelwithoutadeal.com/book/kevinreview/
Look at the upclose pic of the box to read Kevin's quote. http://www.amazon.com/Kisses-Caroms-Nicole-Rayburn/dp/B000G75AW0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293739812&sr=8-1
Quote is also here: http://www.kissesandcaroms.com/index1.html
- You may be right in saying that another editor made a malicious and misleading edit. If so you were right to remove it. However, the text that you added was a completely different issue from the text that you removed, and what you added was unambiguous promotion. It was the sort of thing which appears in publishers' blurbs, not in encyclopaedia articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's funny that it is okay to misquote the cinemablend article as long as the quote is anti-promotion, and to use Kevin Smith's name in a complete opposite direction of how Kevin actually feels about the movie, but to quote both correctly is considered promotion, because they are positive.
I wrote a 334 page book about the making of Kisses and Caroms. It's called Rebel without a Deal http://www.rebelwithoutadeal.com. The header information about Kisses and Caroms "that was shot in five days for a budget of $11,000, which went on to gross over $1 million dollars through Warner Bros.. The film is available in Greece, Russia, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Brazil. It was also released by 20th Century Fox under the title American Pool in Australia and New Zealand." and warner distribution can be substantiated in this book. Can I cite the book as a reference or would that be considered promotion?