Horseshoe Up

Welcome!

Hello, Horseshoe Up, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Creedence Clearwater Revival. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! FiberTech (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Michael Cummings

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 John Michael Cummings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Nahal^(T) 07:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious that you are connected to the subject as you uploaded his picture on Commons as Own work. Further more, I don't see how it's more improved than it was before it's deletion. Masum Reza^📞 10:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I own the picture and took it 2012.

Please do not accuse me of being connected to the subject. I am not, and your accusation is baseless. I own the picture, and I took the picture for Penguin Group in 2012. I am fully aware of the previous deleted version, have honed my journalistic skills over twenty years, and in no way is this version similar to the previous one. I ask that you read this present version before stating it is similar in any respect, and I also ask for you to give weight to your claim. Horseshoe Up (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have read the current version and it sources don't establish Notability. Masum Reza^📞 11:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please retract aforementioned statement.

Please retract the aforementioned statement:

"It is obvious that you are connected to the subject as you uploaded his picture on Commons as Own work. Further more, I don't see how it's more improved than it was before it's deletion. Masum Reza📞"

Simply put, and with respect, it is preposterous. Nothing in this venue can be stated as "obvious."

The previous version was scant and promotional. This version is comprehensive, unbiased, in-depth, and broad-based.

I will state again that I own the photo and all copyrights to it.Horseshoe Up (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Who I am

My name is Sandra Garrison, and I live in Upshur County, West Virginia, more than four hours from the home of the subject of this article. Of course, I do know of the subject of this article, have briefly met him on his book tour in 2008, indeed took his picture then as part of my portfolio of digital photography as a freelancer for five areas newspapers; but I am in no way, absolutely no way, promoting him or writing this article at his request. Get that straight right now. Nor is this article any form of alteration of the previous one. At 76, with stage-two lung cancer, I do not lie, and I resent any accusation to that end. I taught library science as a media specialist for twenty-eight years. Once, I aspired to be a writer, but soon realized I did not possess the bright spark and instead became a reader of fiction and nonfiction about subjects from modern-day Appalachia to Civil War-torn Vicksburg to vacations in Portland, Maine. Furthermore, I am quite familiar with Wikipedia and am fully aware of Wikipedia potential failings. I have observed many unsubstantiated attacks by editors upon editors and the like, the loss of good material due to bickering, and for that reason, I am laying out the truth here. I have resources in my county and in my network of colleagues to compile cross-disciplinary articles like this one. I hold degrees in Lexicography and Library science. If you doubt my identity, call me here: (304) 472-5204 (home) or (304) 642-0873 (cell). I am usually pleasant but having taught in middle school for many years and this being early morning EST, I can quickly be the opposite.Horseshoe Up (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please explain how you have ascertained that the article does not establish "notability."

This subject does in fact warrant, very much, a stand-alone article for the following reasons:

The inclusion of this person as a subject is not an indiscriminate choice, not in topic or individual. This article is not ill-considered. There is no hit-or-miss treatment of the written material. It is not sweeping or general, but specific and clear.

More important, the subject has been of "notice" by hundreds of articles, journals, and interviews for decades. This statement is not claiming or relying on the subject's fame, though a degree of fame and a great degree of importance do occur in this case. His profile as a writer has been evident since 1991, has been eminent since 2000, and more recently, the subject's works have garnered reviews by distinguished journals and magazines. As a writer, he is conspicuous in the literary sense.

For these reasons, he is notable.Horseshoe Up (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I recommend you to read this discussion. I've nothing more to say. Goodbye. Masum Reza^📞 12:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have read the material you suggested, and the contents do not apply whatsoever to the present article.

I have read the material you suggested, and the contents do not apply whatsoever to the present article.

The old "Talk" page discussions are irrelevant. They are immaterial. They are simply off the subject, as the old article no longer exists and is not at issue.

This new article - new in structure, degree of information, thoroughness of citations, neutrality of voice, and incontrovertible evidence of notability - conforms entirely to Wikipedia's policies.Horseshoe Up (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sock puppetry and use of user talk page

Blocked users may not create new accounts to edit Wikipedia, nor edit without logging in. See this policy regarding the use of multiple accounts. Furthermore, while you are blocked you may only use your user talk page for the purpose of requesting that the block be lifted (which would involve guaranteeing that you would not make any more attempts to create articles about yourself, nor ask anyone else on or off Wikipedia to do so). Unblock requests should be posted using the original account. Please see this guideline. --bonadea contributions talk 20:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)