User talk:Rdhaddock

Notability of Richard Haddock

A tag has been placed on Richard Haddock, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -WarthogDemon 02:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

March 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Apple Specialist, 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 Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for your considered edits to Apple Specialist. I'd like to point out that I have no doubt from the beginning the changes you were making were well-considered and honestly intended to improve the article. I was a bit concerned about the similarity of your user name and some of the names in material you added, and felt it best to notify you directly of the pedia's stance on such subjects. If I can be helpful or otherwise useful please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. BusterD (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a favor to ask, since you appear to be the right fellow. I see the Haddock website, but could use some help finding appropriate outside news links about the company (I'm not seeing any news links inside the company site). As one of the first Apple Specialists, Haddock Corp might pass notability as a company article, IMHO. Please post them on my talk. BusterD (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you have supporting citation for the material you were adding to the AS page, I could add it all back with no conflict of interest. BusterD (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

New article on Haddock

Using sources found online, I built a stub about Haddock Corporation. I'm working on a series of stubs about Apple Specialists which happen to meet the WP:CORP notability guidelines. If you find anything which badly misrepresents the company, I'd appreciate any corrections (so long as they be cited). I could really use some non-press-release-type sources which appeared in national mags like Macworld or MacUser, other national industry journals, or significant coverage in regional journals. Any help with sources to improve articles on Apple Specialists would be appreciated. BusterD (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)