User talk:Dcahillusa
Speedy deletion of James F. Cahill[edit]
A tag has been placed on James F. Cahill requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. DustiSPEAK!! 02:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the speedy tag from the James F. Cahill article. As you see above, and I'll point it out here, you should not removed speedy deletion tags. You may place a {{hangon}} tag on the article to dispute the speedy deletion of the article, but you may not remove the speedy delete tag. I am not going to retag the article yet, as I notice you have expanded the article quite a bit. DustiSPEAK!! 15:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Album cover[edit]
About your statement: which is considered a commentary on the need for sacrifice and even bloodshed for the furtherance of liberty.
- It's personal commentary, which is not permitted per WP:NPOV. You need a reliable source to support that meaning behind the painting.
- More importantly the statement is simply original research. Right now, you're placing your personal conjecture about the painting and implying that it's the band's reason for using it as an album cover - when in fact neither the band nor its management have made such a claim. --Madchester (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)