{hangon} This is unbelievable. Who are you to judge whether or not a recently published book is less notable than other books? Have you read it? I've read a number of the books listed on the sundry pages I was editing and I know that they have erroneous information. I consider the book we published to be superior to them --- care to read it? I'll send you a copy. In the mean time, unless you can prove that the other books listed in the general bibliographies were not listed simply because the publisher is trying to sell the book, you need to reinstate my changes and my editing privileges --- or point me to some one who can arbitrate our debate and determine whether or not you're being abusive.
{hangon} Wait a minute, are you complaining because I'm adding the book to the bibliographic lists of articles that the book specifically discusses (e.g., The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act)? or because of the book and author pages? If you want to remove those, you're welcome to. They were added from a single link source early in my efforts before I realized that it wasn't what I wanted to do. However, if you want to remove the book from bibliographic lists, then you need a better complaint than "spam" or all of the books in any bibliographic list would need to be removed as well.
This is not a forum to promote your book. Please stop or I will block you. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 3 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Cool Hand Luke 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Spam before you contribute again. Cool Hand Luke 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Polygamy: The Mormon Enigma, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the article and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any
citations from
reliable sources to ensure that the article will be
verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
Bielle (
talk) 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You may know not this, so just for your information: you have placed the query you have added to the above-captioned article's talk page at its first section. New materials belong at the bottom of the page. This is a standard convention on Wikipedia. If you leave yours at the top, regulars to the page will usually go straight to the bottom, looking for new material. Yours will either be missed, or the readers will start out with a bad attitude toward your request, because you appear to be trying to get preference for your question. In order to avoid any such misunderstandings, you might consider putting your question at the bottom of the list, in its own section there. If you have questions, please come to my talk page. Bielle ( talk) 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
{hangon} This is unbelievable. Who are you to judge whether or not a recently published book is less notable than other books? Have you read it? I've read a number of the books listed on the sundry pages I was editing and I know that they have erroneous information. I consider the book we published to be superior to them --- care to read it? I'll send you a copy. In the mean time, unless you can prove that the other books listed in the general bibliographies were not listed simply because the publisher is trying to sell the book, you need to reinstate my changes and my editing privileges --- or point me to some one who can arbitrate our debate and determine whether or not you're being abusive.
{hangon} Wait a minute, are you complaining because I'm adding the book to the bibliographic lists of articles that the book specifically discusses (e.g., The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act)? or because of the book and author pages? If you want to remove those, you're welcome to. They were added from a single link source early in my efforts before I realized that it wasn't what I wanted to do. However, if you want to remove the book from bibliographic lists, then you need a better complaint than "spam" or all of the books in any bibliographic list would need to be removed as well.
This is not a forum to promote your book. Please stop or I will block you. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 3 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Cool Hand Luke 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Spam before you contribute again. Cool Hand Luke 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Polygamy: The Mormon Enigma, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the article and leave a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any
citations from
reliable sources to ensure that the article will be
verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
Bielle (
talk) 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You may know not this, so just for your information: you have placed the query you have added to the above-captioned article's talk page at its first section. New materials belong at the bottom of the page. This is a standard convention on Wikipedia. If you leave yours at the top, regulars to the page will usually go straight to the bottom, looking for new material. Yours will either be missed, or the readers will start out with a bad attitude toward your request, because you appear to be trying to get preference for your question. In order to avoid any such misunderstandings, you might consider putting your question at the bottom of the list, in its own section there. If you have questions, please come to my talk page. Bielle ( talk) 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)