The article Triumph of Truth (Who s Watching The Watchers?) has been 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 or service and which 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. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Also, see WP:COI, WP:N, WP:V. NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You're trying to publicize your own books. Moreover, those books don't appear to have any independent notability per WP:N and WP:V. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Please don't post your whole article on NawlinWiki's (or anyone else's) talk page. It's unnecessary and clutters the page. Thank you, Vicenarian ( Said · Done) 17:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Regrettably I had to revert your request because it was put in the wrong place (in the middle of a different request). If you are still interested, please repost in a proper manner. Dems on the move ( talk) 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: If you want to review the speedy deletion of the article Triumph of Truth (Who s Watching The Watchers?), please explain why you want the article restored. Please do not repost the text of the article into the review page. Dems on the move ( talk) 19:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm struggling to make the least bit of sense of this huge, unformatted wall of text, but from a combination of this and a perusal of NawlinWiki's talk page, I'm tentatively of the view that this content should be userfied to Penright in order to give him time to work on the article and make it ready for publication on Wikipedia. Before it is actually moved to the mainspace, I think Penright should bring the finished article in its verifiable, reliably-sourced state back to DRV, where we can examine it and make sure it's appropriate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Hi this is Penright here, I think I undertsand you are saying that I can have some time to work on the article under a pace called userfied and then when I feel the article is ready for going into the main space, i will be allowed ot bring the article back to DVR where yu can examine it in detail to make sure it's appropriate and/or provide me guidelines and/or suggestions where and how I have to improve the article for moving into the main space. Where do I find Userfied Penright ( talk) 19:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
If I may, you really need to slow down a bit and vastly condense what you are trying to say. I'm not sure what system/bbs/forum you are used to using, but here, you do not need to insert your own line breaks, do not need to copy a previous person's text if you are replying to them, and certainly do not need to keep pasting in what looks like gobs of the article you're trying to create every tie you respond. All you need to do is to reply to someone is click on the [edit] ink to the right of the section you want to reply in, and indent one step in from what you're replying to. Indent with a full colon ":", then begin your response. If you wish to reply to this, just put one colon first, since it is the first reply. If I or someone else were to respond to you, two colons "::" would be used, and so on. If a conversation goes on for a long time, sometimes someone will declare an "indent reset" and start over again, but discussions can usually go 8-10 layers or so before that is necessary. Hopefully this will be helpful. Tarc ( talk) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
collapsetop}}
or {{
collapsebottom}}
tags from your long comments. Your comments are still available for people to review in the collapsed box. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gigs (
talk •
contribs)
(indent) To make sections use headings like ===Section name===. The table of contents will happen automatically once you add a few. Gigs ( talk) 23:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It's best not to assume anything about other users, except that they are doing what they think is best. Asserting that users might be being paid for their contributions here, or that they might be operating together in a secret manner (which, likely, they are not), can be considered a personal attack, and repeated attacks can result in your account being blocked. So, please be careful of what you say, such as at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?). Cheers. lifebaka ++ 22:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot host any material that contains unsubstantiated allegations against living people. For this reason I have closed the DRV and the MFD (deleting your page) as the only way to remove the offending revisions is to delete the pages. Please do not repost any allegation suggesting that any person has acted unlawfully or inappropriately without obtaining multiple impeccable sources to substantiate this. If you do not mind my saying, I honestly do not think that this subject matter is suitable for a Wikipedia page, and, if you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, you would find it more productive to engage on a different subject.
Spartaz
Humbug! 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
|
The article Triumph of Truth (Who s Watching The Watchers?) has been 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 or service and which 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. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Also, see WP:COI, WP:N, WP:V. NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You're trying to publicize your own books. Moreover, those books don't appear to have any independent notability per WP:N and WP:V. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Please don't post your whole article on NawlinWiki's (or anyone else's) talk page. It's unnecessary and clutters the page. Thank you, Vicenarian ( Said · Done) 17:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Regrettably I had to revert your request because it was put in the wrong place (in the middle of a different request). If you are still interested, please repost in a proper manner. Dems on the move ( talk) 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: If you want to review the speedy deletion of the article Triumph of Truth (Who s Watching The Watchers?), please explain why you want the article restored. Please do not repost the text of the article into the review page. Dems on the move ( talk) 19:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm struggling to make the least bit of sense of this huge, unformatted wall of text, but from a combination of this and a perusal of NawlinWiki's talk page, I'm tentatively of the view that this content should be userfied to Penright in order to give him time to work on the article and make it ready for publication on Wikipedia. Before it is actually moved to the mainspace, I think Penright should bring the finished article in its verifiable, reliably-sourced state back to DRV, where we can examine it and make sure it's appropriate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Hi this is Penright here, I think I undertsand you are saying that I can have some time to work on the article under a pace called userfied and then when I feel the article is ready for going into the main space, i will be allowed ot bring the article back to DVR where yu can examine it in detail to make sure it's appropriate and/or provide me guidelines and/or suggestions where and how I have to improve the article for moving into the main space. Where do I find Userfied Penright ( talk) 19:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
If I may, you really need to slow down a bit and vastly condense what you are trying to say. I'm not sure what system/bbs/forum you are used to using, but here, you do not need to insert your own line breaks, do not need to copy a previous person's text if you are replying to them, and certainly do not need to keep pasting in what looks like gobs of the article you're trying to create every tie you respond. All you need to do is to reply to someone is click on the [edit] ink to the right of the section you want to reply in, and indent one step in from what you're replying to. Indent with a full colon ":", then begin your response. If you wish to reply to this, just put one colon first, since it is the first reply. If I or someone else were to respond to you, two colons "::" would be used, and so on. If a conversation goes on for a long time, sometimes someone will declare an "indent reset" and start over again, but discussions can usually go 8-10 layers or so before that is necessary. Hopefully this will be helpful. Tarc ( talk) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
collapsetop}}
or {{
collapsebottom}}
tags from your long comments. Your comments are still available for people to review in the collapsed box. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gigs (
talk •
contribs)
(indent) To make sections use headings like ===Section name===. The table of contents will happen automatically once you add a few. Gigs ( talk) 23:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It's best not to assume anything about other users, except that they are doing what they think is best. Asserting that users might be being paid for their contributions here, or that they might be operating together in a secret manner (which, likely, they are not), can be considered a personal attack, and repeated attacks can result in your account being blocked. So, please be careful of what you say, such as at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?). Cheers. lifebaka ++ 22:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot host any material that contains unsubstantiated allegations against living people. For this reason I have closed the DRV and the MFD (deleting your page) as the only way to remove the offending revisions is to delete the pages. Please do not repost any allegation suggesting that any person has acted unlawfully or inappropriately without obtaining multiple impeccable sources to substantiate this. If you do not mind my saying, I honestly do not think that this subject matter is suitable for a Wikipedia page, and, if you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, you would find it more productive to engage on a different subject.
Spartaz
Humbug! 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
|