→RECOMMENDATIONS: an offer to help... |
96.55.192.149 (talk) |
||
Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
===Trying to help=== |
===Trying to help=== |
||
:I don't know if this is going to help you, but there is no "top level editor" at Wikipedia, at least as far as content is concerned. All editors, even administrators and bureaucrats have no special authority to decide what content should be in articles. The decision on whether or not the article in question is based entirely upon the community's consensus, as informed and guided by our policies and guidelines. It looks to me like the problem with this article is [[WP:N|notability]]. Wikipedia only has articles on subjects (books, people, events, movies, etc.) that have received detailed coverage in multiple, independent, [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. If your book has received such coverage, then there should be an article about it. If it doesn't now, and it is deleted, but later it gets such coverage, then the article could be recreated at that point. In essence, Wikipedia is a place for subjects that are already notable, not those that are trying to become notable via WP. There are hundreds of other websites, also free, where you can post information about your book that have different inclusion policies than ours (some may even have no requirements at all). If you have any questions about this process, I would be happy to try to help (so long as you don't make attacks against people or issue any more [[WP:NLT|legal threats]]). [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 04:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
:I don't know if this is going to help you, but there is no "top level editor" at Wikipedia, at least as far as content is concerned. All editors, even administrators and bureaucrats have no special authority to decide what content should be in articles. The decision on whether or not the article in question is based entirely upon the community's consensus, as informed and guided by our policies and guidelines. It looks to me like the problem with this article is [[WP:N|notability]]. Wikipedia only has articles on subjects (books, people, events, movies, etc.) that have received detailed coverage in multiple, independent, [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. If your book has received such coverage, then there should be an article about it. If it doesn't now, and it is deleted, but later it gets such coverage, then the article could be recreated at that point. In essence, Wikipedia is a place for subjects that are already notable, not those that are trying to become notable via WP. There are hundreds of other websites, also free, where you can post information about your book that have different inclusion policies than ours (some may even have no requirements at all). If you have any questions about this process, I would be happy to try to help (so long as you don't make attacks against people or issue any more [[WP:NLT|legal threats]]). [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 04:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:: My Notability defense is clearly explained here in my discussion, and as to what wikipedia-org is as a public availability of timely History of Human activities. And my page clearly proves that you include similar Books and Movies of less real relevance and logic, than mine. On top later publications ignore my copyright work! Wikipedia cannot be led by a bias tendency of notability of ignorance of real worth and not a group wrong notability ! |
|||
::One defense of Canada is for wikipedia-org to not delete my article ! This is not a threat. This is a normal defense procedure ! It is up to you all editors. IF ALL THE WORLD WANTS TO GO ON AS IS, AND NOT ACCEPT notable work of advance in logic, and with bias not place my Book and article, that is your problem. I WILL HAVE TO SEE WHAT TO DO RIGHT ? Again that is not a threat, or are you accustomed to say things and answer as a mental template ? |
|||
:: AGAIN if wikipedia-org wants to not make notable my BOOK, it is because on a bias lack of rightful notability ! NOTABILITY is a big problem of segregation of power, social classes, and money groups, would you not think so ? And not the rightful recognition of value and better logic ! |
|||
:: IF YOU PUT ON THESE MOVIES: Year 2012; and Book of ELI, I mention and do not place me, it is a clear use of wikipedia against me and my Book they based their ideas on ! --[[Special:Contributions/96.55.192.149|96.55.192.149]] ([[User talk:96.55.192.149|talk]]) 22:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:54, 31 March 2011
Renascence [New-Science-and-logic] or "Obscurantism both of Theology and Science" (Forever true (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC))
Planing on adding some new definitions enhancements placements mainly to Pure Logic. But do not ascribe to the free use of my Book of Pure Logic. Only as new development of logic and analysis for Philosophy and Science ! With the link to the origin of these definitions and Science and Philosophy enhancements ! Thus the origin of these definitions remains originally mine ! But the definitions have to be ascribed use of ! The derivatives are the same as I present hence there are no derivatives as such using my ideas. As Pure Logic is the basis of all logic.
Discussion about your book's article
Hi,
I notice there are pages on recent published books and novels.
Like say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Ancient_Wonders
Do you think i can have help to make my Books pages on wikipedia ?
George. gfthomson@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.192.149 (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, you can do that if you believe your works pass a notability test. I would suggest you sign up for an account. Then when you have a user page, you can go to the address bar in your browser and create a page to write your draft. So you could just add /<Book title> after your username address (which will be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:<your username>). You can begin writing your article there and when you believe it's complete, we can move into the main article space. If you need help, let me know. upstateNYer 02:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
to: uer: UpstateNYer. Previously the notariety/notability test was "biassed" ! And defined as to be too new or not published for long enough ! Though it is a very new work and of much value ! It is new to some extent in Philosophy and Science ! THANKS FOR YOUR VERY HUMAN AND NON-BIASED ANSWER ! Yes I would be very interested in placing all information for Humanity History and Advance in a user account ! And have it there available for wikipedia.org ! The info though would be general layout. As the specifics are for the public to study and find out in the Book, due to the commercial value and Academic value ! But it would not be a mistakenly "commercial add", as it is development in logic as : pure logic.
Where do I get a template for the article ?
Thanks again: gfthomson@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.192.149 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, User:UpstateNYer. I am also an agnostic Civil Engineer. For any rpeview of what is going to be the setting of the article Titled "Pure Logic" in Philosophy. And Logic Analysis techniques in all of Science. see: book of Pure Logic at: google books or amazon. Looking for article template. (Forever true (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
Planing on adding some new definitions enhancements placements mainly to Pure Logic. But do not ascribe to the free use of my Book of Pure Logic. Only as new development of logic and analysis for Philosophy and Science ! With the link to the origin of these definitions and Science and Philosophy enhancements ! Thus the origin of these definitions remains originally mine ! But the definitions have to be ascribed use of by permission ! The derivatives are the same as I present hence there are no derivatives as such using my ideas. As Pure Logic is the basis of all logic. Well not until after 50 years of copyright, or more years after copyright renewal by my rightful heirs . No creative common rule can over-ride a copywrite [It would have to be un-published and erased from copywrite]. Some notability in a Book of the ArchBishop William Thomson [[1]]. "something:...The necessary rules of Thought...!". I must add that wikipedia can do the World the favor to not wait so long for the inclusion of new Human Knowledge references. Otherwise how do you up-grade in a timely manner ? This will help rid Science and the World of all the linked dinosaurs, to the linking to new development references. The same as you mention Richard Dawkins, that does not take his Books copyright away ! IF YOU MENTION RICHARD DAWKINS you have to mention me justifiably and inexorably. As Evolution is of illogic in Philosophy, thus defined by pure logic and me. Even if you want to accept this as only "my theories" in Philosophy ! ! ! OTHERWISE YOU CAN DIS-CATEGORIZE/UN-NOTABILIZE publicly please.
You can orient me as to what can be referenced to and included in my "article" Pure Logic in Philosophy. But bye bye creative commons. An Encyclopedia does not take away any copyright. As re-defined, it is a means of Human Knowledge Index reference of common knowledge and for further study information with the reference of new developments in the Human Knowledge base!
By(Forever true (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC))
- So does that mean you're no longer interested? I can get you started on a template, but that's all I have time for. upstateNYer 00:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I know we are all limited by time ! But I will do Human History a favor whilts I live and in a timely manner, as a page of Richard Dawkins ! That is as an informative collection of Human History, and basic knowledge, obviously !
SO YES LETS SEE THE TEMPLATE[TEMPLAR] ? By(Forever true (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.192.149 (talk)
Additionally once we go to template, we would have to limit comments and modifs. to me and wikipedia editors of course !(96.55.192.149 (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC))
Draft
Template is available at User:Forever true/Pure Logic. You'll want to fill in as many of the blanks in the infobox as possible. See Template:Infobox book#Usage for usage. That said, I now see that your book is self-published, which does not give it much clout when it comes to notability. However, if you can create a good article that fairly represents the book using third party sources, you may be able to convince a new page patroller to keep the article. However, I'll be frank with you: I don't expect this to get past the deletion stage for new articles. But hey, you never know. If you need further help, please consult the Books Wikiproject. upstateNYer 03:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Amazing and i thought i was wrong ! IT DOES NOT HAVE MUCH CLOUT ? Now that sure is a 'statement' ! Because according to my Book, Evolution and all it's followers do not have "any" clout and nor does much of Bible Theology, studied in Academia, hence i make reference to ! ANYTHING OUT OF ACADEMIA IS merely history facts, though if it has pure logic to it, it has "clout" ! But i do not need to criticize what is not Academia, other than as a joke ! Anyway, lets give it a try, to human intelligence and logic !
- SO DO YOU THINK the current World "apes" will realize the "clout" of my writ and pure logic ?
- Anyway, lets give it a try, and good luck to human intelligence and logic !
- (Forever true (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC))
GREAT, yahoooo ! Lets see how I fair ! THANKS.
Did you know that reliable third sources, limits original work reference, and timely human historic recording of it ! So is the records of the movies 2012, and the Book of Eli, have any notability, or "untimely" notoriety notability/notorietyhttp:// en. wikipedia. org/wiki/2012_(film)? ? ? OTHERWISE WE ARE IN TROUBLE HERE ! ! ! IS IT A COMMERCIAL ADD OR NOT ??? : COMPRehende ? ? ?(Forever true (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC))
The article Book of Pure Logic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a webhost where you can publish your own research. It is an encyclopedia that relies on secondary sources. For this book to have an article, it must meet the notability guidelines - see Wikipedia:Notability (books). Also WP:FORUM, WP:NOTWEBSPACE.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Timestamp: 20110330065238
- ==BOOK OF PURE LOGIC DELETION==
Notariety and Notability is in Contradiction with recent MOVIES which are original personal style work !
IF YOU DELETE THE BOOK OF PURE LOGIC, I am going to COURT to eliminate EVOLUTION AND THEOLOGY FROM ACADEMIA, AS INFERIOR LOGIC.
ONE OF THE ONLY SOLUTIONS IS MY INCLUSION IN WIKIPEDIA, as possible future basis for many more MOVIES, as 2012, and THE BOOK OF ELI, which did their movies too soon after my BOOK !
THE ONLY WAY IS "COMPETITION" WITH the OLD logic dinosaurs with pure logic, to prove NO-BIAS !
So if you want to do a TIMELY inclusion of my BOOK as these MOVIES, then you are doing HISTORY A FAVOR !
OTHERWISE A BIG WORLD PROBLEM IS GOING TO BE STARTED, BECAUSE OF YOUR MENTAL "BIAS", and mis-understanding of real notability/notariety and your rules ! Forever true (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
March 2011
Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. MASEM (t) 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- IF WE ARE GOING TO LIVE UNDER Impressions, then your logic is dumb ! Forever_true. 96.55.192.149 (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
If you understand, I am saying it is A WORLD HISTORIC ISSUE ! With the problem starting from CANADA !
Nomination of Book of Pure Logic for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Book of Pure Logic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of Pure Logic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
==BOOK OF PURE LOGIC DELETION==
Notariety and Notability is in Contradiction with recent MOVIES which are original personal style work !
IF YOU DELETE THE BOOK OF PURE LOGIC, I am going to COURT to eliminate EVOLUTION AND THEOLOGY FROM ACADEMIA, AS INFERIOR LOGIC.
ONE OF THE ONLY SOLUTIONS IS MY INCLUSION IN WIKIPEDIA, as possible future basis for many more MOVIES, as 2012, and THE BOOK OF ELI, which did their movies too soon after my BOOK !
THE ONLY WAY IS "COMPETITION" WITH the OLD logic dinosaurs with pure logic, to prove NO-BIAS !
So if you want to do a TIMELY inclusion of my BOOK as these MOVIES, then you are doing HISTORY A FAVOR !
OTHERWISE A BIG WORLD PROBLEM IS GOING TO BE STARTED, BECAUSE OF YOUR MENTAL "BIAS", and mis-understanding of real notability/notariety and your rules ! Forever true (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.192.149 (talk)
- This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.
- SORRY BUT MY BOOK MENTIONS AND IS IN UN-BIASSED COMPETITION WITH Original work BOOKS and MOVIES ! AND WIKIPEDIA records all important History knowledge in the same timely manner as these BOOKS and MOVIES on WIKIPEDIA ! I DO NOT HAVE ANY SCIENCE SECRET NEW WORK !
- And you are being web-host for all these other illogic main stream recent BOOKS and MOVIES --Forever true (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
RECOMMENDATIONS
I WOULD GO to wikipedia-org most top level editors for any wise un-biased decision ! And do not waste any more time in any un-direct discussions ! You will have to address me directly from the top of wikipedia! --Forever true (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Procedure to be implemented: WRONG USE OF CATEGORIZATION of my Book for inclusion in wikipedia-org ! Bias determination of this ! IN COMPARISON with all else you have on wikipedia, as a un-biased SOURCE OF TIMELY "non secret scientific research", and a un-bissed timely source of Human History. And more so if you have recent WEB-HOSTING OF NEW THOUGHT/IDEAS BOOKS AND MOVIES ! --Forever true (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Most certainly, History and wikipedia does "Humans" History a un-biased service, to up date competing and compelling Books with other main stream MOVIES, more "important source" Books, ideas, beliefs, Science and Logic.--Forever true (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- "FURTHER IDEAS OF LOGIC ANALYSIS""
IF IN ALL YOUR DELIBERATIONS YOU CANNOT FULLY INCLUDE MY ARTICLE. Then I recommend that you leave the deletion sign on, as no time is required for your action, and DO NOT DELETE THE ARTICLE, JUST FOR "CRISAKES", and this "complies somewhat" for your other followers ! --96.55.192.149 (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Trying to help
- I don't know if this is going to help you, but there is no "top level editor" at Wikipedia, at least as far as content is concerned. All editors, even administrators and bureaucrats have no special authority to decide what content should be in articles. The decision on whether or not the article in question is based entirely upon the community's consensus, as informed and guided by our policies and guidelines. It looks to me like the problem with this article is notability. Wikipedia only has articles on subjects (books, people, events, movies, etc.) that have received detailed coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. If your book has received such coverage, then there should be an article about it. If it doesn't now, and it is deleted, but later it gets such coverage, then the article could be recreated at that point. In essence, Wikipedia is a place for subjects that are already notable, not those that are trying to become notable via WP. There are hundreds of other websites, also free, where you can post information about your book that have different inclusion policies than ours (some may even have no requirements at all). If you have any questions about this process, I would be happy to try to help (so long as you don't make attacks against people or issue any more legal threats). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- My Notability defense is clearly explained here in my discussion, and as to what wikipedia-org is as a public availability of timely History of Human activities. And my page clearly proves that you include similar Books and Movies of less real relevance and logic, than mine. On top later publications ignore my copyright work! Wikipedia cannot be led by a bias tendency of notability of ignorance of real worth and not a group wrong notability !
- One defense of Canada is for wikipedia-org to not delete my article ! This is not a threat. This is a normal defense procedure ! It is up to you all editors. IF ALL THE WORLD WANTS TO GO ON AS IS, AND NOT ACCEPT notable work of advance in logic, and with bias not place my Book and article, that is your problem. I WILL HAVE TO SEE WHAT TO DO RIGHT ? Again that is not a threat, or are you accustomed to say things and answer as a mental template ?
- AGAIN if wikipedia-org wants to not make notable my BOOK, it is because on a bias lack of rightful notability ! NOTABILITY is a big problem of segregation of power, social classes, and money groups, would you not think so ? And not the rightful recognition of value and better logic !
- IF YOU PUT ON THESE MOVIES: Year 2012; and Book of ELI, I mention and do not place me, it is a clear use of wikipedia against me and my Book they based their ideas on ! --96.55.192.149 (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)