User talk:Biblesavant

Welcome!

Hello, Biblesavant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Clifton Robinson

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Robert Clifton Robinson 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 important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RationalBlasphemist (Speak) 08:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Robert Clifton Robinson. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. RationalBlasphemist (Speak) 08:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tohu wa-bohu may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

period.</ref> The reference to the “first day, points to verse 3 as its proper terminus a quo (“A point of origin, or a first limiting point in time.”<ref>Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary; the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article

I am new to Wikipedia, so I would appreciate any feedback, instructions or help. I recently created a page with my name, "Robert Clifton Robinson," which was fully verified with links to my published books. I believed that this was sufficient to verify my new page, according to Wikipedia's policy, but apparently I made a mistake. I do not know who to talk to or how to properly correct this issue. The page has been deleted and there were no instructions on how to correct the problem. I apologize for the removal of the speedy edit, on that page it said something to the effect that I could remove this tag if I corrected the problem, I must have misunderstood, I am sorry.

Would someone please help me so I can get this page back up. I would be very grateful.

Biblesavant (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article cited no third-party references; it just listed your books and website. (See the inclusion (notability) guidelines; indeed, coverage in reliable third-party sources is the primary criterion.) See also the conflict of interest guideline on why the creation of an article about yourself might be problematic. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the section under "reliable sources," and found the following:

What counts as a reliable source[edit] Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:

the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book) the creator of the work (for example, the writer) the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press).

I did include on the page I created, links to Amazon where 4 of my books are published and my author's page is listed.

Doesn't this meet the above requirements?

Thanks!

Biblesavant (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your post at my talk page

I'm afraid I don't have good news. It's not at all unusual for new editors to write articles about themselves or their company. See WP:Autobiography. This is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians—as this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. Your user page, however, is a great place to write about yourself, making sure to stay within user page guidelines. Please read Wikipedia:User pages. Just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit it normally.

Another thing almost no new users know is that we have criteria governing whether or not a subject should have an article. The main guideline is at WP:NOTABILITY with more specific guidelines at for instance WP:PEOPLE, which would apply to you.

Further news you probably won't want to hear is about the sorts of sources we use. WP:VERIFY is our policy on sources, and WP:RS is about identifying what we call "reliable sources" - a phrase for which we have our own definition as you will see if you read those links. See particularly WP:SPS. I see that since you posted to my talk page your edits to Christian philosophy. In particular, WP:SPS applies to you. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike,

Thanks for the response!

There were also links to Amazon where my books are listed as well as my author's page. Isn't this a "third party" verification?

Also, there are many other authors such as myself with similar pages on Wikipedia. I used their format to create my own. Why were there pages acceptable and mine was not? Again, I gave links for my author's page on Amazon as a source of verification, is this not sufficient?

Please tell me what I must do to correct the problem and I will fix it immediately,

Biblesavant (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the section under "reliable sources," and found the following:

What counts as a reliable source[edit] Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:

the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book) the creator of the work (for example, the writer) the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press).

I did include on the page I created, links to Amazon where 4 of my books are published and my author's page is listed.

Doesn't this meet the above requirements?

Thanks!

Biblesavant (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response!

Although I do understand the point of not placing your own autobiography on Wikipedia, a few things to note about the page I posted:

1. It was factual and verifiable, although I had not completed all the citations I was planning for the page, before it was deleted.

2. Wikipedia does not prohibit the inclusion of an autobiographical page, only suggesting that it be neutral and unbiased. I simply stated the facts and included my published works. If there is a particular part of the page that is objectionable, I would be happy to delete that section or edit it to meet your approval.

3. On the subject of "Notability," you may not know me, but I have worked internationally and published 4 books in the past 2 years. I am known by millions of people, but I have not had my page added to Wikipedia thus far.

4. Finally, I did include links for third party verification of my Author's page at Amazon, as well as, four published books.

Please allow me to publish this page on Wikipedia at this time. I will adhere to all of your policy guidelines and sincerely appreciate all of the wonderful feedback I have received so far.

Biblesavant (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this isn't going to happen. Please see the response to your recent message at the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help desk#New Article did have third party verification cited. Just as an aside, Amazon links do nothing to verify notability per the guidelines at WP:BIO.--ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is regrettable.

In light of the facts, I have met all of the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia and I have been refused. It has become clear that there is a serious issue of prejudice being perpetrated against me by the staff of Wikipedia.

~~I am making a legal request to have one of your attorney's contact me regarding the legal implications of this denial by Wikipedia at your earliest convenience~~.

There are hundreds of other examples of people just like myself, with precisely the same information and links to verify the facts placed on the page I created, yet their pages exist on Wikipedia, while I was denied this service. The comments that I received from people who reviewed my page indicated first that I had not included third party verification of my published work, which I did. Then the story changed to I am not famous enough, with is also not true, as I addressed this in my replies above. Finally I have been told emphatically that I cannot have a page on Wikipedia because I wrote it myself, although this is not expressly prohibited, only strongly discouraged, by the policies of Wikipedia.

There is a clear violation of my civil rights in this matter and ~~I would like to discuss this issue with one of your attorney's as soon as possible~~.

The final comment was the most profound statement of all from a Wikipedia staff: "Sorry, but this isn't going to happen..."

Although I have sought to adhere to all of your policies and was willing to work with your staff to resolve this matter, it is clear by this previous statement that their is clear bias against me in this matter.

Rest assured, ~~my attorney will proceed with this matter unless there is a satisfactory resolution given to me~~.

I have been shocked by the manner in which this was conducted and I will continue to try and work with the staff of Wikipedia, if there can be a reasonable solution.

~~Please have one of your attorney's contact me at 480-329-5190 at their earliest convenience~~.

Sincerely

Robert Clifton Robinson

We are not "Wikpedia staff", we are all volunteers users and editors.--ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to email

I received your email, since there wasn't anything in it that you haven't already put onto pages on Wikipedia there is no reason to respond via email. I have gone back and reviewed the article again just to make sure I did not miss something when I deleted it. I did not miss anything. The only links on the page are not independent, that is to say they are all controlled by you or in your best interests. The article did make any claims to significance. The things it said you have done are no different than many people. To show that you are notable, we would need to see that there has been significant coverage of you in reliable sources that are independent. The wording of the article was also highly promotional. GB fan 17:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have now been informed by the staff of Wikipedia that this page will never be allowed, your comments regarding what is required is irrelevant, It is clear that even if I provide the proper information you are asking for, I will never be allowed to place a page on Wikipedia. This is in the words of one of your co-workers.

Biblesavant (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can have a page if it can be shown that independent reliable sources have given significant coverage of you. Provide me with links that independent sources have written about you and I will write the article. The article you wrote is not it. GB fan 18:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following link is for comments that have been made, regarding my first book: "365 Prophecies."

http://www.amazon.com/365-Prophecies-Prophetic-Word-Confirmed-ebook/product-reviews/B00FWF3PMS/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

I sincerely hope that this will be considered as a "reliable source with sufficient coverage for me as an author and allow me the opportunity to publish my page on Wikipedia,'

Thank You,

Biblesavant (talk)

It is not a reliable source. The two reviews are not from people known to review books. They are just random people who have read your book. Even if this was considered reliable it would be coverage of the book, not coverage about you. GB fan 18:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You,

I think that I understand the concept of "Reliable Sources," now.

I will find a few published articles about me or my work and get back to you with those links.

Thank you for being so kind and considerate of my problem. I sincerely appreciate the manner in which you have spoken to me and the fact that you have taken prompt action to remedy this situation. You are a credit to the Wikipedia staff and a person that I sincerely regard as very helpful and diligent.

Sincerely,

Biblesavant (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Clifton Robinson

July 2014

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. GB fan 17:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what other right of redress I have since I have been told categorically that I will never be allowed to have a page on Wikipedia, even if I follow your policies?

Biblesavant (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can pursue legal action, but if you do pursue legal action or make a threat that you are starting legal action, you will be blocked until the legal action is resolved. GB fan 17:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to understand, I have no desire to pursue legal action. I simply want to be treated fairly, and thus far, it does not seem to me that I have been given proper consideration. Work with me to resolve this impasse, please!

Biblesavant (talk)

To begin with retract your statement above about talking to lawyers. Next find independent sources and post them here and I will work with you to get an article written. GB fan 18:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I retract my statement regarding talking to an attorney. I sincerely appreciate you comments and desire to help me in this matter. I will do whatever you require in order to make the publication of this page, possible.

Sincerely,

Robert Clifton Robinson

Biblesavant (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To make it completely clear that you have retracted the statement, I would suggest adding <s> at the beginning of your statement above and </s> at the end. This will strike through the statement ~~like this~~. By doing this you can make sure that someone else coming along might not see your statement here and block you for making a legal threat and I don't want that to happen. GB fan 18:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward

Some things you should read before going further so you know what is expected.

Hopefully these will help you understand the policies here a little better. GB fan 18:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help!

I need clarification on precisely what constitutes Verifiable sources. The description on Wikipedia is a little vague.

My published books on Amazon, and Author's page, are these sources of third party verification?

Also, my first book of 3,000 pages is in the United States Library of Congress as Copyrighted material, I have a letter confirming this. Would this count as third party verification of my published work?

Thank You

Biblesavant (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with we talk about reliable sources, not verifiable sources. Reliable sources are used to verify the information in the article. The link I provided above should help you figure out what kinds of sources are reliable, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The Amazon links and Library of Congress entry only verify that the books exist. They do not show that you meet our notability guidelines, Wikipedia:Notability (people).

Let me ask this a different way. Have anything been written about you in newspapers, magazines, books? Not that have you written but that others have written about you? GB fan 18:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, this can be anywhere, online or in print. GB fan 18:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw another page for the first time that might help you also, User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable. GB fan 19:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked in the book trade for forty years. You must understand: anyone and everyone has copyright in the things they create; that does not grant them notability. Books deposited at the Library of Congress do not convey notability. Books being available at Amazon does not create notability (any random pornographer or writer of fanfiction [or writer of pornographic fanfiction] can do that, and many do). Notability comes from being taken note of by substantial impartial third parties. Are your works reviewed in Christianity Today, Sojourners, L'Osservatore Romano, The Lutheran or other publications of note? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]