User talk:EditorEd2

Welcome to Wikipedia. I deeply apologise for that warning I sent you. As a new page patroller, I work to keep unencyclopedic pages off of Wikipedia. My warning was a mistake; I must've been working too quickly. Please accept this apology, as it won't happen again. Thanks. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 06:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But please note that such pages fall under the criteria for speedy deletion, and must be swiftly removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is supposed to be entirely neutral in tone. --

Σ talk contribs

06:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an important page and should be kept.

August 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Former akramist Hamidzhon Khamzayev: I want to appeal to my comrades in misfortune, who are still suffering in exile: come back home, enough to wander around the world with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalizing. That page had a message saying that it could be removed. I removed it. That's not vandalism!

What part of "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" don't you get?

The page exists to promote the creator's anti-Uzbekistan view. It must be removed. --

Σ talk contribs

06:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of International Bolshevik Tendency for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Bolshevik Tendency 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/International Bolshevik Tendency(2nd nomination) 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. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of International Bolshevik Tendency

A tag has been placed on International Bolshevik Tendency requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Bolshevik Tendency (2nd nomination). While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend

Okay, you're going to have to step back from this one now. There are a couple things going wrong here and you need to adapt to the Wikipedia culture fast. Even though it seems logical that one should be able to appeal for help to save an article, it's actually regarded as a pretty severe party foul under the doctrine of "canvassing." If you want to save the article DO NOT DO THAT. It is something that subtly biases some people in favor of deletion — and generally the sort of support you are able to generate won't be based in Wikipedia Rules and will be ignored.

Okay, the speedy deletion has been halted, we hope. Expect a quick flag for Proposed Deletion. That will need to be contested, too. Then things will move to Articles for Deletion for a vote.

Here's what it's going to come down to: you are going to have to supply AT LEAST three independent and substantial published pieces of news coverage on the IBT. Not passing mentions of the group, Not pieces from the party press. Actual COVERAGE of the IBT. So start looking now, because that's what it's going to come down to in the end. Finding 50 friends isn't gonna help, finding 3 or 4 news articles will.

Keep watching the piece and be sure to contest the Proposed Deletion when it appears. And start hunting.

This is further burdened by your unfortunate choice of a Wikipedia name, which smacks of Conflict of Interest — another big no-no. But it's too late to do anything about that now... Find informative sources, be historical, write in a neutral tone. Good luck and stay in touch. — Tim ///////// Carrite (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry, your piece already got speedied out. The basic rule here is that once an article is voted a deletion at AfD, as the piece on IBT was, it may not be brought back in anything like its previous incarnation. And your name made it especially unlikely of getting back under the radar. Sorry about that. My suggestion would be to write a well-sourced article on contemporary Trotskyism in some particular country and to place the IBT into context in that situation. Be sure to maintain a neutral tone at all times and to be fair in representing a multiplicity of sides. You might also want to think about making that name go away, it's gonna be nothing but trouble for you no matter what you ever do at Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Bolshevik Tendency

The correct way to contest that an article was deleted through AfD is to go to the deleting Deletion Review. Simply re-posting the identical article will result in its being tagged for deletion again. ... discospinster _talk 03:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous incarnation of this piece has already been to Deletion Review, which sustained the deletion decision. The piece not only got "Speedily Deleted," it also got "Salted," which means that an administrator will have to approve a new article under this title. This is more or less a technicality — without a full rewrite and additional sources, this isn't going to fly in any shape or form. And if you do find additional sourcing that passes muster, finding a friendly administrator won't be difficult. Get rid of that user name and pick another one first. Best, — Tim /////// Carrite (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]