User talk:Peaceful.civil.disobedience

Proposed deletion of Covert Messaging and Harassment

Hello, Peaceful.civil.disobedience. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Covert Messaging and Harassment, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ish dar ian 10:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peaceful.civil.disobedience, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Peaceful.civil.disobedience! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi, thanks for message. Ishdarian had a choice between tagging the article for speedy deletion, initiating a deletion discussion or tagging for deletion if the article was not improved. His/her decision is not binding on other editors, and I felt that the problems merited speedy deletion. I deleted your article because

it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines.
it appeared to be original research. We cannot accept essays or opinion pieces, as this appeared to be.
it was written in a non-neutral and unencyclopaedic tone, reflecting a personal point of view—The answer that I give, as the original author of this article and one who feels as if I have been targeted...
The article was created in a single edit without wikilinks or references, and looks as if was copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

I could restore the text in a sandbox for you to work on, but given the personal essay-like nature of the page, I wonder if can be made into a properly referenced (as linked above) article that meets the notability criteria. If not, then it would just be wasting your time to restore it. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Ishdarian regarding this item Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PCD. Jim explained above the reaons why the article was unfit for Wikipedia. I had proposed it for deletion, because I didn't feel any of the speedy deletion criteria fit. Jim, however, believed that CSD applied and deleted the article. There were several things wrong that Jim addressed above. In a nutshell, we repost information that is published in reliable sources; we do not spread original thought. I'm sorry if you feel that the government is targeting you, but Wikipedia is not the place to air your grievances. If you want to create another article, then I'd suggest taking a look at WP:FIRST, the first-time article guide. It walks you through the steps a bit more in-depth than Jim and I have described. Ish dar ian 08:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response about PCD's deleted article

Hi Jimfbleak, I appreciate both your feedback and the feedback of your editing colleague Ishdarian. I do agree with every point that is made by both of you and I do not want this article to exist in Wikipedia if it does not meet those criteria. I would appreciate a sandbox so that I can see if I can learn how to present only the encyclopedic aspects of the information that I am trying to make a public record of with in full compliance of your standards. I want to see if it is possible and I also want to learn for my own abilities how to write a good encyclopedic article. Also thanks for the links on how to write articles in Wikipedia. I will read and learn what it is I need to do to establish a credible article. Peaceful.civil.disobedience (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Peaceful.civil.disobedience[reply]

I'll post the text here shortly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I wouldn't underestimate the NSA or GCHQ, in the case of Wikipedia you may be seeing a conspiracy where none exists. There are nearly a thousand admins on English Wikipedia, all selected after a ridiculously stringent procedure by the community. Many, like myself, are not American, and I would guess that, although admins would have a range of political opinions, the collaborative nature of the enterprise would encourage more with liberal proclivities.

Deletion means nothing. I deleted 30 articles in as many minutes this morning, and hundreds go every day because they don't meet encyclopaedia criteria. Sourcing, notability, neutrality are the watchwords. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]