User talk:PowerWiki112233
Love wikipedia...and I am here to strictly reinforce the rules of Wikipedia...
Speedy deletion nomination of Liberty Park USA Foundation
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Liberty Park USA Foundation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
October 2009
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Chomsky
[edit]Hello, I got your email. I've noticed you've registered for an account, that's a good step for discussing this. First off, I would just like to state that we can't disregard "this whole 'notability' issue thing", because Wikipedia has very specific policies and guidelines when it comes to notability. It is one of the foundational aspects of the project, and vitally important. Two other things to keep in mind is that original research is prohibited (though using Zwicker would not be classified as such--however, also be aware of the policy on synthesizing information to form a conclusion) and that articles must strive for a neutral point-of-view. I would also prefer if we could agree that we are having a "discussion," not an "argument" (sorry to keep spitting policies, but WP:CIVIL and No personal attacks--not that you have violated either of these, merely alerting you to their existence). I'm not out to "win" or "defeat" you here, merely to have a friendly discussion regarding making this project--and Chomsky's article--better for all. While I agree with you that Chomsky's behavior (namely disregarding claims of alternate 9/11 events) might be surprising and perhaps antithetical to expectations, I think that these might be best addressed elsewhere, rather than Chomsky's own article. If you'll notice, not a terrible lot in Chomsky's article relates to 9/11 (not hard to believe, considering his political endeavors are but one part of his career, and must be factored in with his contributions to linguistics, etc.) This would require, I believe, essentially a whole new section with a focus on criticisms of Chomsky and his approach to 9/11. Considering that a.) this is Chomsky himself doesn't focus on b.) the article is already quite long and c.) How are we to weigh Zwicker's criticism against all the (legions) of others who take issue with Chomsky on some point?
What do you think about this option: if you haven't noticed, there is an article titled Criticism of Noam Chomsky. This is mainly because--as I've mentioned--lots and lots of people take issue with him. The article is linked directly from the parent article, Noam Chomsky, and even includes some 9/11 related criticism from David Horowitz, I believe. What do you think about placing your citations/paraphrases of Zwicker there? I would certainly agree that it could fit quite well into that article, whose specific focus is on criticism of Chomsky.
Anyway, I hope we can come to a decision that is agreeable to both of us. Again, I'm merely trying to follow the guidelines of the encyclopedia as best as I can and still address your concerns/interests. Lastly, keep in mind that no one's objective should be "prove" anything in any given article. This aim conflicts with WP:NPOV. Anyway, I'm off to bed. If you'd like to respond either here or on my talk page, feel free to do so and I'll get back to you when I get the chance. If you do decide to go my page, please start a new section so I can find your comments easier. Kind regards, Cocytus [»talk«] 06:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)