User talk:Socrates1x2

Hello, Socrates1x2! helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Getting started Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page

]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Irene Brodsky, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see

]

Your recent edits

]

Self published writers, Wikipedia and respect

Dear Ms Brodsky,
thank you for your message on my user talk page. That the article about you is nominated for deletion is in no way a slight on you as a person, and it does not stem from any feeling of disrespect for your work. On the contrary. You should be proud of what you do, and nobody intends to pick on you. However, I'm sure you'll agree that the same guidelines should apply to all people, and one of the guiding principles for Wikipedia articles is that the subjects must be

here

. This has nothing to do with respect -- there are plenty of people who have Wikipedia articles and are very notable, but who are not particularly worthy of respect, and similarly there are many, many people I respect very much indeed, including creative professionals, who do not begin to fill the notability criteria for Wikipedia and thus should not have articles here.
I hope this helps. Sincerely, --bonadea contributions talk 19:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your request, there are a some established policies that you need to understand which will help to clarify the issues you have run into. Wikipedia has some core policies that are intended to ensure that information presented is neutral, verifiable, accurate and noteworthy. There are our

policy.

In order to ensure that

do not occur and bring with them associated issues of self promotion and non neutral wording, editors are STRONGLY discouraged from editing articles about either themselves or any subject that they are closely related to. That is nothing personal, and is meant to be a broad policy as it is clear that it is almost impossible to write a completely neutral article in these circumstances, and even if one could, the fact that an article has been edited heavily by the subject will always introduce concerns for the reader as to the veracity and neutrality of the content.

All information contained in BLP articles MUST be sourced to

. This general guideline is purely to protect the subject of the article. It means though that no one can introduce information that they know to be correct, even the subject themselves, without the information being independently verifiable - which generally mean that it has been reported in some form of public media.

Material is routinely removed from BLP articles if it is not verifiable, and if the resulting content does not support the notability of the subject then the article will be eligible for deletion. Unsourced BLP articles are deleted all the time, wither by consensus after an

, or are speedily deleted by an admin if they so no signs of being improvable to our BLOP guidelines. It is deemed better to protect the subject of an article by immediately removing unsourced content, going so far as to delete the entire article if there is not significant enough content and work invested in the article to merit its rescue.

Our

spells out the specific guidelines for eligibiliy for authors. If the article is to be recreated then, as a BLP, it certainly needs to make verifiable claims of notability and be properly sourced and cited as explained in , providing the necessary sources and declaring who you are. I would caution you against recreating the article yourself for all the reasons already set out.

I hope that some of these points and links help to explain why you have run into problems, please do not hesitate to ask me here, on my talk or in a reply to your original request, if you have questions that have not been answered by this. Mfield (Oi!) 03:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to know that we almost certainly wouldn't accept Cambridge Who's Who as showing notability. After I looked at their website, I wasn't surprised to see this [1].

talk) 15:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]