User talk:XxxL0ST.S0ULxxx

I see you have just created a new page, James Allen Isaacs Jr.. However, the page will likely be nominated for speedily deletion by myself or a fellow editor, due to the fact that

• there is no coverage of you on Google, apart from your Twitter page, your Facebook page and what appears to be a family blog. There are no news items regarding you or any event you have been involved in, and therefore I question the notability of the article that you claim you will write later.
• it is strongly discouraged that you write an article about yourself, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community - and with no reliable evidence of notability on multiple searches, this is unlikely to happen. See Wikipedia:Autobiography

WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 09:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Image:Ambox warning_pn.svg A tag has been placed on :James Allen Isaacs Jr. 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. 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 {{tl|hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

{{#if:James Allen Isaacs Jr.|25px Hello! :James Allen Isaacs Jr. is not the appropriate place to post information about yourself, because it is in the part of Wikipedia where encyclopedic articles are written. A "userpage" at {{PAGENAME}}, however, is available for personal information about yourself. When adding personal information please remember that Wikipedia is not a social network such as MySpace or Facebook. Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:User page for more information.|Error, first parameter not entered!}} JohnCD (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi XxxL0ST.S0ULxxx. I wanted to let you know why I tagged your article for deletion. There's two things to note: firstly, your article doesn't make any claims about why its subject merits an encyclopedia article. On Wikipedia we aim to have articles only about people who meet the biography inclusion criteria, in that they are the subject of extensive coverage in existing reliable sources like books and newspaper articles. Without references to coverage like that, an article is liable to be deleted.

Secondly, contributors to Wikipedia are discouraged from writing articles about themselves. This isn't a social networking site or a good place to write an autobiography. We also have a conflict of interest policy that advises contributors to steer clear of any subject to which they're personally affiliated, mainly for the sake of neutrality. You seem to have already discovered your user page, which is a much better place to include details about yourself. This page sets out some guidelines about that. I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

{{{{{{Hold ON}}}}}}}

I am and will complete my article on myself. I have been working for two and a half years getting everything in place and this is one of my last objectives. You are right, I havent gotten much on me..YET, and simply prefer that 'I' have a hand in writting my wiki profile before someone else does. The page, when completed will list my Organization D.O.T.S. and information on where i am and what i am doing, a Bio- on myself like wiki is indended for. I am sure you have never heard of Disciple of Truth Society (D.O.T.S.) either, but when I have to stay up till 2:07 in the morning to argue with nonsence, then it continues to take longer and longer and longer. D.O.T.S. is a Society Instituted on Truth Research, I have been finallizing my web presence and need to have my wiki presence cornered before some idiot starts spreading false wiki-facts about me while a moderator like yourself does nothing. This is me, it will be linked to and emphasising D.O.T.S. and the growth of the movement. If however you are going to choose to continue to hamper my efforts to create a Free Wiki-Pedia page of information on the Disciple of Truth Society and its founder James Allen Isaacs Jr, aka the Lost Soul...then I will share this message exchange between you and I and I will post it all over the internet, making ure to expose your cencorship efforts, and don't be foolish, I don't need Wiki-leaks to spread this information. Kindly remove your 'flagging' and outside of doing your legitimate moderating job, leave me be.

{{{{{Hold On}}}}}}}}}}} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Isaacs this is exactly what I am talking about. If I am attempting to create a profile like his in the wrong place, then please direct me to the appropriate place, otherwise you have no reason to flag me. I have no information on here atm because it is the foundation of the article, login, page, etc..and its 2:30 in the morning. There are countless articles on People. I dont need/want a bio- or social page..I HAVE MY OWN SITE. I D.O.T.S. to be listed here, and I am its founder so it only makes sence to have a short page linked to the D.O.T.S. page.

I am afraid you have some misconceptions about Wikipedia. You seem to be looking to set up pages about yourself and your Society which you will control. Wikipedia is not the place for that, for several reasons:

• As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has standards for what subjects are suitable for inclusion; the Wikipedia term for what any article subject must have is notability, which is not a matter of opinion but needs to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and press releases. We don't decide what is interesting or significant; we simply ask, have other people, independent of the subject, found it interesting and important enough to write about? That means that new organisations and up and coming people don't get in, but it is not Wikipedia's role to help people or things become well known: we only report on things that are already established. These searches: {{findsources|Disciple of Truth Society}} suggest that your Society is not yet notable.
• Once an article is in Wikipedia, it is not owned by anyone - see WP:Ownership of articles - least of all its subject. Others can and will edit it. Even if you are notable, if you want a page about yourself which you will control, this is not the place for it.
• Because Wikipedia requires a Neutral point of view people are very strongly discouraged from writing about themselves or their organisations, even if they are notable. See WP:Autobiography for reasons why you should not write about yourself, WP:PROUD for reasons why people who have done so have often regretted it, and WP:Conflict of interest for why you shouldn't write about your Society either.

These rules and standards are not censorship: they are what make Wikipedia an encyclopedia rather than a sort of super-Myspace. The other James Isaacs article you link to is maybe marginal as regards notability, but it does cite external references; in any case What about article x? is not accepted as an argument; many older articles do not meet current standards, but that is not a reason for admitting more. You ask above, if this is not the place for your autobiographical page, where should it be? You could try [http://www.biographicon.com/ Biographicon] or [http://wikibios.com/ WikiBios].

The WP:Five pillars and the guide to writing WP:Your first article will tell you more about contributing here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

({!!!!Legal!!!!})

It's nice to see that Wikipedia has hired a bunch of egomeniacs to "moderate" its service. Its even nicer to see how you have tried to tell me that the user page (the only one that allows a noone like me to write an article about a nothing business that You don't seem to find signifigant), also is not searchable to the General Public, thus still not allowing me the opportunity the list Encyclopedic Facts about myself and D.O.T.S.. Spending less than an hour on the site not only proves how selective these (terms of use) really are, and worse; shows how inaccurate Wikipedia is on MANY issues. Seems to me that it must be the 'moderators' faults since they are the ones Choosing which articles and facts are or are not accepted as Wiki-Facts. I have also observed how when wrong, based on the individual or organization they are giving facts on's own account, and when they themselves have attempted to CORRECT YOUR ERRORS, you have not allowed those changes. Thus it seems to me that wikipedia is more becoming a place for a select few to attempt to re-write history. Bases on this,I will retain my account with you, save these communications and if I EVER see an article listing either myself, or D.O.T.S.; and full moderative control is not in my hands, then I WILL sue not just Wikipedia, but I will seek legal action against every one of you. In short, to make SURE that Wikipedia never becomes a safehaven for lies agains myself or my organization, I feel it safer that you just leave my name out your mouth. This is not to be taken as a personal threat against anyones life or saftey, nor twisted to mean so. It is a protection of myself, aginst organizations like yours that claim to teach the world truth, when it is obvious that you are choosing what that truth is. (Articles in question; very basic bio on myself (Ihave my own site((not blog))to social plug); and a basic article on D.O.T.S.) Thank you for you time and I am sorry that I have to be so firm.

:Hi XxxL0ST.S0ULxxx. I'm sorry you feel you have been unfairly treated, but I think you may still have some misconceptions about Wikipedia. Also, because we always take legal threats seriously, I have created a thread about your comments at the administrators' noticeboard. To respond to your points:

• None of the people who has spoken to you here is hired by Wikipedia. We're all volunteers.
• User pages are by default externally visible and indexed by search engines ("searchable to the general public"), but they still need to comply with the standards at WP:USERPAGE.
• We define "encyclopedic facts" as those which can be sourced to published reliable sources.
• No single person has "full moderative control" over any of our articles - see WP:OWN.
• We're not trying to "teach the world truth" - what we are interested in is verifiability.
• On top of the fundamental basic verifiability requirement, we're then interested in a subject's notability (which is defined by the above-mentioned requirement that it must be possible to source all content to substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources). That's how we determine which subjects merit articles and which don't. (JohnCD in his previous post mentioned the "what about article x?" argument, which sets out why the inclusion or absence of other pages can't (usually) be used to argue for the inclusion or exclusion of any other article.)
• Though our conflict of interest policy advises editors against working on subjects with which they are personally affiliated, we do recognise that users with such affiliations may have valuable content to share and encourage them to use article talk pages to suggest changes (and provide sources to support those changes). Gonzonoir (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

::Your article was deleted because the subject didn't meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (...)". You didn't present any such material, so the two caveats below didn't even start to apply. You don't have to look further than that to learn why the article was deleted. If you want, you can read there the criteria used to accept articles on athletes, politicians, etc to see how wikipedia decides if a biography article should be kept or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)