User talk:BRappy55

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. You are, however, encouraged to add appropriate content to the encyclopedia. If you feel the material in question should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

A Response to your First Piost
(sorry bouth that, i accidently mixed up the post, this was the response to your first thread, it's the only answer I can give - if you really need help contact an admin). A few things. FIRST: whenever you post a comment like that, either click that John Hancock signature (next to the W with a line through it) to sign it, or type 4 tildes ( ~ ). SECOND I am not an admin, I only nominated the article for deletion, however if you go to it now there should be a link to a page where you can contest the deletion (unlesss of course it's an empty page in which case you would have to add it again). Unfourtunetly - I doubt that what you would do would get it up to Wikipedia standars, unless you find sources to back up what you say (sources need to be a part of every article) - and even then it might not be notable enough to put in Wikipedia. Good luck though, -- DanielFolsom T|C|U 23:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A Response to your Second Post
You might say it's accurate, and I'm not saying I don't believe you, but the issue is you need to prove it's accurate through research. You should go over some of Wikipedia's guidelines, especially the one about original research (which is not allowed)-- DanielFolsom T|C|U 00:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying - you have to listen
First, please don't remove my post, it's considered vandalism. Second, I'm telling you, I WASN'T THE ONE WHO DELETED IT, I NOMINATED IT, I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DELETE, ONLY ADMINS DO. Third, you should read through the Wikipedia guidelines,because even in the discussion (it was 100% accurate) you are ignoring the guideline on original research, if you refuse to follow Wikipedia rules you will be banned, so I suggest you get caught up. Last, LIKE I SAID!!!!, there isn't a way you can just get it back with the snap of a finger. If you go to the page though, and you see a contest this deltion type thing, click on it and go from there. Now (without asking the same question again), feel free to ask me any more questions (like how to do the process) at my talk page. And by the way, when you go through the process do not say, "this is just as bad" - that's an argumate that is disregarded, there are many pages that shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean there should be more, I will have a look at that page though and tell you why it's on. -- DanielFolsom T|C|U 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok Here's Why
I assume You mean Tyler Hill Camp, and really quality wise it's better than your article. first off it does not say our, it was written from a third person perspective. Second, it doesn't have what Wikipedia calls Weasel Words (words that make the article violate WP:NPOV) - like amazing or fun or great. Last, it has an external links section which i think they're using as sources. -- DanielFolsom T|C|U 00:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting Somewhere
NOW We're getting somewhere. I myself haven't done the policy before, but I'll find you a page on it. Tell me if this page answers your question. -- DanielFolsom T|C|U 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, also check this out, here. -- DanielFolsom T|C|U 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know you don't have to type under a new category each time, I only did it for this one because it was taking u a bit to respond. -- DanielFolsom T|C|U 01:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to appologize for how I acted up there. I've only been a user for a couple of months, but that has been more than enough for me to know not to overreact. I was in a pretty big discussion outside of here, and I allowed that to be caried inside Wikipedia.
 * Truly sorry,-- DanielFolsom T|C|U 16:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I really have no idea - however I will tell you that when you go to an administrughnoator you'll have to convince them that it's notable enough -not every (in fact most) camps are not - look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines. They state some requirements (like their first sentence is HUGE) and if you can prove that your article passes that requirement, your in the clear. -- DanielFolsom T|C|U 00:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:BRappy55/Camp Poyntelle
I have created this page so you can work on it in user space; but, you should know that I do not have high hopes for this "article". I have removed several items that absolutely cannot be included, and most of that which remains has to go as well: virtually nothing there passes notability standards; the massive detail fails What Wikipedia is not (it is neither a web host nor an indiscriminate collection of information); and, it reads like it was lifted verbatim from the camp brochure, hence the looks-like-an-advertisement issue (and, if it was lifted from the brochure, it violates copyright policy).

Since the issue of notability is the starting point, any surviving article must address why anyone outside the immediate area should care about it, and what the camp offers (and/or to whom it caters) that makes it unique. If you feel you can satisfy the requirements of an encyclopedia, feel free to try; otherwise, it's a waste of effort that would be better expended on a website specifically for the camp. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)