User talk:Bellepark

Speedy deletion nomination of Michigan Men's Football Experience


A tag has been placed on Michigan Men's Football Experience, 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 and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

'''Hello, Bellepark. You have new messages at CactusWriter's talk page.''' Message added — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC). You can [ remove this notice] at any time.

Proposed deletion of Go Blue Then and Now: The Michigan Sports Philanthropy Legacy


The article Go Blue Then and Now: The Michigan Sports Philanthropy Legacy has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * None of the sources actually mention the subject by name, leaving the article with no effective references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * With respect to your message at Talk:Go Blue Then and Now: The Michigan Sports Philanthropy Legacy. The article Go Blue Then and Now: The Michigan Sports Philanthropy Legacy was deleted because it appeared to meet the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. If you disagree you can ask for a WP:REFUND, but from my recollection of the article, it is likely to need (at best) some serious work and my be completely hopeless; then again I'm not entirely sure what sport is being played. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Affinity Social Network Community


The article Affinity Social Network Community has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This appears to be a made-up phrase, with no Google hits.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I certainly am getting nowhere trying to communicate with you so I will try this.

The lack of "google" hits is irrelevant because this is not something that one googles. Instead it is a state of the art term being used by developers and innovators to create a meaningful way to describe a specific type of community. There are many such, the ones with which I am most familiar are all charity sites that raise millions of dollars for cancer research, education,

The blog I cited when I wrote this is a widely followed NY blog written by a woman who has been in the industry since it began.

The term is clearly descriptive of what it purports to be but you are right it it new. Guess what All innovation is new. Instead of some faceless person who I suspect does not operate in cutting edge business school and philanthropic entrepreneurial circles making a call about a word because it is not on google. tell me how many authorities you wish to use the word and you will be overwhelmed with goodle hits. There are no google hits because the term is used by innovators not those who write academic papers about what the innovators created years before.

PS where are your faceless tildies Bellepark (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)bellepark

as for google, google NYlawyerssuccess today's comments from a leading advisor to major law firms in the City  (I guess that was too much work for the person who attempted to delete the comment)

Author: Web Perseverance, Inc.

In the past fifteen years the internet and a social media presence has gone from infancy to the point where a social media presence is necessary for economic survival. The world has changed from one where a simple website could convey your message effectively to the need for a suite of tools including blogging, linked-in, twitter, facebook and increasingly Instagram. The only thing certain going forward is that new social media tools will continue to develop. With all this growth there is now a problem creating visibility through a simple “on your own” approach to the need for targeted networking. I recently learned of an emerging tool for networking – affinity social network communities. An “affinity social network community” is a social media presence that uses affinity such as college alumni, bar associations, company alumni, etc. to direct those with a particular affinity to network with others with a common bond.

Examples of such affinity social network communities are those set-up to connect Michigan fans, Notre Dame fans and Penn State fans. Each of these communities is designed to promote charitable causes led by coaches and former coaches and student athletes at their respective schools. These are simply examples that can be utilized by other affinity groups in a similar fashion.

As you consider your social media presence, look for such communities in which you may be eligible to participate. Or better yet, find those in your network with such commonality and create your own community! http://www.newyorklawyerssuccess.com/

Bellepark (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)bellepark

Now I am getting somewhere. Found you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Largoplazo While you appear quite prolific in languages I don't see anything about innovation, business schools, philanthropy, how new practices get names etc. .. . I am incensed that you would simply discard something because it does not show up in a google search.

As noted $10K ad in ND ASU back cover. send me a place to post and you can see it yourself. Google will never be a place to learn complex innovative business terminology. The best place to find it is where big business puts it money and it does not get bigger than sports ND, MI, Penn State. etc

Bellepark (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)bellepark


 * Hi. Well, for one thing, I am an IT consultant. I know a few things about technology, innovation, and trends and I keep abreast of them as a matter of course. For another, something else I know a few things about is the nature of Wikipedia, including its policies and guidelines. Would you like me to be as scornful of you for not already being versed in the ways of Wikipedia as you were of me based on your presumptions about me? —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

For reasons unclear to me you refuse to address any of my substantive comments. Is it because you can't? Bellepark (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)bellepark

Are you also going to reveal to your wiki buddies that you are continuously deleting my posts???Bellepark (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)bellepark


 * I understand where you were coming from before my first reply, when you wrote down your substantive comments. But now you should be able to see that you have the situation backwards. It isn't that I haven't addressed your comments. It's that your comments don't address the considerations that I presented to you concerning what is considered appropriate for Wikipedia. As for my "wiki buddies", what are you talking about? I requested deletion for one article. I haven't deleted anything, nor can I, since I'm not an admin. And my requests are no secret. On the contrary, the second request is a public call for people to join a discussion about whether to delete the article. There isn't anything to reveal. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

PS I am now doing screen prints to show you are simply deleting what I put up. Children should not play with matches. I am a lawyer as well as everything else i stated. Delete this at your peril it is going right back up.


 * Are you serious? Good grief. (shaking head) —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As I stated in the post you deleted, the term affinity social network community is not only a term now used in philanthropic circles, it is being used in a $10K placed by IPC in the Notre Dame Shamrock Series weekend guide. The name "affinity social network community" was created by a University of Michigan MBA heavily involved in philanthropy to better explain an innovative concept to gather people together to support sports related charities for that school. The concept has spread. The definition is self-explanatory and makes perfect sense. A leading blogger in New York is the lead reference and there are multiple examples of such networks. I am attempting to submit the ad but unlike the hater, I am not Mr. Wikipedia and don't know how to to that. What I do know is that a simple 15 minute effort to assist charities in raising millions of dollars has ended up in a day long debate with a faceless fake name somebody somewhere who uses a little bit of power in a very unseemly way Bellepark (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)bellepark


 * Ad? Advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia, nor is it a place to solicit assistance for charities or otherwise achieve your objectives, however noble. Your attempts to make this personal are all beside the point. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe you did it again. you somehow manipulate the system to remove my responses. guess i will try them one at a time Bellepark (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)bellepark

I think I have your trick now, you are finding a way to parralelle follow my posts and delete before I can get them up Bellepark (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)bellepark TOO ANYONE ELSE THERE IN AUTHORITY, PLEASE STEP IN. THIS PERSON CONTINUES TO LIE, ALTER MY STATEMENTS AND IGNORE COMPELLING EVIDENCE SUPPORTING AUTHENTICITY OF THIS PHRASE BECAUSE HE CAN'T FIND IT ON GOOGLE.Bellepark (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)bellepark


 * I'm not removing anything. If you and I are editing at the same time, and I save an edit before you save yours, then when you try to save, the system TELLS you that another author has saved the page since the time you started editing. It then presents your version and the version that was saved, side-by-side, and asks you to merge your changes with the previous set of changes. I did that once this evening when you had saved something you'd written ahead of me; I copied my new contribution into the version you had just saved. This is unavoidable in any system where two people are allowed to edit the same thing at the same time. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. I haven't altered anything you've said. I didn't say the phrase didn't exist. So which one of us is lying? I did explain that it doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, and that one blog and one company's ad are probably not reliable sources; in any event, they certainly don't support all the specific details you had in your article. I believe the article consisted largely of your own interpretation of what defines the communities you claim to be connoted by the phrase, and as such would be original research, which Wikipedia isn't a proper venue for. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you give up being a hater on this one. The term is not made up. The ad referred to is not an advertisement for the term affinity social network community it is instead an example of a major university using the term in an advertisement. You continue to ignore the NY Lawyer Success blog post as well. why? can't you simply admit you made a mistake? You will never win this war. The term is a legitimate term and If I have to fight you every hour and if I need to reach out to my many media connections I will do it. How about if you start by explaining what about the term fails to make sense and how much time you spent looking at the cites referenced? We both no the answer is none. You are busy deleting posts on wikipedia. STOP IT In one of my deleted posted I told you the term was created by a University of Michigan MBA and has been picked up by others as very descriptive of what these communities are. so how many bloggers do you want? want something posted in a law article? business journal? bio on the person who invented the term? just how much do you need to quit your hate crusade. Also interesting that your story grows. Used to be that it did not qualify because it was not on google. then it became one article not enough. now it is I am making up my own research. where do you stop?????????????

my guess is never. Looks like we will tee it up again tomorrow and I will get some other bloggers to use the word. or is that cheating? is it unfair to actually be involved in innovation and have a vast network instead of being a lonely person simply busy hating on wiki???? Bellepark (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)bellepark Bellepark (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)bellepark

I don't know what time zone you are on. can you post a time we can "talk" this through. Today we reached to Michigan and got the person who created the idea. Will hopefully get you sufficient back-up and support from others in the industry that we can get this settled. In closing, I once again apologize for the rants, I have a serious chronic medical illness and yesterday was an extraordinarily stressful ill day due to many reasons completely unrelated to this. It is not an excuse for being un-civilized but it is the underlying reason. Once again please accept my apology, I know you are simply doing your job and that I am not versed in wiki-pedia. Once this is resolved, I would like some assistance in understanding protocol for updating bio info on atheltes. I work with many men and women who do lots of community work after professional careers and need to understand protocal for updating current status (example a man who does great charity work with under privileged yet his bio is stats about his NFL career that ended 20 years ago. Thanks, by the way my real name is Max, Belle was our dog and when she died we made a little park in an open field where she used to play, thus "bellepark" Bellepark (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC) bellepark

September 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Affinity Social Network Community. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Affinity Social Network Community. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note the part of the notice that you've removed twice, where it says "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.". —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Affinity Social Network Community, you may be blocked from editing. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

your new claim that i am attempting to vandalize Wikipedia is disingenuous and you know it. Instead of wasting the day with more tit for tat, let me apologize to you and start over. Instead of any eneemy at wiki, I need a mentor. I still honestly do not know what it is that is missing. I put this up as a favor to a friend who knew I had posted information about forensic accoutning and the CFF that was accepted. Because the wording "social network community" is used to describe ND based on what the web designer suggested was the now common language. I looked it up on line. You are right there are not yet lots of references to same. This concept is much different than a Yahoo Group but I seem constrained in explaining why because that would seem to be original research. Bellepark (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)bellepark

In conclusion, please provide me help directed at getting you what you need and more importantly assistance so this does not happen in the future. Bellepark (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)bellepark