User talk:Fear Not Books

Wikipedia is practicing selective discrimination. I have looked at many articles featuring people who have little to contribute, yet they are here. Artist of the past or current, should have a right to have an article written about them. You may not like the artist, but you should not have to right to block the article, if it is presenting the facts and not written in a lude manner, or offensive.

This is suppose to be for the people. Any one wanting to edit the article is free to do so. But for an administrator to single out my articles, while there are all sort of similar articles written on Wikipedia, seems unfair and actually, prejudice. It seem like, because my article is written about an African American Christian Science Fiction writer, that you have the real objection to.

I have noticed all sorts of so called self promoting articles on Wikipedia, articles about recent films, current actors, old and new artist of all sorts of standing, both small and large. New cars and new devices, all self serving. If someone wants to edit those articles, your own rules allows them. But for you to play judge and jury, deciding who gets written about and who doesn't, then the temptation for abuse comes in.

Why is it that one person's article about a current film, or new device is okay, while another's isn't? Aren't they both promoting something? If you are going to block me from writing about a client, then you should block all those other articles that you have on your web site, otherwise, you are discriminating!

I notice a disproportional amount of articles about white artist, devices, cars, etc; you will allow that, but current African American writers somehow, fall short of an article. Why don't you let the people decide if they want it or not, they can edit it anyway that they want. But to block an article about an African American writer is prejudice!

The name Fear Not Books is part of my email address: fearnotbooks@yahoo.com. I simply seperated the words for clarity. But if there is some problem I can merge the words back together. I am an agent and I am representing a client. There really isn't anything else to it. Fear Not Books (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, any guidance and help you might be willing to give me will be most welcome. Thanks Fear Not Books (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that there are templates that can be used but I don't seem to be able to find anything here that can help me like that. Is there some kind of template for this purpose? Fear Not Books (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A good place to get started is the Welcoming Committee's welcome page. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope that I don't seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: You user name strongly implies that you represent an organization.. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your views, for instance, your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

There are several options available to you:
 * We can talk about it, here.
 * You can abandon the contributions made under this name and create a new account that meets our username policy and addresses the concern(s) noted above.
 * Or, if you want to keep your contributions history under a new name, then you should visit Changing username and follow the instructions there.

If we can't resolve this on our own, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Victor D. Hadnot
A tag has been placed on Victor D. Hadnot requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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. Cassandra 73 (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)