User talk:GuyKruger-1

Welcome!

Hello, GuyKruger-1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as ICAAP (Internal Capital Adequacy Asessment Process), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Your contributed article, ICAAP (Internal Capital Adequacy Asessment Process)


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, ICAAP (Internal Capital Adequacy Asessment Process). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Basel II. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Basel II - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 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. 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of minor edit function
Please don't use it to add things like this. Its for minor spelling, punctuation or formatting changes, not the insertion of your unsourced opinion, and that kind of editorializing isn't the way we write articles here, minor edit or not aside. You might want to read WP:RS and WP:NPOV too. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 19:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

reply:
Cheers. Note taken about the minor edit. But just to get it sorted so I understand - if someone gives a name to something and invents terrible slanders and puts it in a book - it's a source, and then it can be used to throw it all around this encyclopaedia and people will think it's facts; but if I want to just put a bit of doubt in something which is a one-sided report, that may be truth but may just as well be false record - so that people can choose whether they like to believe it or not, because no one today can really tell what really happened - that's an opinion? I wouldn't want to do things against "the way we do things around here", and I apologize if it looked like I'm trying to use Wikipedia to sow my opinions around (which I wasn't). But seeing terrible false baseless accusations on an encyclopaedic page, that really bit me. Is that the way we do things around here? Let people's political perceptions get in the way of facts? Or at least in the way of pointing out a certain amount of doubt? GuyKruger-1 (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)