User talk:Izeldor

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. I deleted your article because
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. You provided no independent references at all, so there is no third-party verification of what you claim, and there are no verifiable facts such as attendances or financial data
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include:  not only a resounding success... its level of interest among the public went much further then... Within a few years, people (and celebrities) were attending from all over the USA and all over the world...the Halloween convention seems to have the much more potent energy...

With regard to your message
 *  a gestapo agency to police&mdash; sigh... accusations of Nazism are always a good indicate that a reasoned argument will follow (:
 *  perfectly legitimate articles of informative natures.&mdash;maybe, but unfortunately you have to follow our policies on notability and spamming if you wish to edit here.
 * I was around the conventioneers since its origin, I wrote from personal experience. &mdash; See No original research
 *  My time is valuable. I prefer it not be wasted by over zealot, Orwellian control-mongers... chauvinistic academic requirements &mdash; See WP:CIVIL. Try social media like FaceBook, where you can write what you want.
 *  Thank you and 10-bucks says you delete this page too&mdash;How are you going to pay me? I only delete messages that are grossly offensive, but schoolboy name-calling is OK with me. The message will go either when the thread appears to end or after a couple of weeks to clear the page. It will always be available in the talk page history

Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for further message
 * I accept that not all events may be possible to fully reference, but the fact is that you have been unable to find any third-party sources to support your claims. You must see that some level of verification is necessary or we might just as well let people make things up. I'm not suggesting that you are doing that, but it's an obvious temptation for editors with a vested interest in what they are writing about.
 * Namely, that not every topic of interest to the public is capable of being supported with "independent verifiable sources" &mdash; so how do we know it's of interest to the public, other than you telling us? We get hundreds of pages about wannabe rappers, YouTube stars and software engineers. If we let anyone post anything without verification, we become social media, not an encyclopaedia.
 * I also mentioned a few disparagements,such as the fact that most of the celebrity attendees are "wash-outs"&mdash; well, you are not posting criticism of the event, you are launching personal attacks (as you did on me) against individuals who could presumably be identified with a bit of research.
 *  I suggest that Wikipedia change its policies. &mdash; I agree, but you can't do it my ignoring our existing rules

It occurs to me that if you had used the time you have spent complaining looking for reputable references, you might have found something reputable like a NY Times article. Anyway, good luck, I'm off back to sleep for another 10 years Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You are right, you are wasting my time. You have make it clear that you are not going to follow our rules, but are just going to whine and make ad hominen attacks. On the principle of not feeding trolls, I won't be responding to any more of your time wasting messages Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)