User talk:Lhart50

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Accounting4Taste 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

A tag has been placed on Larry Hart requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Accounting4Taste 15:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

January 2013
Your addition to The Promise (2011 TV serial) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dl2000 (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in my edit summary yesterday, but perhaps you did not see:
 * "''Please see WP:OR. WP does not report individual editors' opinions, however cogent or coherent. Material needs to reflect external views as expressed in WP:Reliable Sources."
 * This is one of the fundamental core non-negotiable principles WP is built on, and has proved essential to building a stable and improvable encyclopedia. Personal views, no matter how reasonable or plausible, will be removed; and editors who insist on trying to re-add them to articles will be sanctioned, and may well even be banned, either temporarily or permanently, from further contributing.  WP is not and cannot be your soapbox, no matter how much any content here may need to be set aright.
 * What editors have to do is to seek out what WP would consider reliable, noteworthy sources, and then quote what they have to say about a subject. Note that, according to policy, a self-published source like examiner.com will not usually be considered a reliable source to be quoted.
 * WP will note statements by national bodies -- for example the views of the Australian ECAJ and the French CRIF are both highlighted in the article, as they should be; as are views published as either news or editorial by reputable newspapers, with traditional editorial quality control. These are the restrictions that have proved essential for content to be stable, and to improve in a generally consistent way.
 * I can appreciate that may seem hard or even wicked, if you consider that an article is simply not reflecting a point of view that needs to be put. Nevertheless, the rule is absolute.  Such analyses must be sourced to a reliable external reference, or they cannot be included.
 * I can also appreciate you might want to get further opinions on this. If you do want to raise it somewhere for review, the places where the experts on this area of policy particularly hang out are No original research/Noticeboard or Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.  Jheald (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The new Teahouse forum, which is particularly intended as a place where editors new to Wikipedia can ask questions to help get the hang of how best to achieve what they're inspired to do here, might also be a good place for a discussion if you want to explore things further. Jheald (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)