User talk:Lily1155

Welcome!
Hello, Lily1155, 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 Lily is right, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, 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! BiH (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Excuse you I don't need this condescending crap I am right ok that page was objective science and you need to learn the facts.
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Lily is right


A tag has been placed on Lily is right requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. BiH (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Coleslaw and potato salad are objectively good foods


A tag has been placed on Coleslaw and potato salad are objectively good foods requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Altamel (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Better explanation
Hi Lily,

I have tagged your new article, Coleslaw and potato salad are objectively good foods for speedy deletion because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that records facts, not just personal opinions. It may be that you personally like coleslaw and potato salad, but our neutral point of view policy says that articles must not contain statements like "you're wrong", because that it just a mere statement of opinion, and can't be proved. As the subject of this article is something that you clearly made up on your own, unfortunately it has to be speedily deleted. Don't be discouraged though&mdash;there are many existing articles we'd be glad to get your help on. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Altamel (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That is blasphemy and lies. How can you say anything is 'fact' when there is no evidence that everything we see isn't just a hallucination or an illusion? reality is just what the world collectively agrees is true. When someone experiences a hallucination we say what they see or hear isn't real because the majority do not sense it, but in reality there is no evidence what we sense is even there. Everything is opinion, even the so called 'facts' on this website. If this is such an 'objective' site, why should the opinion of the minority on what constitutes 'fact' be censored because of the opinion of the majority? Nothing in the end has any proof of reality, and fact itself is nothing but a fragile and false concept. Such clinging to concepts such as that is petty and illogical. Besides, it has a citation. I've done my research on this, this is objectively true.


 * Hi Lily. If you want to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, there are several policies I suggest you read up on.
 * Verifiability: To add material into Wikipedia, it is not sufficient just to claim that something is true. You have to provide reliable sources to support this claim. The issue here isn't censorship, the issue is that it's not for an encyclopedia to judge which foods are "better." Can't we let our own readers decide? We have an article on potato salad, and an article on coleslaw; our readers can read those pages, and if they find the description appealing, they can go ahead and eat those foods. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide facts so people can make up their own opinions based on those facts.
 * Circular referencing: Sorry, but the "citation" you mentioned is your own article. You can't cite your own work to prove that your are right.
 * Original research: What also follows from the verifiability policy is we cannot depend upon original research, i.e. research that somebody did on their own and has never been formally published. There is just no way of judging the quality of original research.


 * Also, how do we now that everything we see isn't just a hallucination or an illusion? Philosphically, we don't. Philosphers like David Hume have struggled with this question for centuries. But if we were to question the existence of everything, the whole world would grind to a halt. Altamel (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Lost on belmont, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Altamel (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Bbb23 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)