User talk:LynWoodburgh

Speedy deletion nomination of Nevosophy


A tag has been placed on Nevosophy 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 "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. Largoplazo (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello. You should be aware that Wikipedia articles are meant to summarize, in a neutral manner, factual information available elsewhere in reliable sources. It isn't a forum for publicizing personal theories or philosophies. Original research isn't permitted, nor is one's own analysis or synthesis of information found elsewhere. Largoplazo (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

this does summarise everything in a neutral manner, that is the point. can you give me 'factual information', please. I am quoting 'credible claim of significance or importance' as the means by which this page should exist. the statement 'Encyclopedic content must be verifiable' is a contradiction. If you can prove 'philosophy' to be a better means by which to asses the 'fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence' beyond what we consider 'reasonable doubt', then this theory concedes.


 * It was hardly "neutral" insofar as you kept saying, in effect, "This is what I think." I could have been clearer and written "objective" and "disinterested". Wikipedia reports on material covered elsewhere. Personal essays, research, and analysis are out of place. Largoplazo (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There was nothing in the article to indicate that a single other person in the world has ever even been exposed to the ideas in the article, let alone that "nevosophy" has had some kind of impact.


 * The key in WP:CCS is "Or, in line with point 6 above, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?" There was nothing in the article to suggest that.


 * In any event, what you're taking issue with are details of speedy deletion under criterion A11. However, there's no question that it would never have survived a full deletion discussion, where the issue would have been whether "nevosophy" meets Wikipedia's notability requirement for inclusion. Largoplazo (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

thank you you successfully answered none of my questions/issues. Of course that page was going to be taken down, I just wanted to see how poor an excuse will be used. I will now recreate the page using citations for every single letter, along with a 'key' that determines how and why the use of any given notion of 'letter' will apply to the theory. The combination to which I put these figures together may not fit your what you like, but I will be sure to make sure everything fits the oxymoron that is 'Encyclopedic content must be verifiable'. Good day sir, I appreciate the deletion, my university would just have report me to the looney bin.


 * I am not at your beck and call to answer arbitrary questions. The question I assume you're referring to, "If you ... can prove 'philosophy' to be a better means by which to asses the 'fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence' beyond what we consider 'reasonable doubt', then this theory concedes" is irrelevant to the question at issue here, the one on which I elaborated, which is whether any article you write on this thing you've conceived called "Nevosophy" qualifies for inclusion. Largoplazo (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh but Mr. you have indeed been at my beck and call. You, sir, just gave credibility to something you had intended be removed from sight and mind forever.

Speedy deletion nomination of Nevosophy Scandal


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Nevosophy Scandal, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It is unambiguous vandalism or an obvious hoax. (See section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia; doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
 * It appears to be about something made up, 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. (See section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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 "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. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the deleted article Nevosophy. I can only confirm that the deletion was in order. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original philosophical essays; original research is out of the project scope. (Please don't recreate the article even if you can provide citations for what you see as your key points. Because these citations do not mention "Nevosophy", it would still constitute original research or synthesis.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Mike Rosoft (talk) I have also reviewed the page for 'jesus' and find it lacks much notable, encyclopedic and factual information. I know why nevosophy was deleted and did so at point of creation, but cannot see justification in the deletion of the page with regard its scandal, may you elaborate please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynWoodburgh (talk • contribs)
 * The reason is: it wasn't a real article, but rather a complaint about the deletion of the article Nevosophy with some copied talk page comments. If you consider it "scandalous" that Wikipedia deleted your article about the philosophy that you have invented, that's just your opinion; as I have said, the article was outside the scope of Wikipedia, and the administrators were well within their rights to remove it. (I recommend you to create a personal website or a blog at some free web hosting provider, and post your article there. See Alternative outlets. If you don't have the article saved, please e-mail me and I'll send it to you.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 06:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

6 February 2017
Do not sign your name to a post to my talk page that is not my post. You replied to my reply to your question, and you inserted my signature at the end of it. You may not have intended this to be deceptive, but you should have known that it would be deceptive. I will be striking the signature. I don't find a templated warning. Consider this to be a Level 4 warning. If you want to discuss whether Wikipedia needs an article on "Nevosophy", discuss it in project space, at the Teahouse, at the Village Pump, or at WP:ANI, with the deleting administrators. Do not clutter article space with non-notable issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * With regards to signing of posts: You can use the ping template - such as - at the beginning of your post, to mark it as a response to a particular user. (This will yield .) This is also useful because it will cause Wikipedia to automatically notify the original poster. In any case, do not forget to sign your post using ~ as usual. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)