User talk:Marianbeliakov

Speedy deletion of Mountain Residence
A tag has been placed on Mountain Residence, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mayalld (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC) I do understand. But then I insist that you will delete the rest of the hotels. "New listing are not allowed" is not an obstacle to purge them all. Untill they are there, you are considered that you treat me racially and I will sue you. There is simply no reason to let more than 160 listings under the category Hotel chain and stop me from going there, you know.

November 2007
Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. Mayalld (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no offences nor inapropriate language. Thus I do not find your note even relevant. I want to list in an existing category with existing listings and I see no reason why I shouldnt do that, since we have this precedent. I am serious: if you treat my listing differen than you treat the rest, already listed there, than you should give me a reason. I do not violate any existing rules, and if you consider my listing an ad, than please, DO delete all the rest in the HOTEL CHAIN category. Please note that treating someone differently whithout any real reason is racial practice, and I will not tolerate injustice by any means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianbeliakov (talk • contribs)
 * Please do not take offense to having an article deleted from Wikipedia. It seems that your Mountain Residence page was written in an overly promotional tone, so it was speedily deleted. This was not an injustice against you in any way; it was simply the fact that the page did not meet our guidelines. The other hotels in the "Hotel chain" category do meet guidelines, which is why they were not deleted. Maybe some of the pages in that category aren't horribly well-written, but they are still notable hotels.
 * We are not "treating you different" than the rest because we hate you; rather, Wikipedia welcomes any new page, so long as it's verifiable information written in a neutral point of view. If you would like to re-create the page in a less promotional tone than before, it would be less likely to be deleted again. (I am not an administrator, so I can't delete or undelete pages.) Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Making legal threats
In the message above, you said; you are considered that you treat me racially and I will sue you Wikipedia works by achieving consensus, and does not tolerate making legal threats in an attempt to impose your will on other editors. Continuing the legal threats will get you blocked from editing.

I have no idea what race you are (and you have no idea what race I am), so I fail to see how listing the article for deletion can be "racial practice". For the record, I have listed a dozen articles for deletion today, because they were inappropriate articles, not because of the author.

The article was, by your own admission an attempt to advertise your hotels on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not here to provide a free advertising service. The argument that other similar organisations have articles is an old one, and carries no weight around here.

Wikipedia does allow articles about hotels (and other commercial organisations), but such articles;
 * 1) Must be about organisations that are notable WP:N WP:ORG
 * 2) Must be backed up by reliable sources WP:RS
 * 3) Must NOT take the form of an advertisement WP:ADS
 * 4) Should not be created by or edited by the organisation itself WP:COI

This article failed on just about every count.

Some other articles meet the criteria for retention, some don't. Those that don't will ultimately be deleted.

Mayalld (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will rewrite the content considering the way the others in the category have written theirs and of course I will change the tone. However it is an ad, theirs are ads also... I am glad there is a way to solve that all. With "racial" I was reffering to the different ways you treat us. Why do you tolerate Notable Big hotel chains, if their goal is advertisement? At the end of the day we have severa glad hotel chains and users that has seen same old names, same info they could read everywhere. I would give new players the chance to add in the right category, if my goal was Information about Everything.

212.50.27.184 (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Y.


 * Clearly there is some misunderstanding as to the meaning of words here. "Racial" means related to or pertaining to the race that a person belongs to. Perhaps what you meant to suggest was that there is some "Prejudice" in nominating the article that you created for deletion. Whilst I would refute the suggestion utterly, it would make more sense than "racial"


 * We have a little way to go as to what the policy is here.


 * First and foremost, please read WP:COI, which explains that you should not write about your own business, and why. The bottom line is that unless and until somebody who isn't employed by the organisation thinks it worth writing about, the article shouldn't be created. Even if you try really hard not to write an advert, you are too close to the subject to write an impartial account.


 * If you look at the articles about other hotels, you will see that the articles have been written about the hotel, rather than by the hotel.


 * Wikipedia has a goal for comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of every notable subject. That doesn't mean that it is an indiscriminate collection of information.


 * In summary, if your hotel meets the requirements of WP:ORG, then once an impartial outsider decides to write about it, all well and good. If it doesn't meet WP:ORG then there won't be an article.


 * Mayalld (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)