User talk:Marv2010

Reason for revert
Sorry, but I had to back out your edit. Please follow the blue link in here, for the reason. Trafford09 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ForTANK


A tag has been placed on ForTANK requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ... disco spinster   talk  02:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your query
You may like to read a comment I have written in response to your query at User talk:Wknight94. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources
You had a question about reliable sources regarding an article about your think tank. You mentioned that works by your scholars had been quoted and referenced extensively. Sorry, but these are not reliable sources about your think tank. What are needed are sources independent of your think tank that discuss your think tank in depth. See WP:RS. Cullen328 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Summative notability
Sorry, but there is no such thing as "summative notability" on Wikipedia. Please read the guideline WP:NOTINHERITED to understand this issue better. In order for a think tank to be considered notable, we need several independent reliable sources that discuss the think tank itself in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)