User talk:Penright

The article Triumph of Truth (Who s Watching The Watchers?) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Also, see WP:COI, WP:N, WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You're trying to publicize your own books. Moreover, those books don't appear to have any independent notability per WP:N and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't post your whole article on NawlinWiki's (or anyone else's) talk page. It's unnecessary and clutters the page. Thank you, Vicenarian  (Said · Done) 17:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review request
Regrettably I had to revert your request because it was put in the wrong place (in the middle of a different request). If you are still interested, please repost in a proper manner. Dems on the move (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And I did a 2nd time, as whatever you are doing looks like a bad cut n paste job of repeated text all munged up and incoherent. read Deletion_review and follow what it says there if you wish to request a deletion review. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's most bizarre about this request for deletion review is that no such article has been deleted.
 * Click on the logs link and you will see no entries
 * Dems on the move (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see -- although it was requested to review the deletion of the article Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), the article that was deleted was named Triumph of Truth (Who s Watching The Watchers?) (note the missing 'i' in 'is').
 * Dems on the move (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dems on the move (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: If you want to review the speedy deletion of the article Triumph of Truth (Who s Watching The Watchers?), please explain why you want the article restored. Please do not repost the text of the article into the review page. Dems on the move (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to make the least bit of sense of this huge, unformatted wall of text, but from a combination of this and a perusal of NawlinWiki's talk page, I'm tentatively of the view that this content should be userfied to Penright in order to give him time to work on the article and make it ready for publication on Wikipedia. Before it is actually moved to the mainspace, I think Penright should bring the finished article in its verifiable, reliably-sourced state back to DRV, where we can examine it and make sure it's appropriate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Hi this is Penright here, I think I undertsand you are saying that I can have some time to work on the article under a pace called userfied and then when I feel the article is ready for going into the main space, i will be allowed ot bring the article back to DVR where yu can examine it in detail to make sure it's appropriate and/or provide me guidelines and/or suggestions where and how I have to improve the article for moving into the main space. Where do I find UserfiedPenright (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments and formatting
If I may, you really need to slow down a bit and vastly condense what you are trying to say. I'm not sure what system/bbs/forum you are used to using, but here, you do not need to insert your own line breaks, do not need to copy a previous person's text if you are replying to them, and certainly do not need to keep pasting in what looks like gobs of the article you're trying to create every tie you respond. All you need to do is to reply to someone is click on the [edit] ink to the right of the section you want to reply in, and indent one step in from what you're replying to. Indent with a full colon ":", then begin your response. If you wish to reply to this, just put one colon first, since it is the first reply. If I or someone else were to respond to you, two colons "::" would be used, and so on. If a conversation goes on for a long time, sometimes someone will declare an "indent reset" and start over again, but discussions can usually go 8-10 layers or so before that is necessary. Hopefully this will be helpful. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Hi Tarc, I thank you for taking the time to try explain editing and replying prcedure. I am trying it now to see how it works using your suggestion. Best regards PenrightPenright (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A little better, but you forgot the colon. :) Note the one I inserted before your words (right before ""Hi ..."), and the two I inserted before my own response.  If you respond to this, put three ":::" on their own line and then begin your msg.  That'll help it all look a lot more readable and orderly. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that, I will try again to see how it works this timePenright (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know what are the formalities of these deletion discussions and what are the Wikipedia rules abut when one has already been to the deletion review committee and certain decisions and directions are made, is it then in the hands of a review committee or can the original review deletion committee be by passed by effectively creating another different group of editors in a new review discussion committee, so one never knows where they standPenright (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest it doesn't come up too often. We have pretty lenient standards for what should be allowed in user space.  Much more lenient than the original AfD/DRV.  One procedural point that you must observe is that long essays are disruptive to the MfD debate process.  Please do not remove the  or  tags from your long comments.  Your comments are still available for people to review in the collapsed box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigs (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for explaining that, I was thought I was doing the right thing by re-editing the long replies with more spaces between the text as I thought that the big black of text with n spaces had caused the collapse because everyone had complained such long replies without any spaces were hard it read. By the way do you know how one puts in the contents box one sees in most articles where all the heading are listed if one wants to click straight to that section without reading the whole article. What section do I learn all these tricks, also the picture image boxes I am using do not seem as nice looking as the ones I see in most Wikipedia pages that are usually on the left of the pagePenright (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(indent) To make sections use headings like ===Section name===. The table of contents will happen automatically once you add a few. Gigs (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

About assumptions
It's best not to assume anything about other users, except that they are doing what they think is best. Asserting that users might be being paid for their contributions here, or that they might be operating together in a secret manner (which, likely, they are not), can be considered a personal attack, and repeated attacks can result in your account being blocked. So, please be careful of what you say, such as at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?). Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thank for the information, advice and guidance to a new Wiki editor who is just learning the ropes, in Wikipedia, as I am now learning that there are certain guidelines that exist to make things run smoothly, that do not exits in the real world, when one feels that one's contributions, are being attacked by someone for the wrong reasons, as also in a manner that do not seem to be the way one is meant to be treated as a new editor to Wikipedia, I now understand what ever one think privately, and what ever things are said to one that, one feels should not have been said in that way, one it vest to say nothing and not respond, which is vastly different for real life.. but this is Wikipedia Life, not real life. It seems to be like a Second Life.cheersPenright (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted offending material as requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)

DRV & MFD
Wikipedia cannot host any material that contains unsubstantiated allegations against living people. For this reason I have closed the DRV and the MFD (deleting your page) as the only way to remove the offending revisions is to delete the pages. Please do not repost any allegation suggesting that any person has acted unlawfully or inappropriately without obtaining multiple impeccable sources to substantiate this. If you do not mind my saying, I honestly do not think that this subject matter is suitable for a Wikipedia page, and, if you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, you would find it more productive to engage on a different subject. Spartaz Humbug! 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to User:Spartaz|Spartaz] re deletion User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers? page

I note that the it appears that the Australian Weekend News has decided to host the Triumph of Truth(Who's Watching The Watchers?) page and discussions on one their Investigative News web page instead, this is the link for your and our Wikipedian Editors involved in the deletion of Triumph of Truth(Who's Watching The Watchers?) page to view if they like. http://australianweekendnews.info/InvestigativeNews.html I suppose along with millions of other interest readers around the world, to decide for themselves the rights and wrongs of all this. It is out of my hands now. I am no longer interested in this Wikipedia Web Page matter, I have spend too much time on it already. I look forward to working on other articles in Wikipedia in the future.This is the many thanks. PenrightPenright (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I look forward to working on other articles in Wikipedia in the future. This is the many thanks. Penright (talk)
 * I hope you do. I'm removing your recent links and posts, due to WP:BLP issues, I mean no offense by this. If you need some help with future contributions, I'm happy to help, but perhaps this will reveal the problem with earlier contributions; the scope of this site is to present verifiable facts, not the truth. cygnis insignis 17:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)