User talk:Posholvglush

Bango collective
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bango collective, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.last.fm/music/Bango+Collective+ft.+Kemo+and+Dennis+Jones. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ziliton


A tag has been placed on Ziliton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but 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. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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, you can place a request here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the truth
Hi. No-one accused you of lying. Wikipedia is not really interested in publishing what anyone believes is the truth. The only thing that matters here is what you can prove to be the truth through referencing to reliable sources. Not only did you not have reliable source referencing on the article that got deleted, a search of the web did not indicate any even exists. That doesn't mean I or anyone else thought what you wrote were lies. It just means that no-one has written about your subject, and until someone does, your subject is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why I can not be the first one who wrote about it?.. that's a bit weird.. Just tell me how stream of information have evolved on the internet and history in general? I think that people started to write things, and a lot of it had no reference.. How do people believe what was written in bible etc.? I mean it all started from a single word and a single person who made a note on it.. I just think that in this case you are a bit too neat-picky, though I agree that on some topics it is very important and essential.. Would you be satisfied if i'll include a link on Lithuanian "eBay" where people are still selling those consoles?..


 * Why? Because all encyclopedias, both print and internet are by definition, tertiary sources.  That means that we do not even cover original research, much less publish it.  Encyclopedias only cover what others are writing about.  Further here at Wikipedia, we require that those writing on a subject meet our qualifications as a reliable source.  So the short answer to your questions are:  Ebay would not be considered a reliable source as it is self edited, and yes, you can be the first to write about something, but not here.  We also wouldn't cover what you wrote.  We would however, possibly cover the subject if a reliable source wrote about what you wrote in detail. Hope that clears things up.  You seem to have a misconception on what an encyclopedia is. Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Then why wouldn't you remove a Romania, Ex-Yugoslavia? How these sources proved to be reliable?
 * I am not really clear as to what you are referring to. There are over 4 million articles on English Wikipedia.  I watch about 1700, plus occasionally patrol articles that have changed and new articles.  Things get dealt with when they are seen. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see, you don't even know what we are talking about... Although you are doing a great job, you act like a robot, with no flexibility of mind, following strict codes otherwise you will malfunction.. Not every single thing should be measured by the ruler