User talk:Pslamont

Pslamont
Hi there. One thing confusing about the Pslamont is its title--the article doesn't seem to give the reader any background to understand what they're being explained how to do. More serious is the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so instructional material isn't appropriate. See WP:NOT. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to try our sibling project Wikibooks, though. DS 22:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User warnings and notices
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. (As I state there, please do not contact me further. I am not the solution to whatever your problem is.) -- Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock
I note the names Eliot Bernstein and iviewit.tv in the article. Please Eliot (Iviewit), we have had enough. -- RHaworth 07:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi from pslamont:

In your recent comment on my Supreme Court article, you stated "cannot be verified, and the article title appears to have no connection to the text of the article" First, in the encyclopedic spirit, wouldn't it be nice for a member of the community to say "hmmm, I want to file a petition in the USSC, why not check Wikipedia?" Much to their delight, they'd find my article describing useful information, the source I referenced, and examples same. As for title, I really don't know how to use Wiki, don't you just write in the text body and include the article title down there as well? Thanks. ````pslamont

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Realkyhick"
 * If I was going to file a petition: a) I would never look in Wikipedia which is well known to be unreliable! I would seek professional guidance even though it costs the earth. b) If I did look in Wikipedia, I would never expect the info to be on the meaningless title of Pslamont. -- RHaworth 20:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * RHaworth has a bit of a point, in that Wikipedia is not a likely place where people would look for information on how to file a brief before the Supreme Court. I would disagree on the unreliability of Wikipedia; while at a given moment there may be vandalism posted on many articles (which I and many, many others do our best to correct), the overall record shows that, on average, WP has proved to be reliable. Having said that, if I were about to have a cause brought before the Supreme Court, I would certainly get professional help. Moreover, you titled the article with your user name, which has no connection to the subject of the article at all. I strongly suggest you read the Manual of Style, which tells how to write a WP article. Then read other better articles here to see how they're written.


 * If you have a question, feel free to ask — but put your question on the talk page of the user you're addressing, not their user page. The user page is created by each user that is a lot like a personal web page, while the talk page is the place for communicating with other users. When you put a message on the talk page, the Wiki software that runs this whole site notifies that user they have a message waiting, but if you put it on the user page instead, there's no notification. I only found your message ot me by accident. Realkyhick 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Pslamont
A tag has been placed on Pslamont, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This article is not written in an encyclopedic tone. It appears to be an essay, cannot be verified, and the article title appears to have no connection to the text of the article.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 06:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Iviewit Holdings Inc., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Philip Trueman 16:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Previous

 * You know perfectly well that your claims have been discussed ad nauseam under various titles: Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit, Pslamont and, most recently, this DRV (Eliot Bernstein). Has anything changed since March, eg. a significant court judgement in your favour? If so, please say so briefly. Otherwise, please do not try and rake over matters that are dead as far as Wikipedia is concerned. -- RHaworth 17:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
OK, we gave you enough rope, and with you proceeded to hang yourself. Future incarnations of this account are liable to be blocked on sight. Thank you for playing Wikipedia Whack-A-Mole, you lose. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)