User talk:Raymondaaron

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Peter Symonds ( talk ) 17:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Sloane (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Xxx Leadership Council
A tag has been placed on Xxx Leadership Council, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Nan oha A's Yu ri    Talk, My master 23:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Double Your Income Doing What You Love
A tag has been placed on Double Your Income Doing What You Love requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

COI
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

using Wikipedia for Self Promotion
Wikipedia is absolutely not your personal web space. Please do not attempt to use it as such. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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

This image is uploaded by the subject of the photograph, but copyright is owned by the person taking the picture. No evidence of permission to use, and the uploader asserts that s/he owns the copyright,which has to be proven and cannot simply be stated

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet 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  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. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am RAYMOND AARON. My girlfriend took the photo with my camera and then gave the camera back to me for my use. I own the rights to this photograph. Raymondaaron (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron


 * Go to the file itself, make that assertion on the file talk page (see banner on the file page) and, if you still feel the image should be retained, ALSO follow the process there to assert the copyright. A simple text assertion is insufficient.  You will agree as an author, I hope, that copyright protection is vital in an organ such as this one.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Raymond Aaron on Unicycle.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Raymond Aaron on Unicycle.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The eponymous article
You say elsewhere that you are "proud" to have an article. You are pretty much the only contributor to the article. That is self puffery in the extreme. You seem not to take a huge amount of notice of conflict of interest issues.

No item may remain here unless it is cited. Computers are not the only citation mechanisms. Cite newspapers, cite TV shows, cite books, ideally not those you have published yourself. You asked me to remove citation tags. I ask you instead to provide those citations from reliable sources.

I have been through the article and tagged a sample of the items that need citations. I've removed a large number of spam links. I understand your protestations that you wish to be a good wikipedian, so you need to learn how this place works. However hard I try to assume good faith I see self promotion to a large degree.

You may be notable, and that notablility may be verifiable, but that does not mean that wikipedia may be used to promote you, your career, or your personal life. It must remain factual, and must be cited.

A wise move that would show your good faith is for you to strip out all inessential trivia from the article about you. If you can't cite it, lose it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good start. Thank you.  The objective is to end up with an entirely flat, some would say dull, article about the gentleman and his notable achievements.  This is very hard to do if you are the gentleman.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You will see that I have made some comments on the article's talk page as well as amending some of the references to the books you have written. I'm sure you will agree with the book references.   They are now very much more polished and professional by simple use of cite book, something I am sure you will find enjoyable to deploy for the other books.  Do let us have a complete bibliography in the article.
 * This article, if it incorporates my and other people's yet to be made suggestions will become a good, flat, neutral article, one that does the name Raymond Aaron justice. I know that may have been hard to see at first.  You are used to marketing.  I think you are getting to grips with it now.
 * It's very hard when an article is about you, but please do not take any of this personally. It would have been wiser not to edit the article yourself, but we can't unwrite history.  I know you dislike the COI banner.  I suggest that, after the article is flattened considerably more, including by your own hand, you approach an uninvolved editor, ideally an admin, and ask what steps should be taken to let the article qualify for removal of the banner.  That can be done by deploying  on this page and asking that precise question.  Someone will come by very shortly after you deploy it and answer you.  Be prepared to discuss the answer and be prepared not to like it.  Since I placed it there I do not feel qualified to remove it myself, principally because it is true.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Fiddle Faddle ...

You are a tough master, but I accept. I am truly not attempting to 'self promote'. I have learned my lesson. I have cleaned up everything I can. I hope it feels FLAT to you now.

Raymondaaron (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron

An administrator wants clarification about my education, but what am I to clarify? I did indeed graduate in Maths and Physics. What is unclear???

An administrator wanted more information about what Kiyosaki said about me in his book Cashflow Quadrant, so I added it but it seems to me that it is blatant self-promotion which I am not supposed to do. I want to obey the rules but I do not know how to clarify what Kiyosaki said without looking like I am trying to self-promote. I did not initially have that quote from Cashflow Quadrant; I put it in in response to an Administrator's enquiry.

there is a threat to delete my page completely because of notability issues. How can this be? I have written seven books, two of which were bestsellers. I am a founding member of Transformational Leadership Council and I am on its Board of Directors. I have raced to the North Pole, a 350-mile foot-race achieving what few people on earth have ever accomplished. Is there nothing notable in all that? I am not being patronizing and I am not being blind as I did indeed do most of the editing. I am asking you humbly what else I can possibly do to obey all your rules?
 * Did you read WP:N, the general notability guidelines? You need to have been covered in the sources. Just what you did is not in and of itself notable if nobody noticed. Have newspapers or magazines or journals written about you? Have even trustworthy websites written about you? If not, you probably don't have a chance. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

COI and NOTABILITY
Please delete the COI notice as my involvement has been to obey the rules, not self-promote.

Please delete the NOTABILITY notice as my achievements should (I think) definitely qualify me.

AfD nomination of Raymond Aaron
An article that you have been involved in editing, Raymond Aaron, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Raymond Aaron. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Raymond, this is not personal. It is the best way of achieving a verdict.  Your best route forward is not to use rhetoric, but to use coherent argument based upon facts.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Further sources
Do remember that you may cite references that are print or broadcast media. There is a family of templates you can use with profit here, usually between pairs for clarity.

Look at:


 * cite news
 * cite web
 * cite book

Also have a look at Citation templates

The objective is twofold:
 * 1) to cite a reliable source (do read that carefully)
 * 2) to make it look professional

Do not get at all put off by snarky comments. Some people are snarky. That's their job description and they do it well. Above all do not take this personally, though I agree that it is damned hard not to when one is the subject of a deletion discussion! There is a huge difference between being known in one's field and being notable in an encyclopaedic manner.

You probably also need to know a bit about the "structure" of Wikipedia. Put simply it has none. Administrators are the community's volunteer servants, and are not in charge in any way. Any editor, including Jimbo Wales (founder), has one voice and one voice only. The only exception to that is "The Office" which has to handle legal issues. It is, for good or ill, editorial communism. Usually it works well enough. Sometimes it does not. BUT no decision is ever 100% final. An article deleted today may appear in a different and better form tomorrow under the same title (note the qualifier there). Nothing ever vanishes for ever. This is what the GFDL is all about.

Almost all editors are immune to rhetoric, and most find it turns them right off. Ironically rhetoric is your stock in trade. I would advise you to eschew rhetoric and both humility and pride. Those three are horribly counter-productive. Notice that people are helpful, even if the help can appear to be negative help, and make use of their helpful natures.

You know all this. I imagine you teach people how to handle difficult situations. Just bring it into sharp focus for yourself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear FiddleFaddle ... Thank you for your kind words. I'm doing my best to understand and obey wiki's rules. Raymondaaron (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron


 * Raymond, check your work! just using 🇦🇩 does not do it.  LOOK at the templates I showed you.  Festina lente!  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Slow down. Look at how the templates work.  They have parameters.  Read the documentation.  I've tidied up enough now.  Check what you do in the article, see the effect and make edits to correct things.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This doesn't work like your crazy $1000 deposit stuff. You have to deposit $1000 at a time or it just does not work.  CHECK YOUR WORK.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This set of despairing messages has been to try to get you to work correctly. Look, READ the templates.  I linked them for you.  See how they work.  Then USE them properly.  They are there to make your life easy and other editors' lives easy and to cite things in a standard way.  Please slow down.  There is no panic here.  Hard work is not as good as smart work.  I'm not going to clean up any more of these.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Preview button
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Stifle (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this advice. I am grateful for your help.  Raymondaaron (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron.

Time to have some fun!
You've been concentrating on a particular article. I think you have done all you can to it (though I think it is not as positive an article as you might hope for), and probably all that you ought to do to it. Time to step away from it and let it take its chances. Far wiser to ignore it now as a father, than to cosset it as a mother.

In a very bizarre way you can have a blast on Wikipedia by extending your knowledge of odd subjects and by researching their facts and editing and creating articles on them.

When I started I knew nothing about the British Suffragettes and Suffragists, for example. A chance encounter with a derelict hospital led me to research the area and find out a lot more. As I found material I added it to Wikipedia, learning how to cite it along the way. Before I found the hospital I wasn't even interested!

Please spread your wings and have some fun. So far I think this has had no fun component for you at all. Step outside your specialism and edit something on atomic physics, or sex, or the violin. Avoid your own field for at least three months, truly!

You may even discover something that you can teach at a seminar! Seriously! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear FiddleFaddle ... What a synchronicity! I decided just two days ago to do exactly that!  I decided to stop editing my article and to scour through Wikipedia.  Just yesterday I found a typo in an article on St. Valentine and corrected it and I felt great!!  Have a wonderful Valentine's Day.  And, thank you for helping me.  I am a much more learned Wikipedian because of your advice.  Raymondaaron (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron


 * I suspect this experience was so far out of your comfort zone that you wondered what the heck you had got yourself into. Wikipedia is not a friendly place.  It is like "Lord of the Flies" but with better manners.  What a baptism of fire!  And no-one has the conch!  That was a truly awful book.  We had to study it at school and it horrified me.
 * If the article on you goes or stays, that is just the same as whether today is rainy or sunny. It happens.  I think it will stay.  Time will tell.  But, if it goes it will be back, so who cares?
 * So, wander around the place as a reader. Follow links.  Correct a few things.  Learn about edit summaries.  Add value to an article, serious value, by adding a good reference.  Start a stub article about something notable, verifiable, and absent.  You'll find something.
 * Above all do NOT take it seriously. This is a pastime, not a job!
 * You'll not encourage me to a seminar I fear. I have been thoroughly put off by seeing the Robbins crowd and others in action.  Come to that I can do a mean talk or two myself when I want.  The old "wood breaking trick" always goes down a storm as long as you buy the right wood! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Transformational Leadership Council Good advice, Fiddle Faddle. And, I already have a goal.  I am on the Board of directors of Transformational Leadership Council and have been asked to create a Wiki article.  Unfortunately, whenever I attempt to launch the article, I am redirected to "Jack Canfield" and I do not know what to do to undo the redirect or correct whatever is the issue.  As an administrator, can you detect what the problem is so that I can create the article.  I would greatly appreciate it --  and TLC is definitely notable and the article will be "flat" and there will be LOTS of verifiable references.  I have learned my lesson.  Raymondaaron (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron


 * You don't stand a chance. The TLC is not notable in a Wikipedia sense. It's a closed members' club.  If you can ever find citations in reliable sources then you might just manage to make it stick.  But a 99 member club of folk that use it to display their sales picth just ain't gonna happen.  Don Quixote would have better luck with a windmill.  Google shows no reliable sources at all in the first 100 hits.  Go back to them and tell them that Wikipedia is not likely to have an article on them unless they do something genuinely notable and verifiable in an encyclopaedic way.
 * It's actually lucky to have survived as a redirect to Canfield. Really.  The whole thing is marketing puffery.  Abandon that quest.  This horse is dead.  It will always be thrown out as either blatant advertising or as non notable until it does something reported in reliable sources.  Mere references are not enough.  That first 100 Google hits?  Blogs, members' own sites, press release sites.  None of these is acceptable.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I am not an admin, as I have said before. I have no desire ever to be one.  My user page also says that.  I am an ordinary editor with precisely the same status as every editor here, including the founder.  I have no tools or services that you do not have access to as well.  There is no actual problem.  The article is simply a redirect.  I counsel you strongly against wasting your considerable talents in seeking to create this article unless you can source it correctly.  I think there is a 0.99 probability that you can not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''Further the TLC is a non notable private members' club, which has no place on wikipedia. It is only present in Canfield;'s article as a passing reference.'' Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

with respects....
I moved your comment from the Jack Canfield AfD to the AfD's talk page. Had too. Sorry. The AfD was closed before you commented... which means that no further comments are accepted. If I had not moved it, it probably would have simply been removed. With regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Transformational Leadership Council
Build your article on this page: User:Raymondaaron/workspace/Transformational Leadership Council. Click on this redlink and be brought to a space where you may tweak an article into readiness for the main pages. There it can be fleshed out and grow. There it may rest safely while you get input from other wiki editors. And when you think it is all ready to be born, and with the blessings of what editors helped, it can then be moved to mainspace in one fell swoop. Being one who helped with the earlier Jack Canfield article, I know full well how frustrating Wiki can be to newcomers. However, there are those here quite willing to help. Best regards. And PS: you may wish to go to the AfD's "talk page" and delete the comment I moved. Chalk it up to frustration. Angst. Pique. Whatever. Having it remain can be seen by the heirarachy as a personal attack on anothe editor. You may truely feel the way you wrote... but Wiki does not wish personal animous to be shared this way. If it remains, those words could well come back to bite you in the butt. Regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Raymondarron, I am one of the most inclusionist of all editors you will ever meet on wikipedia, as many will attest, and even I don't think the sources for the Transformational Leadership Council are good enough at this point. Please don't take it personally that it got deleted. Two of the key principles of wikipedia are to take a neutral point of view, and to make sure that content is verifiable. If you can find independent sources that discuss the group, and rewrite the article to sound less promotional, then you will have a much better chance to get the article included. AfD hero (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You do not seem to have been active here since the article on you was deleted. This note is to let you know that Transformational leadership council was deleted after a consensus was reached by the community.  If you seek to recreate it it would be wise to create an article in the work area suggested above, and talk to an uninvolved admin about the finished work before attempting to move it to the main article space.
 * I do not believe you will succeed. I think the organisation is a talking shop and private club for the self styled great and good, formed solely as an advertisement by its members and only used for self puffery.  If you can assert its notability despite other editors' grave doubts then it will have a place in Wikipedia.
 * Simply recreating the article is likely to l;ead to immediate speedy deletion under Wikipedia policy, custom and practice. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your incivility and personal attack
Mr Aaron, you would do well to consider the personal attack you made on me at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jack Canfield. The words "Wikipedia deserves better than you" and the boldface type you have used for this are offensive, and extremely rude. This behaviour is contrary to policy here.

Please read WP:CIVILITY and stay within the boundaries of that. Any more behaviour like this and I will have no hesitation in asking for those who look after these things to investigate your behaviour here. Such investigations can lead to blocks, which are removal, of editing privileges.

Do not resort to rudeness. Whatever your feelings, remain polite at all times. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You should note that, while it is open to me to do so, I will not delete the personal attack. Such things say more about you as the attacker than about me as the person attacked..  You should be aware that this is likely to be picked up by some, though not all, search engines, and that it is under your name.  It seems very odd to me that someone of your apparently high reputation would make and leave such an attack on file and in public, and not tender an apology.
 * I recognise that you have not edited since you have left. This message is simply for the purpose of notifying you when you log in next that I will not be removing it, and that an apology form you to me is in order.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Raymond Aaron on Unicycle.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Raymond Aaron on Unicycle.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Raymondaaron for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)