User talk:Sarasoar

Skapsis article
A tag has been placed on Skapsis, requesting that it be 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.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please 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 help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ElKevbo 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ATENTION
This article dose not meet the criteria for deletion, and is not spam!!!

It's regreatable that you won't see that there is nothing in the net about the term and that this blog is the only page that is developing anything about it. The entry was neaded because there was none about this word and fully extente investigations had to be done to build the blog. The article is just a way of sharing what has been found.Sarasoar 23:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutly wrong about this. This is an article that talks about everything that is going on in the net around the term skapsis. Ther is no company, no product, no group. Ther is only the repeted reference to the blog with the same name. A blog that exists as a work of art and there are no comercial implications. To delete this is the same as deleting some cultural article just because it existas in contemporarily to this encyclopedia. A blog, in fact, that contains more information about what this terme realy means than the article itself. If you would take some time to check you'll see that you have fallen in a missconception.Sarasoar 23:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you have against a cultural blog? One that has no comercial implications and is just happening now. It's is just a means of showing this concept in a pedagogical way, instead of just saying something about it, giving an example that is only interested in dooing just what the word means.Sarasoar 23:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You must undestand that this article is a product of hard investigation and all the sorces came from a very speacial greek dictionary that is present on References. If you could find somthing about this directly on the net it would not have been done.Sarasoar 23:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, blogs do not meet the standards set forth in Wikipedia:External links. But you're right about the book ref: it is acceptable, of course, and hopefully is sufficient on its own to source the article. Thanks, Satori Son 23:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry again. Has you may see I'm a newby in here and haven't read all about the rules. Well, I've read them, but didn't fixed them all. If a blog, which in this case is essential as an external link, is not aceptable then I acept my error and will take it out. That for helping.Sarasoar 23:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * May I ask wht is eligible as an external link, there are none for this word besides the blog?Sarasoar 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * May I disagree with you? In the links normally to be avoided:Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. What is a reconized authority? Once more I must put the article jus as it was, this blog is from a reconizable authority and has nothing to do with a personal page. When do you know that an authority is recognizable? My studies are in philosophy and you will not find a more recognizable authority in this matter. The reference to this specific blog is not prohibited by the rules.Sarasoar 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And more:Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: As you can see all is just has it sould be. But if you find anything that is realy bracking any rules I will be very happy to change it.Sarasoar 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand the histerical denounce (in this case missdirected) of everything that dose not fit the criteria for an encyclopedic article, but this must be done more carffuly. Whithout thinking about all the the fake articles that must showed in Wikipedia I was allmost offended with this detition proposal. But I can understand that you are just working as a garbage separator and thank you for your policemen's work. It's bad you don't find all of the erros I have found my self, but I prefer to make an article. We all have a place hear. Thanks for the nice welcoming note.Sarasoar 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You may expect any entry of mine to be as responsible and serious as it can be. But I am allways open to change any thing in my articles if the objection is legitimate.Sarasoar 00:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Skapsis
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem to me that Skapsis meets these criteria, I have started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Skapsis. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, an administrator will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. --A. B. (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What kind of academical authority is able to know the correction of the article? If I remove the deletion tag is because of its very ofensive statusSarasoar 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD removal
This sort of thing will not help the article at all. Doing that sort of thing will jsut lead to blocking. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for stoping with the ofensive tag. A revision is the exact concept for the temporary alert.Sarasoar 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In the meanwhile you must see that if this looks as a promoting aticle is just because there is nothing more about the word besides the blog. If it's the only thing there is beacusa is the only thing in the net. And please, read all my coments on this. I don't know if you can track it all but I've gave more than enough info to defende the article just as it is. I have lost a realy big amount of time doing it. This is not a comercial or promotional stratagy. Wil se that clearly if you read what I have told Satori San about the ages of concept. You will se clearly that a promotional article would never promote the blog, it would just do the oposite. Please inform your self.Sarasoar 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I realy am tiered of your insistence if the ofensive tag.Sarasoar 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop taking it so personally. There is nothing personal about wanting to delete the article and regardless of the outcome you're still welcome to contribute to Wikipedia!  --ElKevbo 12:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel the tag is offensive but it's not about you. I don't know anything about the article and am not going to comment on it either way. Please look at Guide to deletion and you must not modify or remove the AFD notice. Thanks.


 * Before nominating an AfD:make sure a deletion nomination will not exacerbate systemic bias. If it would, extra care is required to ensure the alternatives to deletion are exhausted before nomination. This article dose nor meet the criteria for deletion. But you first have to read and investigate it thoroughly... If not there is an obvious ofense.Sarasoar 12:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But I can see you no way of understanding what I say.Sarasoar 12:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I do understand what you say. However, I am not making any comment on the validity of the article. Someone put a AfD tag on it. It's not up to me, you or anybody else to just remove it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is skapsis about Education or not?
In this Italian dictionary you will find the translation of skaptw to dissodare as the meaning that Homer gave to this action, which is the same as saying skapsis but skapsis is a later form, not the form used by Homer, but this is stressed in the article. The term dissodare is related to agriculture and education. Why would seriouse investigators use this term if the occurrence os skaptw, and the later skapsis, had nothing to do about education? You should revise you fonts as they don't give you enough information.Sarasoar 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I agree this is very subtle, but even so is there. You can deprehend the relation with education, but of course, nothing like paideia. In Portuguese the word for this is arrotear.Sarasoar 14:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And as you can see in the article etimology there is no relation to education, it is not said that this meanig could be found on the works cited. The citations just show the ter existence. It is deep further and reacent investgation that makes the relation.Sarasoar 14:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)