User talk:Shewhomust

Speedy deletion nomination of BC Pension Corporation
A tag has been placed on BC Pension Corporation 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 an organization or company, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 15:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of BC Pension Corporation
I have nominated BC Pension Corporation, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/BC Pension Corporation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 15:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Applied kinesiology
Hello, I reverted your recent edits to Applied kinesiology. Per our policies and guidelines the WP:LEAD must reflect the body of the article which must reflect the mainstream consensus about the subject. i.e. we must leave no doubt in the lead that the Applied kinesiology is seen as nothing but quackery. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * contrary to your assertion, our policy of NPOV does NOT mean that we present everything neutrally. It clearly states "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. "
 * Our WP:LEAD guideline also says that we should place the subject of the article in appropriate context in the lead section.
 * Thus together, LEAD and NPOV mean that we need to present AK in appropriate context in the lead. The sources place AK as pseudoscientific quackery and thus we do so as well - to do otherwise is to be in violation of our policies and guidelines.
 * Your edits have been reverted, and will continue to be reverted until your suggestions meet the policies and guidelines.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * again you are failing to read and follow our policies. There is NO requirement that the subject of an article is presented "neutrally." Quite to the contrary, the subject must be presented as they are seen and covered by the reliable sources. READ THE DAMN POLICY: WP:NPOV -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)