User talk:Socrates1x2

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Irene Brodsky has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bfacebook\.com (links: http://facebook.com/irene_betty). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with 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 organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. you admitted your conflict of interest here Wuh  Wuz  Dat  12:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Self published writers, Wikipedia and respect
Dear Ms Brodsky,

thank you for your message on my user talk page. That the article about you is nominated for deletion is in no way a slight on you as a person, and it does not stem from any feeling of disrespect for your work. On the contrary. You should be proud of what you do, and nobody intends to pick on you. However, I'm sure you'll agree that the same guidelines should apply to all people, and one of the guiding principles for Wikipedia articles is that the subjects must be notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. You can view the notability requirement for authors and other creative professionals here. This has nothing to do with respect -- there are plenty of people who have Wikipedia articles and are very notable, but who are not particularly worthy of respect, and similarly there are many, many people I respect very much indeed, including creative professionals, who do not begin to fill the notability criteria for Wikipedia and thus should not have articles here.

I hope this helps. Sincerely, --bonadea contributions talk 19:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your Editor Assistance Request
In response to your request, there are a some established policies that you need to understand which will help to clarify the issues you have run into. Wikipedia has some core policies that are intended to ensure that information presented is neutral, verifiable, accurate and noteworthy. There are our neutrality, reliable sourcing, and notability guidlines respectively. In the case of articles whose subject is a living person, for legal and moral reasons we have additional, and more stringent, guidelines that are encompassed by our biographies of living persons policy.

In order to ensure that conflicts of interest do not occur and bring with them associated issues of self promotion and non neutral wording, editors are STRONGLY discouraged from editing articles about either themselves or any subject that they are closely related to. That is nothing personal, and is meant to be a broad policy as it is clear that it is almost impossible to write a completely neutral article in these circumstances, and even if one could, the fact that an article has been edited heavily by the subject will always introduce concerns for the reader as to the veracity and neutrality of the content.

All information contained in BLP articles MUST be sourced to independent reliable sources. This general guideline is purely to protect the subject of the article. It means though that no one can introduce information that they know to be correct, even the subject themselves, without the information being independently verifiable - which generally mean that it has been reported in some form of public media.

Material is routinely removed from BLP articles if it is not verifiable, and if the resulting content does not support the notability of the subject then the article will be eligible for deletion. Unsourced BLP articles are deleted all the time, wither by consensus after an AFD discussion, or are speedily deleted by an admin if they so no signs of being improvable to our BLOP guidelines. It is deemed better to protect the subject of an article by immediately removing unsourced content, going so far as to delete the entire article if there is not significant enough content and work invested in the article to merit its rescue.

Our general notability guidelines spell out the benchmark for inclusion along with the more specific guidelines for each topic area. WP:AUTHOR spells out the specific guidelines for eligibiliy for authors. If the article is to be recreated then, as a BLP, it certainly needs to make verifiable claims of notability and be properly sourced and cited as explained in WP:CITE. The original editor is free to recreate the article, a copy of the deleted text can be provided for them by an admin should they chose to do so, or you can propose the article's creation at articles for creation, providing the necessary sources and declaring who you are. I would caution you against recreating the article yourself for all the reasons already set out.

I hope that some of these points and links help to explain why you have run into problems, please do not hesitate to ask me here, on my talk or in a reply to your original request, if you have questions that have not been answered by this. Mfield (Oi!) 03:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to know that we almost certainly wouldn't accept Cambridge Who's Who as showing notability. After I looked at their website, I wasn't surprised to see this . Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)