User talk:Soosim/Archive1

Message posted on Friday, April 20, 2007
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

MER-C 10:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Hands on tzedakah
A tag has been placed on Hands on tzedakah, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

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 a copy be emailed to you.  TN ‑  X   - Man  15:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Gemach
Hi, Thanks for your observation on the "Famous Gemachs" section. I moved each gemach to its own article and noted them in the "See Also" section, which definitely works much better. I'm sure you didn't mean it, but your edit summary did come across as hurtful. You could have just said, "Removed paragraph called 'famous gemachs' per WP:SOAPBOX." Next time, please try to assume good faith. Yoninah (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jchoice
A tag has been placed on Jchoice, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information. 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.  Teapot  george Talk  16:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:deletion of jchoice
Hi Soosim. Although it may have not been your intent, your article read like an advertisement. Here on Wikipedia, we have a policy in which advertising/spam is speedy deleted per deletion criterion G11. Please note that articles for deletion are judged on their own merit, not in comparison to other articles (See WP:OTHERSTUFF). You are certainly welcome to resubmit the article, but please revise the text so that it complies with the policies and guidelines noted at WP:ADS and WP:MOS; otherwise, you run the risk of having the article deleted again.  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 21:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Whitson
Not too sure about the details, but generally any criticism should be reasonably stated and in proportional to the reliability of the source. So multiple reliable sources saying the same things helps. But over all, we definitely can't have most of the article solely devoted to criticism. Course if the rest of the article is expanded then more, reasonable, criticism can be included. Misarxist (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel Price recipients
Soosim, I have replied to your comment on my discussion page, Cheers. Davshul (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Arab lobby
Hi, Soosim, I didn't actually read the article prior to deletion since articles by a banned used are to be deleted on sight. I have done so now, and I have some concerns.

There is actually nothing about the book other than a "review" No sales figures or similar to show that it meets the notability guidelines. Although it has references, at least one, the Tablet, is hardly neutral; I don't know the others, although a name like the Daily Beast hardly inspires confidence. My biggest concern is that under the guise of being an article about the book, it actually just acts as a platform for the book's views. I would be astonished if the views expressed by the author have been accepted without criticism, either in the US or elsewhere (the Middle East?).

As it stands, I would have deleted the article as POV or promotional. As a minimum, some balance is needed by incorporating negative reviews too; even this acknowledges that there has been criticism. Surprisingly, there's also no reference to The Israel Lobby, to which this is a response. I'm not Arab, Jewish or even American, so I have no axe to grind other than ensuring that PoV doesn't get through under the guise of an article. Hope this is helpful  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Northridge East Neighborhood Council
I actually think that Neighborhood Council is misleading, since although it claims a global remit, it only actually deals with one city. It's also quite promtional in tone, full of mission statements and vague aspirations, but few concrete facts. However, that's another issue.

NENC did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. It seems to apply to only a small area of one city, and again is composed mainly of vague aspirations and has no real facts at all. Again, it's spammy Stakeholders are encouraged to attend regular meeting sessions to learn of events and issues surrounding our community and to get involved in the process of improving the quality of life for all Stakeholders. I get no sense from this of how many people are involved, what it achieves (rather than promises) and why it is significant. There are no references, just a link to the official website. The fact that there is an election coming up is not a matter for an encyclopaedia, and is irrelevant. For this to stand a chance, we need more facts, less puffery, and verifiable references to proper independent sources  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

David Draiman Edit Warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on David Draiman. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFrozenFire (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

===adding religion Jewish to a person that says in the article he is not religious is a joke, please do not add it again, can't you see in the article, he says, I am not religious Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)=== ===and can't you see he says 'yes' to the question 'are you jewish?'...."religious" means observant of the commandments - being observant or not observant doesn't make one more or less jewish! Soosim (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)===