User talk:TulipLoveQueen

Tulip Love
Thanks for email. I deleted your recent article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines.
 * It was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Your article was pure spam, with virtually no factual content, just an advertisement.
 * The article was a copyright violation of this, which is clearly marked Eva A. Lindberg © 2007 - All Rights Reserved Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you, unless they state clearly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright isn't sufficient. But in any case the copyrighted text is far too promotional to be useful for Wikipedia's purposes, so there would not be any point in your jumping through all the hoops that are required. For the same reason, there is no point copying the deleted copyright text to you.
 * You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. Thank you for declaring your interest. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your book is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

You will note that I have removed the existing text from this page. Information about you should be on your user page, this is for messages. I could have copied the information to there, but again it appeared to be promoting your theories. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free advertising service,  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for email, there is nothing to stop you writing a new article from scratch, but you need to make sure that you have independent reliable sources for factual content. the tone of the email suggests that you may find it difficult to write in a neutral encyclopaedic way about a topic you are so close to, but you are entitled to try.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for email. AS above, it must be neutral and factual. numerous testimonials... what it enhances in people... new ideas of healing consciousness suggest that you haven't really taken that on board  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is more leeway with what you put on your own userpage, although you would, I think, have to omit the websites and links to the book  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  20:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)