User talk:Vtlspr

Speedy deletion of (Google bomb phrase redacted)
A tag has been placed on (Google bomb phrase redacted), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

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. mboverload @ 07:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''It is shameful that you are using Wikipedia to try to increase your search engine rankings in a Google fight. Saddest of all is that Google doesn't coun't links in Wikipedia, so your entire stunt would have been meaningless even if we didn't delete it.'' mboverload @ 07:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Re your message: Do not use Wikipedia to play your Google bomb game. I have locked out creation of the article with your phrase so you won't be able to use Wikipedia for such purposes.  If you attempt to plant a Google bomb on Wikipedia, you will be blocked indefinitely. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Oberliht


A tag has been placed on Oberliht, 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 encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Lor Ho ho ho 04:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~. I deleted your article because
 * it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Although you gave references, not all seemed to be releiable sources as defined in the link. I can't see much in the way of facts to indicate notability in terms of membership, funding, expenditure or other hard facts either
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. You will of course be aware that it's just as easy to write spam about non-profits as commercial organisations. Charities and religious bodies often think they can spam their orrganisations because their motives are good.
 * Your article is entirely promoting what you do, virtually nothing about the organisation itself.

Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: ''long working experience... intends to interconnect dispersed artistic scenes and build an artistic community making use of public spaces... aims to provide support to young artists and contribute to their professional development. It develops and maintains interdisciplinary platforms and projects aiming to connect the local and international contemporary art and culture initiatives, and advocates for a strong and independent cultural sector in Moldova and in the region... is an interdisciplinary and experimental publication that aims to reflect the young artists’ and writers’ work and activity. The magazine encourages communication between artists, writers, musicians, architects etc. but also sociologists, historians and other various professional groups, emphasizing the important role that art & culture, as ‘active ingredient’, has in a multicultural society in a globalized world... aims to establish the premises for future collaboration in Europe and worldwide taking the social, cultural and historical but also political and economic character of Republic of Moldova (European neighborhood) as starting point, also the need to match art organizations and individuals from Eastern and Western Europe... The point of departure for the design of the Flat Space was to publicly display the private space of a flat limited by the standards of the socialist society, which still is a strong visual element within the contemporary urban and social landscape of East European countries... Moreover, the project was aimed at democratizing the cultural act through providing public access to events that were to occur in this space, somehow as a continuation of the “unofficial” or underground practice during the era of the totalitarian regime, when underground art was being denied access to “official” exhibition spaces and, more generally speaking, it wasn’t publicly accepted; the phenomenon of exhibitions in private flats proliferated during the stagnation years (1970s – 1980s), when underground art could only be seen in intimate settings by a small audience... B68 is declared a zone free from commerce and control where issues of public importance can be discussed and analyzed and art along with cultural activities are there to give visibility to these issues. B68 is also an invitation for those who want to participate with artistic works or to contribute to the transformation of the square on Bucuresti Street 68 in Chisinau truly into a public space... a series of meetings with the independent cultural organizations and initiatives from Moldova. The meetings are organized to share experience and to bring more visibility to active independent organizations and their activities, and to lobby for a stronger support offered by the state to independent culture... ''&mdash; no facts, just claims
 * Not a reson for deletion, but you need a   at the end to convert your refs into an automatic listing.
 * 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 organisation 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.

I can restore the article for you to work on in your user space if you think it meets our notability criteria, let me know Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  11:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flat Space in Chisinau, on Bucuresti, 68 street.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Flat Space in Chisinau, on Bucuresti, 68 street.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Oberliht logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Oberliht logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)