User talk:KLF2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Notability of Jean ann harcourt

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Jean ann harcourt, by Hbdragon88 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Jean ann harcourt seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Jean ann harcourt, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useful information

You wrote It seems that the sole definition for interesting and useful information to you, Mr. Broughton, is that it must be negative.

Please read, again, what I said: If Burton's involvement with this particular bill was so substantial that newspapers and/or news magazines described what he did in some detail - and obviously those newspaper and other sources need to be cited - then fine, there should be such a section. I have absolutely no problem with reporting positive things where reliable sources report on them, indicating that they are notable. But when an individual editor decides that something is important, despite the lack of any newspaper coverage, then a number of issues arise - original interpretation of events; lack of neutrality, and violation of the policy that Wikipedia doesn't simply add all available information to articles. Those policies are important - in fact, they are among the most basic of Wikipedia.

If you want to write/edit articles where you can in fact express a strong point of view, you might want to check out Wikinfo and Conservapedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)