I would like to know why some editors have deleted my article - i am questioning the rationale and motives behind their actions -- this ia a New system for economic development to help the people of the world - i have contacted the Wikipedia Information Team to shine more light on this dispute - their are many other articles on wikipedia that in my opinion are adverstiment and are not encyclopedia worthy.
their is also a press release on the subject http://www.prlog.org/10207508-the-bank-for-international-ideas-will-facilitate-economic-development-created-by-leonard-johnson.html
I am the original author of this material which appears on Lucis Trust website - http://www.lucistrust.org/en/forums/problems_of_humanity/capital_labour_employment/bank_for_international_ideas_for_sustainable_economic_development -
if any one reads the article they can see my name at the top Leonard S. Johnson Posted on: Thursday 11 September 2008 12:00:39 pm and verify my identity.
you need to read the entire article it does not promote advertising - it is a new economic structure whihc is why it was submitted to President Obama's Economic Team. to help the people of the world.
Your recent edits
Hi there. 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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I have also provided my profile on Linkin for any one to contact me directly - http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/40/47a
you need to read the entire article it does not promote advertising - it is a new economic structure which is why it was submitted to President Obama's Economic Team. to help the people of the world.
In all the fuss over copyvio, I think nobody has bothered to explain the real objection to the Bank for International Ideas article: it is essentially original research. It is an idea that you have thought up and apparently has, as yet no other proponents. It certainly has not yet achieved anything near the right degree of notability for an encyclopedia. There is also the COI aspect - wait for others to write about the idea. Sgroupace (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Right. That was not an appropriate article. I have deleted it again. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)