User talk:Lifes Answer

Welcome!

Hello, Lifes Answer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for helping us build a great free encyclopedia. We have five basic principles, but other than that, we advise that you be bold and edit. If you ever have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a message at the help desk, and other Wikipedia editors will be happy to assist you.

Thanks again and congratulations on becoming a Wikipedian!

This is an Original works by me, that is the only works of this kind and fact in correctness remove it will be writing about wiki.

I have taken screenshots and all comments made. I am the writer and will not be discriminated for publishing my material as educational resource where such is allocated to be.

May 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a site for publishing or publicizing one's original research, per WP:NOR. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wordpress duplicate topic removed

I have removed the topic duplication for this works from the wordpress archive

Original Research and Reliable Source

I noting the content of policy.

I can clearly declear that I am a novice writer with no attachment to media or science tha would be considered research in the terms indicated.

Additionally mentioned are reliable sources: Magazines Mainstream news papers etc.'

These sources are not deemed are reliable resource and consist of research to deliver articles.

As I have covered in the past a topic of reports and article writing via my wordpress I would care to mention information generally is not obtainable via reporters,thus meaning such fruitful intel is done on the fly via hearsay.

Additionally Magazines are gossip not generally fact, in-turn hearsay on comments made rather than the fact in truth.

In final, wickadeia generally as a 80% researched fact result for search engine results, thus meaning that a high percentage of categories and topics within wiki search results consist of research facts and educational sourced materials taken from history, events, politics, story, meaning and scienfic results written.

Thus would contradict the comments made of research not be consistent within Wikipedia.

Speedy deletion nomination of Circle of Life - Collaborate Masterpiece

Hello Lifes Answer,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Circle of Life - Collaborate Masterpiece for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Howicus (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, you've claimed earlier that the material on the page was authored by you, but we have absolutely no way to verify this. Howicus (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Some information about Wikipedia

Hello, Lifes Answer.

I see that you've been having a few issues, and I hoped that I might be able to provide information that could help you understand and follow our local requirements. :)

First, some people do not understand Wikipedia's core purpose, so I want to be sure that is clear. Wikipedia is meant to provide a neutral summary of what reliable, published sources have to say about notable, educational topics. (We're generous with the definition of "educational" - we include Pokemon characters for instance - but do have some guidelines about what we don't cover at WP:NOT.) "Original research" is a term that we use sometimes to describe content people place here that is not summarizing what other people say, but rather putting forth their own opinions or conclusions. Reliable, published sources are (as explained in more detail at WP:IRS) sources like newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, or reliable industry websites that have a reputation for fact-checking and peer review. All we are permitted to do is to summarize neutrally what those sources say about subjects - we aren't allowed to interpret them or to speculate for ourselves whether or not they are right or wrong.

We also do not sign our work on Wikipedia or place our photographs on articles we work on. This is a collaborative, open encyclopedia, and our credit is given to our username in the article's "history" (you can click the "history" tab of any page to see who worked on it).

I see that your blog contains "PERSONAL WRITINGS ABOUT POLITICAL, MEDIA AND GENERAL MISC NATURE." This, of course, is perfectly appropriate for a blog. :) It's just not what we do here.

The copyright issues that have been raised can be pretty easily resolved simply by your putting a license release on your blog, but I'm afraid that won't fix the other issue - which is that the material really isn't what we publish. You can get an idea of the kind of thing we are looking for by reviewing some of our best articles. See Wikipedia:FA for instance. We don't expect articles to start off that way, of course, but we do look for "starters" on that path. :) I recommend reading WP:YFA to get an idea of how to get started.

If you have any questions about using Wikipedia or working on it, you might want to visit Wikipedia:Teahouse, which is meant to be a welcoming environment for new contributors. You are also welcome to come by my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Lifes Answer. Once an article is deleted, placing a note at its former talk page is not really going to help, I'm afraid. We don't generally retain talk pages once the article is gone. If you think that your article was deleted unfairly, you should review the deletion policy and consider requesting undeletion officially. I do not, however, think such a request will succeed. In terms of the note you left, there are many websites that are happy to host your writing in your own style and wording, but Wikipedia - as I mentioned above - has a specific purpose. Content submitted here does need to conform to that, and to our own style requirements. Again, I would encourage you to read the pages I have linked above and consider how to contribute in alignment with our goals, if you would like to. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)