Caddcreativity

Taotroyism

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Taotroyism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. ~Matticus ^T_C 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not create hoaxes, such as you did in the article Taotroyism. Please do not attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it. This has been done before, with varying results. Most hoaxes are marked for deletion within a few hours after they are created. Some Wikipedians suspect that the majority of hoaxes here are attempts to test the system. Kindly — do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and then to check to see how long they have been in place and, if possible, correct them. ~Matticus ^T_C 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a hoax, it's a religion - you cannot let your personal religious beliefs get in the way of your contribution to Wiki. All religions started somewhere and the definition of a religion is to have disciples, which Taotroyism does.

Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. If you can't prove something is real by reference to reliable, independent sources, it has no place on Wikipedia. It's nothing to do with religious beliefs, it's Wikipedia policy. ~Matticus ^T_C 21:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletes

Deleting my edits doesn't help your case. You said "your friend", you didn't say you were part of the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How many thousands of years did other religious belief systems go through to "prove something is real by reference to reliable" ? A few thousand years?

And "test our ability to detect and remove it" ?? You're kidding me, right? How about the article I reported on Nanotechnology that stated the definition as : "Nanotechnology is a peice of shit man dont use it its really queer its like not cool at all"

Wiki Ticket#2007102910003036

That sat there for a month!

Way to go eagle-eyes!

The length of time is irrelevant. What is relevant is verifiability - being able to prove what is written is true. And that particular incident of vandalism to the nanotechnology article was reverted within six minutes. How you can claim a ticket dated eight days ago "sat there for a month" is a puzzle. ~Matticus ^T_C 21:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll spend the next few thousand years of my life proving it, thanks!

"New World Religion, is the idea of a secular religion, that brings together a common agreed upon world view. This would provide a synthetic foundation upon which more global decision making can occur and some would say a world government would be founded.

A widely held Christian viewpoint is that such a world religion would represent the Antichrist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Religion

Reverted within six minutes because I REPORTED IT!

See email below for thanking me and I can provide a PDF of the page I made when I found it if that helps.

---

Forwarded message ----------

From: Wikipedia information team <info-en@wikipedia.org> Date: Oct 29, 2007 4:42 AM Subject: Re: [Ticket#2007102910003036] Bogus Definition To: CADD Creativity <caddcreativity@gmail.com>

Dear CADD Creativity,

Thank you for your mail.

"CADD Creativity" <caddcreativity@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology >

The article has been fixed.

Wikipedia is a "wiki" (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki>), which means that anyone visiting the site can edit or add to pages. At the top of each page is an "edit" tab, clicking this allows the page to be edited. In this way we are creating a collaborative encyclopaedia, written by visitors to the site.

By its nature Wikipedia is open to undesirable edits, but most are corrected by other editors within a very short time. We have a "recent changes" page that allows users to check edits as they happen, and "watch lists" that allow logged-in editors to closely monitor pages they are interested in. In extreme cases we can "lock" pages from receiving edits for a while, but generally the page can be reopened for editing after a short time as most edits we receive improve our articles.

AfD nomination of Taotroyism

An editor has nominated Taotroyism, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taotroyism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo 21:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How many thousands of years did other religious belief systems go through to "prove something is real by reference to reliable" ? A few thousand years?

And "test our ability to detect and remove it" ?? You're kidding me, right? How about the article I reported on Nanotechnology that stated the definition as : "Nanotechnology is a peice of shit man dont use it its really queer its like not cool at all"

Wiki Ticket#2007102910003036

That sat there for a month!

Way to go eagle-eyes!

My second posting is now questionable as well, when we living in a world where things are created every second, my post gets deleted because it does not produce a Google search.

Try Googlin' some of the fundamental principals of Taotroyism as mentioned in the article and see how many results they produce.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=new+world+religion&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=taoism&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Taoist+Sexual+Practices&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=human+race&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=the+universe&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=body+worship&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ones+Self&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Self+verification+theory&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Twelve+Olympians&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Greek+Goddesses&spell=1

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Chaos+Theory&btnG=Search

"Tao" Tao defines "The Way of Nature" with "Troy" (besides my name) Troy defines: strength, perseverance, resilience, dominance.....etc and especially relevant with financial management and leadership as demonstrated by JP Morgan who shares the birthday of April 17th with me.

Stock Puppet

Thanks for the support. Me emailing you about another issue has nothing whatsoever to do with this case, try putting 1+1 together again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddcreativity (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it did. But it did show your name is in the article title. Try not mixing apples and oranges. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You sure did - this post has nothing to do with the stockpuppet I originally wrote you about. Fruit salad is the secret to life. Troy Vincent Lewald 23:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddcreativity (talk • contribs)

First of all, Caddcreativity, please sign your talk page comments, by typing four tildes after you are finished commenting (Not by typing your name, as that does not sign the post). Second, I think that you have the wrong impression, I don't know what your emails are about, but you said right here in the article what your name is, and it is there for all to see, thus it is not difficult to put it together with the title of the article. Finally, regarding Rlevse's participation here, if he's dealing with you on another issue, most likely went through your contributions, and your participation here is there as well, so I'd appreciate it if you'd have a little good faith and not accuse respected editors of having an agenda when discussing articles for deletion. Thank you, Ariel♥Gold 23:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi ArielGold - I did add my signature by placing Troy Vincent Lewald 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC) and that's how it came up as my signature, with my name. Might it have something to do with the RAW formatted signature set in my preferences? The signbot should check for that. I wrote and email toUser:Rlevse in regards to the "stock puppet" i am being accused of having - NOTHING to do with this article whatsoever, and the discussion of puppets can therefore be shifted back to my userpage instead of here. I have plenty of good faith, although people like to dispute things because of their personal beliefs - everyone has their own agenda. Troy Vincent Lewald 23:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddcreativity (talk • contribs)

Signature

If you have a signature set up via Raw formatting, you have not linked the signature to your userpage, or your talk page. Without linking to at least one of those, the bot will continue to sign your posts, because there is no other way for people to know what username made the comments. I suggest that you revise your signature to be: [[User:Caddcreativity|Troy Vincent Lewald]]. And again, Rlevse's participation at the AfD has nothing to do with whatever other issues you are discussing, and Rlevse mentioned only that you'd emailed him about a SSP issue, not that it had any bearing on his opinion of the article. I hope you can understand how they are unrelated. Thanks, Ariel♥Gold 23:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I have revised my signature per your advice. Troy Vincent Lewald 23:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Woo hoo! There ya go, now it works, and now the evil Bot won't come get you! ~*Giggle*~ Ariel♥Gold 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL - thank you, but I love bots (any they tend to like me too)! :D AIML Troy Vincent Lewald 23:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove discussions from Articles for Deletion, even if you don't agree with other editors, you cannot just remove them and refactor the debate. You are free to copy the comments here, as you've done, but you can't just remove or refactor other people's comments. I'm sorry, but consider this a warning, this is not allowed, per policy. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 23:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but the emails about puppets have nothing to do with that feedback and do not belong on that page. If you would like to feud with me about a "sockpuppet", then keep that separate from an article I wrote befoe being accused of being a puppeteer. Troy Vincent Lewald 23:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, look, I can understand how you are frustrated, but please realize, that one thing has nothing to do with the other. If you're dealing with an administrator on another issue, they most likely have gone through your contributions, and your activity on the AfD is there for all to see. Everyone is welcome to offer an opinion on deletion discussions. I'm not "feuding" with you, I'm explaining policy, which is you cannot remove AfD discussions, or refactor someone else's comments on them. Whatever sockpuppet issues you have going on, have nothing at all to do with the article up for deletion, and Rlevse has every right to offer his opinion, regardless of any sockpuppet issues he's discussed with you. They have nothing to do with each other, and every administrator out there knows that, he's not basing his opinion on anything but the fact that the article does not conform to Wikipedia policy. Please try and see that this is not some vendetta against you, his opinions are valid, and need to remain. Thanks, Ariel♥Gold 00:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so if you would like to offer your opinion on Taotroyism, that's fine, but leave the discussion of stockpuppets out of this, which was the pupose of the original contact with Rlevse. There are plenty of other places to talk about the stockpuppet issue, besides my article being debated for removal. Troy Vincent Lewald 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 31 hours as you've continued to remove other users comments from AfD, dispite other users warning you not to. Please note this is bad practice and I urge you not to do this after your block has expired. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

you're the best - thanks! I email an admin about a stockpuppet i supposedly own and he replies on my article for deletion. go team go - talk about mixed up content. Troy Vincent Lewald 00:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

just delete my account, i'm not interested in contributing to wiki anymore. you people need to try thinking for yourself and change with change. amazing how your article on New World Religion makes great claims, but no "new world religion" can be created because wiki says so. Troy Vincent Lewald 00:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Kurykh <- someone who actually understands where content belongs.