User talk:MarcoPoloVivaMalta

I wanted to let you know I have nominated the article you created - Viva Malta - for "speedy deletion" in line with Wikipedia procedures. As you may well be aware the subject of the article was recently deemed to be insufficiently notable to meet Wikipedia's standards after a debate which you can read here. I hope this doesn't put you off contributing to other Wikipedia articles. You may want to consider changing your user name if you do intend to contribute in future. --SandyDancer 11:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Viva Malta

You have recently stated that Viva Malta is actually a movement in its own right rather than merely a website, but this contradicts the "About Us" page on the vivamalta.org website, which reads:

Welcome to Vivamalta.org. A website dedicated to promoting the ideals of Maltese and European culture, traditions and Folkish orientated politics.

It never states that it's the website of a "movement" or a "political party." So where's the evidence that Viva Malta is a movement seperate from Imperium Europa?

Marcus1234 12:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

exactly! vivamalta.org is a website. viva malta is a political movement though although we do not want to register as one at this time. we have carried out several flyering activites, organise meetings, dinners and will shortly be publishing our first magazine. i should make it a little clearer though. we are currently writing a formal manifesto in time for us possibly contesting local elections. i will use the intro of that as a formal mission statement.

for now leave it deleted. what i was angry at is that people with an agenda were allowed to delete it without there even being an opposing debate. it annoys me a lot, i do not like censorship. im also not happy that all related articles are biased. just look at lowells. the piece on controversy is twice the size of the piece on politics. normans problem is that he is rarely understood and people take tit bits of his speeches instead of the whole.

i want there to be both good and bad on nl but not a total bias.MarcoPoloVivaMalta 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a full debate - you can read it here. It was just that no-one on Wikipedia thought that it met the guidelines for inclusion in the encylopedia. The debate was open to anyone. There was no agenda. --SandyDancer 23:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

there was no debate sandy. a debate has more than one side and the author was not included. i wrote the article very late on a saturday night (early sunday really), woke up late sunday and had a friend over to do some work. i told him about the wiki article and went to show him and poof! censorship. i wasnt born yesterday. MarcoPoloVivaMalta 08:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes there was a debate - it was here - follow the link. When you tried to recreate recently deleted material, it was speedily deleted in line with Wikipedia guidelines. That happens to any article which is essentially a recreation of one that that has been recently deleted. There is no censorship - don't try and set up a straw man. --SandyDancer 10:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

re create what? i wasnt even aware that a vm page existed! i set up my account to create a specific page and take care of it myself. if anyone can say what vm is then it is me. do not try to play the innocent and act unbiased. i couldnt care less what your political convictions are but you should not use them as an excuse to censor others. i have enough trouble with 'nutzis' on vm's forum and them disagreeing with me allowing communists on there but i will continue to fight for freedom of expression no matter how many bigots stand in my way

Wikipedia policy states that if an article is recreated after having been deleted, it is generally up for speedy deletion, where a debate is not necessary. In order for a deleted page to be recreated, it must first be undeleted, especially if the content will be identical or similar to the prior version. For more info: Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. Marcus1234 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It has nothing to do with censorship whatsoever. Stop the straw man nonsense, and try and construct a sentence without using the word "censorship", "communist" or other such nonsense. --SandyDancer 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

i had no idea that such a page had existed. i only knew of the nonsense that was written on NL and IE. I created the vm page to oversee it myself.

I still dont understand why any of these related topics still allow a strong anti bias with a shouting down on anyone who tries to edit them. a prime example is NL's page where there is more space dedicated to controversy than to his actual politics (the people editing have probably never even read his book never mind actually speaking to him).

many people agree with the bulk of his ideas, the fact that he has some unconventional ideas does not mean they should be blown out of proportion. its like writing an article about George Bush and only really mentioning iraq. MarcoPoloVivaMalta 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)