This is a talk page for Mutual Nuclear Deterrence

This page is of poor quality and the topic is unnecessary, given the entry on Deterrence theory. Guslto 15:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--It has been proposed that what I have written on Mutual Nuclear Deterrence be deleted. I do not want it deleted and will work to keep it posted. This is the first time I have entered anything into Wikipedia. So, I admit I am green in this regard but certainly not green in regard to nuclear politics. So I will investigate Wikipedia standards and do all that I can to meet those standards. As a matter of good will and courtesy I will assume that the objection which has been posed from an anonymous source -so it seems to me- is not a political agenda and represents a honest attempt to get me to write in an appropriate style for Wikipedia. What I have posted here on deterrence and mutual nuclear deterrence is the result of 16 years of study. It is a very strong point of view, it clarifies the subject matter, is is 100% original, and it is the very best opposing point of view to current politically correct point of view. I must point out that MND is NOT MAD there is vital and important distinction.

This original work is the only place in wikipedia that even bothers to define deterrence, and the bullet proof rational argument to a nation's inalienable right to establish for themselves Mutual Nuclear Deterrence with enemy nations -nations that pose a threat- Mutual Nuclear Deterrence and its rational and moral implications is the very best civilized strategy for preventing international wars between enemy national governments.

This perspective and reality stands in direct opposition to US International Nuclear Policy so it has strong political enemies. I will work to keep this information in Wikipedia and do what ever must be done to meet Wikipedia standards, which at this point I am unfamiliar. I am about to embark on that journey and once I have met those standards I can be sure that any further opposition -effort to delete- will be based on rational argument, or political in nature.

I welcome all comment on style, presentation and Wikipedia standards at this time, after that, I am willing to discuss the Issue on its merits. But It seems to me, the first order of business is style and standards... maclab

I quote from the proposal to delete template

"You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced."

I have met this criteria. maclab

How do I know who wants the article deleted? How do I discern if the person asking for the deletion is a Wikipedia official or not?

I am the Wikipedian who placed the deletion template on the article. I am not a Wikipedia "official" and I'm not even an administrator. I suppose I was not specific enough in my reasoning (I have added to the deletion reasoning to reflect this). My main concern is the fact that it is original work, as you say above. Wikipedia is not the place to post original research. In fact, there is a policy on the subject: WP:OR. Everything posted in Wikipedia must be able to be verified by reliable sources. It's very important to include these sources in the article.

You are certainly within your rights to remove the deletion tag. However, the issue will probably be brought to WP:AFD, where it can be discussed by the Wikipedia community. ... discospinster _talk 14:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original work. Every word that I have entered is my own, it has not been copied from any other source -except perhaps via memory and by way of paraphrasing. This is my meaning of "original work." But one should understand that this article on Mutual Nuclear Deterrence and the information contained has been shaped by reading many books, so there is a verifiable trail to essential points.. which says to me, add the references... I get that! ... I am learning the requirements... maclab

Okay fellow Wikipedian.. I was reading up on Wikepedia posting criteria.. when you made your above reply... I will not remove the deletion notice yet.. inorder to buy more time to get more up to date on Wikipedia criteria... we both jumped onto the exact same point.. There probably is more... I want to research that before I begin to take corrective actions.

Correction, Original work. Every word that I have entered is my own, it has not been copied from any other source -except perhaps via memory and by way of paraphrasing. should read -except perhaps via paraphrasing from memory. Many ideas concepts and principles that I have adopted and represent I have learned from others..

I have replaced the propsed deletion tag with a citations tag for the time being, but that is only to give you time to change the text into something approximating a Wikipedia article. This is not to say that another Wikipedian won't nominate it for deletion in the meantime. ... discospinster _talk 15:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgment.. My article does not meet Wikipedia standards.... on the above mentioned citation... and for other reasons also... I apologize for being so assuming.

I will try again on a much smaller scale.

The more I read up on Wikipedia standards and criteria the more I am humbled.. The standards are extraordinarily restrictive, and rightly so!.. I am all for maintaining high quality! My fear is that I will not be able to produce material to such a high standard.. I can see that there is no place in Wikipedia for much of what I expressed on Mutual Nuclear Deterrence. Rising to Wikipedia's level of editorial quality seems daunting. The existing article has to be greatly reduced...

I can see where college/university courses can be designed and taught on "Wikipedia Encyclopedic Skills." I will check my community to see if such courses exist.

OK, I'm going to take it on faith that you're not being sarcastic here. If you would like your ideas to "get out there", there are places where that can be done. See Academic Publishing Wiki. If you want the current article to be deleted, you can place {{db-author}} on the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

There was no content on the page. Looking back through the history, it seemed like there wasn't going to be much anyway so I've redirected it. If at some later point someone has some content to add, feel free to undirect but we should't be keeping pages around that are simply categorised blank pages with tags. Yay unto the Chicken 06:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]