Simplified replacement writing for my User page: I am the “User: SprtofTrth & Graeme R Gwin” of my poem “Origin of the Harp”, which I placed on Wikipedia simply as a “knowledge donation” to Wikipedia. At the time of this donation I was unaware of its complex process, for I simply thought that it was a site where people could simply put “knowledge”, and that others could edit this if they wished to, so that the knowledge may eventually become “more extensively accurate” as a presentation. I simply write my knowledge in poetry form for this is how the meaning within the poetry shows itself to me. This poem that I was simply donating was mistakenly “labeled” by “Wikipedia editing group” as “blatant copyright violation” by “User: SprtofTrth” (me) against Graeme R Gwin (me: the poet). It has been indicated and proven by me that I am the same person (User name SprtofTrth & Graeme R Gwin). Please remove your (Wikipedia) mistake against me from my Wikipedia history, for “blatant copyright violation” is “a pretty hard wound” aimed at innocence and that innocence does not need to carry. This; here written now; replaces my previous “written objection” (User: SprtofTrth) to being unjustly labeled this way. Speedy deletion was put upon my “donated poem” and speedy deletion was put upon my “user page” which all BECAME SPED UP relative to the “blatant copyright violation” assumed against me. All editors had this (BCV) in their mind after one person of the group put this forward. I can see and understand the “beginning” problem that was assumed, but I have well since PROVEN on my SprtofTrth User page (2.5 months now) that I am one and the same person which undeniably proves “blatant copyright violation” as an obvious mistake committed “within the Wikipedia editing group” (and sitting in the background of their thoughts), and that the recognition of this mistake was clearly indicated to me by “one of the group…Prahlad” who; after reading my User page (SprtofTrth); then understood me as obviously BEING the same person and “totally innocent” of the “assumption” that I had committed “blatant copyright violation. I am simply glad that Prahlad Balaji read and thereby recognized my undeniable innocence, and then put forward a “welcome note” at the bottom of the “talk page” (21 May 2020) as an indication to me of his recognition of the mistake “within the editing group” (or should I use the word “jury” in this instance). Thank you Prahlad Balaji (pity we can’t shout each other a coffee over the relief that this mistake “by the jury” has been seen for what it really is, by you), but please understand Prahlad, with you having been a member of the jury, it is up to YOU to enlighten the other members of my innocence that you clearly recognize; with undeniable proof; that it is not possible for me to have committed “blatant copyright violation” which still sits; as such; within my Wikipedia history (if you go through the “talk” pages… to see NOTHING indicating my innocence, regarding this “unjust wound” against me. Nothing indicates my innocence anywhere, and so “blatant copyright violation” REMAINS for anyone (and of the public) to see, as though innocence is being called “guilty of the crime”…for it IS A CRIME if “blatant copyright violation” is committed by someone. And so you; as being a member of the jury; need to enlighten the person of the jury who pinned this label upon me for all other jury members to contemplate, relative to their decisions of my “super-speedy” deletion of me. YOU; as a member of the jury (group of editors); have the clear PROOF that he (the initiator of BCV) is wrong, and unless you do this “to enlighten the judge(s) of my innocence, it remains on my Wikipedia history that I am guilty of “blatant copyright violation” (against myself !?!??). It is not up to ME to chase the jury members with my innocence. It is up to YOU to show them your proof, so that THEN the judge can remove from the records, “guilty of blatant copyright violation” that remains pinned against INNOCENCE that you are aware of, and with clear proof for the other jury members to see. Show them, Prahlad Balaji, and particularly the one who initiated BCV against me, for you all were a part of the jury. To honor the judge, YOU as the “knowing” jury member must enlighten the other jury members…not ME. You’re the one within the jury who KNOWS the PROOF of my innocence so don’t keep your mouth shut. Let them know, so that then the judge may correct the record by proclaiming, “this person is NOT GUILTY of blatant copyright violation” that has been left upon him unjustly for he has proven that he is one and the same person, and thereby innocent of the accusation left against his name by the jury members who have neglected to correct the matter.”SprtofTrth (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Being “gifted of God” in the sport of archery and becoming a world champion during my “boyhood” days (and without coaches/teachers), brought with it the “gift” of knowledge associated with the harp’s primitive origin from the bow in ancient times, yet that this “vision” wasn’t given to me until; within my free will; I threw all my trophies away in my knowing that “trophies are not the path of Truth”, for the “GIFT of archery is too honorable to be used for the accumulation of trophies.SprtofTrth (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC) You made mention of an attachment in your email. I do not open attachments. Stay safe and well Prahlad, and remember that there is a lot more going on than what this world is able to understand, for the understandings of this world are based upon what I call “self imposed limitations”, and even in the highest of places. I hope this letter is clear enough for you to easily understand Prahlad, for I write this as directly as the pen is writing the words, in my decision to replace my previous writings that I consider are a bit too sharp as a sword of objection toward the injustice sitting beside my name, and that even a judge would object to, when a jury becomes guilty of allowing guilt to remain upon an innocent man. When I see that “blatant copyright violation” has been “removed from me in the right way” rather than being left for anyone of the public to see “as a guilt upon my name…for this is how the public sees at present”, THEN I shall remove this writing that remains as my defense, until then. Wikipedia cannot afford to allow this sort of thing to happen to people, for if the public gets painted “this way” as I have been painted (with an unjust guilt sitting against my name for the public to see) then Wikipedia could be in all sorts of trouble. It is not wise to leave a label of “guilty” upon an innocent person when the innocence has been proven and known. A judge would be caused to seriously look upon the whole jury, if within the jury one of its members has absolute proof of a person’s innocence, but decides to keep it to himself rather than enlighten the jury, and the judge thereby. That person who has absolute proof of the person’s innocence is required; by the judge; to enlighten the other members of the jury for the sake of upholding justice. It is not for that person of the jury (who holds proof of innocence) to tell the “known innocent party” that he can contact the other member of the jury who “initiated the guilt upon the innocent party”. The jury member holding the PROOF OF INNOCENCE is required to inform the other jury member, so that the “initiation of guilt upon the innocent party” may be removed from the whole jury, rather than be as an unjust underlying influence upon all jury members. Blatant copyright violation is to be removed from my history, and in a way that allows this to be seen (publicly) as being a mistake put against my name (maybe: a “mistake” because of insufficient data at the time…this would cover you people at Wikipedia, and allow you to save face), for I have NOT COMMITTED blatant copyright violation, as is “proven absolute”. Stay safe, think positively and don’t allow “the little v” (you know what I am talking about) to promote its fear upon you (maybe see my YouTube title, “Self defense for leaders of ALL nations”…this is only said for you people at Wikipedia, because it simply comes to mind to say this to you as a completion to this writing. It is not a “web site thing” being said. It’s simply a “stay safe and well”.SprtofTrth (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC) I removed a small section from this writing that related to "mythological morals" as encouragement for the said member/editor above; deeming it not necessary, and also removing it because of the possibility of this misrepresenting (as an interpretation) MY "line of Truth" with Christ...and by which (meaning Christ, and in the Spirit of Truth) "I simply understand the vision" of the above-mentioned "mythological story of morals" now removed from this writing. It is simply necessary for me to make this clear.SprtofTrth (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Thank you Wikipedia for allowing people to know of your mistake of “copyright violation” against me; unto which I had proven to you that “SprtofTrth (my username) and Graeme R Gwin “ are one and the same person, and thank you also for indicating all the people who became unfortunately involved in this mistake of “copyright violation” and the belittling comments that became attached to SprtofTrth; all which were publicly able to be seen. Your public apology in this way is accepted, and so I will withdraw my thoughts of defamation of character” due to the style of your apology which exists on Google when Graeme R Gwin is typed into the Google search bar (about the 7th posting). I shall attach this; your visual public apology; to my “User: SprtofTrth” page as proof of my acceptance toward your apology, and that your apology had finally come through, as relative to that which is written on “User:SprtofTrth” regarding a required apology and removal of the “blatant copyright violation” placed against my innocence clearly proven to you. I’m glad Wikipedia has finally gained the strength of character in principle by indicating its mistake against me, for it would not have been easy for you to publicly show (on Google) all those who were involved in the style of your apology to me. And regarding the belittling of my “poem of donation” to you (which I now understand is not a part of Wikipedia’s policy, RE: the acceptance of a poem), being a former world champion in archery entitles me with knowledge that transcends the “self imposed limitations” that this world adheres to, and so I can understand the limitations that Wikipedia is expected to follow regarding what you represent yourself as, and how you represent yourself, so as to fit in with the limitations imposed upon you, by those who do not understand the Righteous Meaning of Life that transcends this world’s view of “knowledge”. And remember, Wikipedia is not the Messiah/Christ. It is simply “accumulated knowledge based upon scientific principles, and with its basic purpose in trying to be helpful to the world as a whole”. I’m sure you would not deny this. Stay well all of you, and remember what Yeshua Messiah said, “with faith the size of a mustard seed you can move a mountain”. To understand the profound “meaning of knowledge” within this holds many Righteous answers for the world.SprtofTrth (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC) This below (27 Sept 20) is the page that directly relates to my above "acceptance of apology" (21 Sept 20). It must needs be that the below page is shown, for without this page my above "acceptance of apology from Wikipedia" has nothing to relate to, for the page below seen as an apology has now been removed (???) from Google. This therefore is simply a "clarification" associated with my "acceptance of apology" (21 Sept 2020 above).SprtofTrth (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of the Harp From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Deleted as WP:G12. Copied writings of Graeme R Gwin from here (site dead now); see also The Bow the Heart and the Harp (Poem). Abecedare (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC) Origin of the Harp New to AfD? Read these primers!
Introduction to deletion process Guide to deletion (glossary) Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
Origin of the Harp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats) (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
This "article" (if you can call it that) does not meet G1 or A1. However, it is not at all readable, and the words are compacted together so much that I can't make head or tail of it. It's not gibberish, though, because it does mention psalms and quotes. If somebody could rewrite this article to make sense, that would be great. Thank you. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete. No idea what this is, might be some poem or essay, in which case deletable per WP:NOTESSAY or WP:OR. For those who are unaware, there's a discussion on this article here. This, to me, is a classic example of an article which (I believe) most see as un-encyclopedic, yet (strictly speaking) not caught by any of our CSD criteria. --Dps04 (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: I put a link from that discussion to this discussion. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to Harp#Origin which, unlike the present article, contains referenced text about the title subject. The article as it stands appears to be an WP:OR synthesis of psalm texts and speculation. Nothing there is worth preserving by merger. (CSD A10 might be possible?) AllyD (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The article text appears to consist largely of the lyrics of a song by one Graeme R. Gwin: as can be heard here, so it appears to be a WP:COPYVIO apart from everything else. AllyD (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete It’s not an article, and I can’t see how it can be turned into one. Mccapra (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Delete I don't understand why we don't have a much quicker process for this. scope_creepTalk 19:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Redirect per AllyD or delete (I know! We can move it to userspace and then U5 it! Genius! ...please don't actually do that). WP:NOTWEBHOST applies (but not in userspace or else I'd U5 it in an instant), appears to be a poem, song, essay or something like that. The suggested redirect makes sense to me - not a super likely search term, but plausible. creffett (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Creffett, The same article IS actually on the author's userpage. I'll tag with U5. Dps04 (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
And the author's userpage was deleted... by Creffett!!! (Seriously though, good job.) --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete It's not an article, and there's nothing to salvage. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Delete It's a poem/song lyric, not an encyclopedia article. There ought to be a CSD for "not an encyclopedia article or anything which could plausibly become one". Can we invoke WP:SNOW to close this AfD and avoid this stuff cluttering up the encyclopedia any longer? PamD 21:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Comment The entire text after a rather garbled introductory section is a set of rhyming couplets:
A long, long time ago, in days of old:
Before “civilization” began to unfold:
Primitive tribes did roam the world:
In primitive ways before words unfurled:
Grunts and groans portrayed their voice:
In hope to convey the meaning’s choice: etc
PamD 21:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
You know, it does look like a poem to me. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Speedy A-10 perhaps on the basis that we already have Harp#Origin? PamD 22:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
PamD, Origin of the Harp has nothing to do with Harp#Origin. Origin of the Harp is a sort of poem, while Harp#Origin talks about the creation of the harp itself. No, I don't think this is an A10... --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Well it purports to tell the story of how the harp originated, albeit unsourced! And we need to find some grounds to get rid of something so completely unencyclopedic. But copyvio seems another worthwhile approach. PamD 22:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Speedy A-11 Unsourced, obviously made up by creator, and no claim of significance. Schazjmd (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.SprtofTrth (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)