User talk:Bodole

This is my talk page. I am starting to do more Wikipedia editing, and any and all of your feedback is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. Bodole (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon

You probably do not yet realize that Amazon can not be used as a source for book reviews. The reviews it cites give no indication of where they were actually published. Either find the actual sources for the reviews in The End of Animal Farming or remove them. Be aware that only formally published reviews can be used--those of the book jacket or in the introduction are unreliable blurbs. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @DGG:. Thanks for your comment. Could you please provide a WP link that explains this policy? I regrettably have not seen it before and am thus skeptical of your assertion. Bodole (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The blurbs are also available at the publisher's website. Unfortunately it appears that the Beacon Press website is blacklisted on Wikipedia. I have no earthly idea why that would be, but unfortunately that may not be a viable citation. Bodole (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It appears that Penguin Random House is not blacklisted and also contains these quotes. I hope that resolves the preceding issue. Thank you. Bodole (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not quite. Blurbs at the publishers website are also unreliable. Even when they cite really published reliable reviews, they are apt to chery-pick what they want--both pick the reviews they like, and pick the quotes they want to use. The purpose of publisher websites is both information, and advertising. What you need to do is identify the original newspaper, magazine, or other reliable publication in which the review was published, and cite that. Only then will someone checking the reference be able to see it in context. (this also hold true in other fields--the company's site can be a useful indicator of where to look, but it is not a substitute) If you have trouble identifying or locating the actual publications, any librarian can help. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused. These are not quotes from reviews. These are blurbs. The primary source is the publisher. I do not believe they are available elsewhere online, and if they were, that would just be a secondary source of another entity quoting the publisher. Again I am sorry but you need to cite a WP policy. Bodole (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not quotes from reviews, but just blurbs from the publisher, Blurbs from the publisher are the model of advertising.We never use them. The policy is WP:RS. I shall remove them, and then see if there is enough left in the article to meet WP:N. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanCarey1 (talk • contribs)

I am not edit warring. There was a lengthy discussion happening on the talk page, and you forcibly edited the main page in the middle of it. That's fine. It's okay to be bold with edits. But it's also fine for me to revert that edit and wait for consensus on the talk page. Thank you. Bodole (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summery error

This was not a typo [[1]], it was an addition. As you had already been reverted it is down to you to make a case at talk, but to edit war. If you make any more erroneous edit summaries I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? I have made a comment on the talk page. Your comments are so riddled with spelling errors that I cannot understand your reasoning. I was just making a straightforward addition of historical content to the page. Bodole (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An addition is not altering a typo.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was correcting a typo in my original addition. You can see that in the edit history. Bodole (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except your typo had already been dealt with. You re added material without discussion. As I said if you pull a stunt like this again I will report you, that is my final word.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The typo had not been dealt with. That is clear from the edit history. You are welcome to report me anytime you would like. That doesn't worry me at all, as I was not at fault in this situation. Bodole (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Lockedinthebox (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Jay Reese Anthis, you may be blocked from editing. It's pretty obvious from your attitude and the talk page discussion that you are very involved with the subject matter of this article. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring. I have justified all of my changes. Per the WP:BRD cycle the burden is on you to discuss and form consensus on the Talk page before making a subsequent change to the main page itself. I am not involved. I have just spent much of my time on Wikipedia defending this article against disruptive editing like your own. Bodole (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The End of Animal Farming for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The End of Animal Farming is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End of Animal Farming until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fyia

Result of your ANI report. Thanks, Lourdes 14:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bodole, I came across your AN/I thread immediately after it was closed. I encourage you to not abandon hope, or let yourself get disillusioned, with regards to Wikipedia. You're a competent enough editor that you'd do well expanding your range and editing other pages of interest to you. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 22:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the topic ban. Versus a site block, it's however an opportunity to demonstrate that you care about the quality of the encyclopedia in general, not only about that particular topic. If you need ideas of things to do, my user page has a large "Venues" page. The ban is only three months, it's possible that after more general experience you'll be able to edit that area with less trouble. If the concerns about COI were true, it's also allowed but is subject to particular policies (WP:DISCLOSE). I strongly discourage creating another account, as it could result in an indefinite site ban, complicating the situation (WP:STANDARDOFFER). While I don't officially mentor new users, feel free to ask questions on my user talk page. —Paleo Neonate – 06:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sockpuppetry

Please note that it is a violation of Wikipedia's policies to edit with another account name to avoid scrutiny of your edits. in addition, since you have been blocked from editing anything connected to Jacy Reese Anthis, using another account (such as User:Life Rabbit) to edit Jacy Reese Anthis and The End of Animal Farming would be block evasion, which can get you blocked from editing Wikipedia in general. Please also note our policy on WP:Meatpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

I've blocked your account for one week as I believe that you have violated your topic ban through the use of Life Rabbit, whether through direct socking or otherwise. I've also blocked the account you created, Perm Throwaway. You can appeal the block using {{unblock}}.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]