Jump to content

User talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10


Independent Collectors

Hi! Just wanted to thank you for your help with the Independent Collectors article. Do you have any other suggestion of what I could change? I have been added more references and trying to keep my tone as neutral as possible. I appreciate any feedback you may have! Thanks again Inge_1985 (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Taming The Restless Mind

Thanks for your reply and effort. Actually somewhere it was suggested that I am the author..it's not like this. I have kept this user name so that others working on this author should stop. Next, the book has been referred in many print magazines but they do not have any online version of it so it can't be displayed or referred. For eg. in August 2012 issue of Life Positive magazine, it finds its place with other 11 notable books. But it is okay. The author recently too gave a speech. Regards Rrashmissingh (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

  • It's always better to have a username that reflects you and only you. It otherwise implies a conflict of interest. As far as the magazine goes, I don't see where it could be considered a reliable source. Not all magazine coverage is considered to be reliable and notable per Wikipedia's guidelines and that's ultimately what it boils down to: coverage in what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. Also, giving speeches does not guarantee notability regardless of what venue it's in. It has to be covered in sources that Wikipedia considers to be reliable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Her speech is here but only her pic can be seen.http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/epaper/index.php?location=53&edition=2012-08-29&pageno=19 The write up is blurred. Will send you more link of the Delhi book fair where her fourth book Back to school@30 is going to be released.Rrashmissingh (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Resubmit "IF---!"

I resubmitted "IF---!" with all the changes you requested (I hope), but the page still looks the same...I hope you can see the changes I made. I'm a newbie, but I think it worked. Dore' Ripley (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Dore' Ripley

Resumit "If---!" (again) IGNORE prior submission

Hi Tokyogirl79--

I resubmitted "IF---!" again using your recommended suggestions and this time I think I got it uploaded right. The prior posting didn't show many changes.

Dore' Ripley (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Dore' Ripley

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for your efforts in providing sources for One on One (novel), which you've improved to the point where I believe it will pass its current AfD. Like you, I don't think much of Ms. King as a writer, but I do think she, and this novel, are sufficiently notable to remain as topics within Wikipedia. Ubelowme U Me 03:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anita Blake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiccan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

I think that your Wikiquette assistance request was a bit too far, and that it could still have been solved on the talk pages. Here's some bubble tea to cool off! Hopefully you can forgive and forget Rrashmissingh. :) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Goodreads - Criticism

Carroll Bryant isn't a notable author? By whose authority. Carroll Bryant is just as notable as Ray Garton. In addition, Ray Garton's article on HuffPo has nothing to do with the criticism of Goodreads. The criticism of Goodreads involves bullying (i.e. attacks on authors), not negative reviews. Garton's article completely misses the point of the criticism. Athena Parker's article on HuffPo is a valid citation. The other HuffPo articles that were cited misrepresented the website, Stop the GR Bullies, by offering information about the site that isn't true. This is why I reverted your changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollonia1992 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Bryant isn't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Neither he nor his books have received coverage by what Wikipedia considers to be reliable and independent sources per WP:RS. A reliable source would be along the lines of him getting reviewed by a notable newspaper or person. From what I can see, his coverage has been predominantly through blogs. Up until a few days ago I'd have said that all Huffington Post blogs are usable since it's the Huffington Post but I've since been corrected on that by one of our administrators. This means that Parker's blog is not usable as a source since from what I can see, she is not considered to be a person that would be considered a reliable and authoritative source per Wikipedia's guidelines. Again, I stress this this is per Wikipedia's guidelines. As for Garton's notability, he has received an award for his writings and his books has received coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources such as Dread Central. His notability has been proven per Wikipedia's guidelines. Now as far as it comes to whether the site is misrepresented or not, all we have to go on is the article by Ray Garton, which covers the Stop the GR Bullies site which in turn covers the review controversy on Goodreads, as well as the review by the Christian Science Monitor. One mentions a phone call, which I personally don't see as something worth adding, but Garton's article did mention that presumably information had been posted. That's why I included that one site had temporarily posted the information of users. I'm willing to reduce the section about the information being posted but I really wish that rather than completely revert everything and start a revision war, that you had brought this up on the article's talk page or on my talk page. As it stands now, your edits aren't neutral and lean towards the side of the Stop the GR Bullies site. We simply can't have a non-neutral section and a revision war doesn't solve anything.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm putting in for a third opinion for this, so if possible can we continue this discussion on the talk page for Goodreads? That way everything will be archived there and will allow the other users to come in and see the entire discussion. I'm going to move your comment there so anyone coming in will be aware of both arguments. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have with Garton's article is that it has nothing to do with the actual criticism of Goodreads, which is about attacks on authors (not negative reviews). Also, Garton's article is a HuffPo blog, just like Foz Meadow's and Athena Parker's articles. Is it not? According to your standards, none of these articles on HuffPo could be seen as a valid citation and two of them offer information about STGRB that is untrue. I have a suggestion. Instead of using any of the HuffPo blogs, we can cite the article in USA Today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollonia1992 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Per WP:BLOG we can use blogs as long as they're by someone considered to be notable, which Garton is. The blog is in response to the group and mentions that it was formed because of their opinions about the reviews. The USA Today part is good, but it's pretty brief. It does, however, verify the claims that one of the sites was posting information about the reviewers. We can just state that the site was listing information about the reviewers. The big thing to remember here is that we have to post both sides of the argument, not just one. That's part of why I included Garton's blog, as it helps to give two different viewpoints on the scenario. We need to ensure that the section is neutral. If any of this sounds confusing, then don't feel bad. Notability standards and neutrality on Wikipedia is sort of like walking through a maze and I'm still finding out about little catches here and there as far as reliable sources go despite being on here for about 5-6 years. If all else fails we can just remove the section entirely, but since the complaints against the negative reviewers was directly responsible for a change in policy I felt it should be added. How about a brief mention along the lines of "In 2012 Goodreads changed their review policies in response to concerns over review standards held by some authors and review groups." Then we can link to the CSM post and the USA Today post, which is all that this phrase would really need. This way it's neutral and it sums up the situation without having an opinion one way or the other, as that's pretty much what I understand the situation to be. If this sounds like a good compromise, would you mind posting on the talk page for the article about this? I'd also like to link Parker and Meadow's blogs at the bottom of the page, although I don't want to post one and not the other.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem. Garton's article misses the point of the criticism altogether. The criticism was not about negative reviews of a BOOK. The criticism was about attacks on AUTHORS. This is why Garton's article is irrelevant. Also, if you talk to Patrick Brown, he will tell you that Goodreads DID NOT change their reviewing policy which has been the same for years. All they did was publish it, making if official for users to see. They are still not enforcing these policies either because authors are still being stalked and harassed. This section is called Criticism for a reason. Goodreads has been allowing this abuse on their site to happen and they really aren't doing anything about it. Apollonia1992 (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Lana McKissack

Hi Tokyogirl79, I noticed that you appear to have accidently miss signed your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana McKissack. I've added the unsigned template to it. Feel free to undo or tidyup my change. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Half Barnstar
Great job on collaborating productively and reaching a consensus at Goodreads! VQuakr (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

LA Times article on A jinx in a box (The Possession)

The article you were searching for was NOT in the NY Times but it was in the LA Times although it was in 2004:

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/25/entertainment/ca-gornstein25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flight of the Butterflies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 3D (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This is for you for your help, for pointing out my follies and making me grow:)

Rrashmissingh (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you so so so much for the improvements you made to 'A Fair Cop.' 😺Galaxycat😺 talk 15:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Shine (novel), Tokyogirl79!

Wikipedia editor Stausifr just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Well done with the article! Continue your good work.

To reply, leave a comment on Stausifr's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A Fair Cop

Hello Tokyogirl... just out of curiosity, have you read 'A Fair Cop?' Thank you. (😺Galaxycat😺 talk 18:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC))

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Kyra Davis, Tokyogirl79!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

reviewed as part of page curation process seems fine.

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Lone Wolves (novel series) AFD

Hi Tokyogirl79,

I saw you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lone Wolves (novel series), and thought you might like to know that I just opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lone Wolves (novel series) (2nd nomination). Feel free to ignore this if you're uninterested. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi Tokyogirl79,

how are you thanks for supporting to complete the article of Trishneet_Arora actually by some of users uploaded template of deletion can you help us to remove that which is appearing at top of article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacsecurities (talk • contribs) 09:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi Tokyogirl. I was wondering if you'd ever considered being an admin on Wikipedia. I think you'd be a good fit. Let me know if you have any interest in this. -Scottywong| talk _ 15:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I've thought about it and while it's something I'd eventually like to do, it's not something I can really give a lot of time to right now. I have school and especially this semester I've spent less time on here lately than I normally do, so I don't want to commit to something that I can't guarantee that I'd be able to keep up with. Maybe sometime next year, but not at this point in time. I also have to work a little more on my temper, as I've had a few instances where I've been more than a little petty, which has been exacerbated this semester at school since it's leading up to my final year of my Bachelor's. Maybe not as much as I've seen others, but I'd like to work more on my wikettiqute a little more. But I would like to learn more about what being an admin would mean.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't have to mean anything more than your current activity on WP. It just gives you more options to contribute here in different ways, and it identifies you as a trusted member of the community. You seem pretty active at AfD, so closing AfD's would be something you could probably dive right into. Certainly, if you have any bad spots in your past that might come up at RfA (which we all have, trust me), you'd want to at least show you're actively working on improving them before applying at RfA. From what I can tell though, you'd do fine. If you ever get serious about it, I'd be happy to look through your contributions in a more detailed way, provide advice on preparing for a run at it, and nominate you. Just let me know. -Scottywong| confer _ 19:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, you may not be aware that the number of active admins is consistently dropping; some people believe there will be a shortage soon. So, not only do we need more admins, but also the RfA process should gradually become a bit less "intense". This can be seen in recent RfA's, many of which have passed with little or no opposition. -Scottywong| express _ 19:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Giselle V. Steele

Hello Tokyogirl79. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Giselle V. Steele, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I think the number of publications takes this over the low bar of A7. Consider AfD. Doesn't seem to be self-published, but article is largely by her publisher, and she seems some way short of WP:AUTHOR. JohnCD (talk)

Some people think any (non-self-) published book is enough for A7. I don't think I'd go that far, but there's a bit more here. I have username-blocked user SWpublishing (talk · contribs), which is clearly her publisher Stuart & Weitz Publishing Group. Earlier in the history EQPBOOKS (talk · contribs) is evidently Enchanted Quill Publications, but hasn't edited since 2007, so not worth bothering with. I'm surprised this has survived so long. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

* Tra la la * I see what you did to the tippy tinkletrousers article. It has improved so much! Bonkers The Clown (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tokyogirl79, I must admit to being a little confused as to the reason for removing some author interview links that I recently posted. They seemed to be appropriate and within the guidelines as I understood them. Can you help me understand the "spam warning" so that I don't run into a similar problem in the future? Thanks!

Ok, thanks for the explanation and clarification.

However, I still have a question. My managing editor told me that one of the wikipedia editors told her a couple of years ago that links to our author interviews would not be considered spam, though other links to the site would be. Could you clarify this for us? We were under the impression that interviews, because they contain news from the author and not our own opinions, are legitimate.

  • I would honestly ask again because rules have dramatically changed over the years and what was formerly seen as acceptable can now be seen as spam. Part of the reason behind this is that leniency such as this ended up with many articles being turned into a directory for sites and with many people trying to get free publicity for their sites out of it. What I really, really, really recommend is that you not add your own site to various pages. What you should do is ask some of the admins if adding your site would be acceptable and would add to the external links section. I personally recommend User:DGG, as he's been around for forever and pretty much has seen all of the various changes. If he does state that it's OK, I recommend that rather than you or anyone involved in the site adding the links, that you post them on the talk pages of the articles or that you go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, as this would take care of any conflict of interest. It's really that at some point we sort of cracked down on every site with an author interview posting links to their site because there's just so many of them and sometimes we've had links to about a dozen or so sites, all of which had interviews of varying degrees. It just becomes spam and a little unnecessary after a while, so we generally only link to sites that have overwhelming notability and reliability. It's not really snobbery as much as it's just necessity to keep the external links from overflowing and taking over most of the page, as well as to keep the really non-notable sites from claiming that "if they can do it, so can I" and attempting to post various links. Also just to note, you don't really get any big publicity from the links being at the bottom of the page, as Wikipedia uses "nofollow" and it won't count towards your page ranks. It doesn't actually do that much for popularity in the long run.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Rashmi Singh (author)

Ha! You are doing everything that I had my eye on! Good stuff. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Yeah... I'd like to find a way to avoid this going to AfD or getting deleted. I know that it's really, REALLY hard to find sources for books as far as India goes, as many sources are off-line and I've been told that it's tough for female authors to get as much attention as their male counterparts in the bigger sources (aka the ones that would be online). This version is much better than its original incarnations on AfC and I can tell a lot of work has gone into it since then because it reads rather well now, so I'm kind of rooting for the article because of it's sheer stubbornness and resilience. Many would've just given up by now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • India is certainly still a male-dominated society to a degree that far exceeds, say, the US or UK. However, I think that there are more general issues with squaring the circle of WP:AUTHOR and writers of fiction. It is much easier to prove notability for a non-fiction writer because one almost expects their work to be discussed, whereas fiction authors are often left with PR, interviews, publisher's blurb and flimsy reviews ... all of which have issues regarding WP:ADVERT. Of course, Singh has written some non-fiction, so there is hope.

    As an aside, another issue with Indian biographies is the commonality of names. Sure, this goes on all over the world but when you have 20% of the world's population in one country and it has a long history of endogamous communities, well, the same names crop up time and again. - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  • That should definitely help! I'll run it by the AfD and see what they think! I know that when it's posted on the user's personal website, it can get a bit dodgy at times. However, this is an actual image from the article, which will help it's case. If it was just print then I'd probably argue that it couldn't be used but again- this is an actual image so it should help.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You're handling it right, though. Don't take any of it truly personally because it's fairly common for people to come on here and be related to the author. Being suspicious is sort of in the nature of any Wikipedia editor that's been around for a while. It'd be nice if we could be otherwise, but it's unfortunately something that comes with the territory. Think of it this way: you have truly been inducted into the Wikipedia family now. If you haven't been accused of being overly promotional, editing on behalf of another user, having a personal bias, or any other form of criticism that falls along the lines of your integrity being compromised somehow, you haven't been truly inducted into Wikipedia. I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of having a bias against an author, an agenda, or of being promotional. It comes with being an editor on Wikipedia, unfortunately. As far as the article goes, I'm going to include it on the author's external links section, but I'm not certain that Isahitya is usable as a reliable source. It's sort of an unknown as far as sources go, but I'm going to run it by the reliable sources noticeboard. I don't think it's usable, but hey- doesn't hurt to ask.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of characters in the Wardstone Chronicles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
Great work on Diane Hoh. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lorien Legacies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aggregator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your advice would be very welcome

Sorry to bother you with this but you seem to have a great deal of experience in the nuances of deletion discussions and I wanted to ask for your assistance. I am troubled by a recent new page, Clustering of composers. Essentially this was created by a SPA, User:Borowiek, based on two of his own published scientific papers. In about half an hour, he made three edits and added an article that all seem to be to be self-promotion for these two papers. I am troubled because of the obvious COI issues but also because this walled garden is based on the work of a single scientist without any confirming evidence. I have no problem with the journals themselves, I believe the articles were published as per the cites, but … I am troubled. I originally considered tagging the Clustering of composers article as spam but decided against it; I'm not sure whether this would be well-received at AfD and I'm not 100% sure upon what grounds I'd take it there. Any comments you have to offer would be gratefully received. Ubelowme U Me 15:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The big issue here is that this is pretty much a case of original research and a personal essay. You can claim that composers cluster in cities, but part of this reason pretty much stems from the fact that the only way to be known was to play in a big city, especially in the older days before radio and Internet. It most certainly doesn't appear to be something that would merit an article, especially considering that there's only two sources (both by the same person) and while the guy is a professor, he's "only" an assistant professor and doesn't seem to be an overwhelmingly notable person to where his journal entries would be one of those rare instances where 1-2 sources would give absolute notability. I did a search and didn't find anything that showed that anyone other than this guy and a few select people really use this term or have really done that much research on the clustering of composers. I'd most certainly vote "delete" if you put it up for AfD. As far as speedy goes, there's nothing that this fits under so AfD is pretty much the best way to go. You could PROD it, but the guy could potentially remove the PROD so I don't usually do those unless I'm fairly certain that the article creator won't remove it. COI doesn't always mean that the additions might not have merit, but in this case this guy's sole purpose is to insert his own journals into various articles, which I've reverted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for your comprehensive and sensible answer. I'll proceed to AfD as you suggest; I agree that PROD would probably be a waste of effort since I don't believe there will be any further citations available from different authors. Since I believe you to have indicated an interest, I will take the liberty of inviting you to the AfD but please don't regard this as drumming up support; speak your mind as you so capably do. I may quote from or paraphrase your comments above and will indicate their origin. Thank you again for your effort and time on this and I'll look forward to any assistance I can offer you in the future. Ubelowme U Me 01:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

AFDs For Two Rawles Novel WP Pages

You tagged the "Survivors" novel as an AFD, but the link there goes to an AFD page for one of his other novels, Founders. I checked at the main AFD page, and only the AFD for Founders is listed. Did you doe this as some sort of combined AFD? If not, then something got fouled up. Please clarify. Thanks, DiligenceDude (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I found the error: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Survivors:_A_Novel_of_the_Coming_Collapse&diff=517639610&oldid=517631716. Please correct this, so that the AFDs can be run concurrently. Thanks. DiligenceDude (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's not an error. You can lump AfDs together rather than run them independently, as long as you post that you're running them together. This doesn't mean that both will necessarily be deleted and I've seen AfDs of this nature have some deleted and some saved, just that I'm putting them together since they relate to one another.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Clustering of composers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clustering of composers 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/Clustering of composers until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Ubelowme U Me 01:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

New York Times’s bestseller

Hi I noticed you said "not even when it’s the New York Times’s bestseller list. Do I necessarily agree with this? No, not always, but that’s pretty much the way it is." and wanted to respond but it's off topic so hope it's OK to do so here. The problem with best-seller status is it's not a reliable indicator of anything. The reason is, best sellers are calculated based on number of book sales in any single week. So it's possible, indeed not uncommon, for an author with a small but loyal fan base to create instant best sellers because everyone buys them all at once. Meanwhile, other books have a slow but steady readership, they never reach best seller status because in any given week they don't sell that many, but over the course of years they far outsell the flash in the pan best seller. Maybe a more objective indicator of notability is total number of copies sold, rather than the rate of sale in a given week. Another piece of information is the best seller list is a power law curve, meaning the #1 slot sells about twice as many as the #2 slot and so on, so the first 2 or 3 slots outsell the rest combined. So an argument could be made that #1-2 are worth considering for notability (in particular if they hold that position for multiple weeks). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  • That's pretty much one of the best arguments against bestseller lists as any judging of notability. I know that there's also a lot of times where what is considered "sold" is rather loose. I've heard claims of publishers counting books sent to various retail outlets as "sold" even if they aren't actually going into the hands of various customers, all because the bookstore technically buys the copies that they are sent and own them until they decide to send the copies back to the publisher for a credit. It's rather common, from what I've heard, and I've also heard accusations of double dipping, such as counting the sale of a copy to a merchant and the merchant's sale of the book to a customer as two separate sales for one book. It's one of the reasons I can see where it doesn't count towards notability, although I agree that it'd be nice to see an exception made for the first two books on the main lists, although then that'd bring up arguments of whether you should also count the first two on any of the sub lists such as e-book fiction, self-help, and so on. I have to say that even with the flaws in any given bestseller listing, it'd be nice if there was more leeway on sources for the books that sell particularly well over time or instantly. It's so frustrating to have to nominate books that are clearly popular, yet still don't technically pass notability guidelines. I understand why the current rules are so strict, but it was pretty much because you had a lot of people taking advantage of the "it's popular" thing to keep their books. America Deceived is the book that pretty much set the rules to where they are now, as the author was particularly fond of spamming various places about his book and liked using the then loose rules to defend the article. There were a lot of books that made it necessary for the rules to become stricter, but this book was sort of the lynchpin. A little interesting reading, that's for sure. Anywho, I'm just rambling now, but I thought I'd bring up this book as it's an interesting little piece of Wikipedia history.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link on America Deceived, interesting how different the rules were back then. Agreed there are shenanigans with publishers creating artificial best sellers. Whenever I think of best selling authors today reminded of poor Charles Garvice history has not been kind. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Bared to You

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Crossfire wiki is open

Here at wikia by --Sunuraju (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your input on my Afd Nom for The War Z.

GenQuest (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your work on Bared to You - finding editors who can criticise existing articles is easy. Editors willing to step in and improve them are much rarer :). Ironholds (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Stitches (2012 film)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deadlocked (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Penultimate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Hey there! I just really love to watch a lot of movies and put up a plot about it. Hope my English wasn't so bad though. You see I'm a complete amateur since I just started writing and improving my English. Oh, by the way, thanks for changing my Little Birds article too. I haven't got back to do changes for it lately since I was preoccupied. I know Wikipedia didn't published it since it was my very first article created and I had hard time putting up links and some other stuffs. Right now, I wanna continue in contributing more to some other articles. Thanks for your appreciation. Tonylennox (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice work

Nice work on The Art Lesson. I've withdrawn the AFD. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Cleanup Barnstar
For cleaning up Arthur's Teacher Trouble and so many other articles. Great work! xanchester (t) 01:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Question Messege from D3323

Hello, Tokyogirl79,

No offense, but for what you said at Puppet Master X: Axis Rising, "We don't do trivia on Wikipedia", if we don't do trivias, then how come we have trivia in Prehysteria trilogy page and in you page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3323 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, first off- my page is my page. It's not an official Wikipedia page, so it doesn't exactly have to go by any rules. Other than it not containing pornography, profanity, or anything that would be obviously against the rules (such as obvious promotion), then anything pretty much goes. Secondly, the trivia section on Prehysteria remained because no one took notice of it to remove it. I've fixed that now, so thank you for pointing that out. Just because other things exist on other pages does not mean that it's supposed to be on there. It might just mean (as in this case) that no one has gotten around to removing it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Strange Fruit (novel)

Small grammar issue is holding back promotion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Little Birds (2011 film)

Hello! Your submission of Little Birds (2011 film) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rlendog (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Strange Fruit (novel)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Two sources confirm notability

I've noticed you in various AFDs stating your misguided belief that you need more than two reliable sources providing significant coverage to prove an article meets the WP:GNG. Vast numbers of articles exist with just two reliable sources, AFD are ended as keep when at least two are found, and that's always been the way it is. Dream Focus 08:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Not as common as you'd think, actually. The thing about two sources being enough is that the sources must be authoritative and well, impressive enough to show absolute notability. For example, a source that showed that something won an amazing award would be enough even if the subject never got any further coverage beyond that one source. Also, detailed coverage in two books devoted to the subject would also be enough. Most times, the vast majority of times in various AfDs, the sources given are news sources which are almost never enough in and of themselves to show notability for something to keep based on two sources. They're good to show some notability towards something, but to keep based on only two news reports? It's very, very rarely done and most times you need more than just two news reports to show notability. Most times when I state "two is not enough" that's what I'm referring to. It's easier to say "more is better" because that's easier to explain to people, some of whom are very new to Wikipedia and might misunderstand the whole "two is enough" thing to where they'd think it means any source rather than very specific ones that could extend that level of notability. If you have an article that is sourced by having been covered in-depth in two books such as peer reviewed textbooks, that will be likely to have been kept whereas an article that's sourced by two news stories or brief mentions in books will not. The reason why I elaborate this is because most articles here are sourced with news articles, brief mentions, primary sources, and the like. Most of the sources used aren't really the type of thing that would fall under the idea that two sources are enough. The ones that get these types of sources most frequently are the ones that are so obviously notable that they don't really need to be linked to the big weighty "absolute notability" type sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Little Birds (film)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Stitches (2012 film), Tokyogirl79!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed as part of page curation. Article appears to be fine. Kieranian2001 (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thank you for the Barn Star

That was unexpected and very nice. Thank you! AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canada (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Caveat Fuzzy

Ah, I was afraid that this article would be rejected because the book doesn't yet have any reviews from "notable" sources; at least not in the way that Analog SF's review of FUZZY ERGO SUM is notable.

But, TokyoGirl, you're wrong about "Flayrah". Just google <"caveat fuzzy" review> and you'll see a surprising number of links pointing to that Flayrah review. You or I may find furry fandom to be silly or even embarrassing, but that doesn't mean it's not significant, and it doesn't mean it's not popular.

And as far as your suggestion that FUZZY ERGO SUM doesn't deserve a Wiki article-- well, you're just wrong, period. I have been surprised at how popular and well-known this book from a small press has become in the literary science fiction community. Lensman003 (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The only thing is, popularity for either a blog or a book doesn't mean squat when it comes to notability per WP:NBOOK. (See WP:POPULARITY.) There are a lot of very, very popular books that have been deleted off of Wikipedia for notability concerns because they didn't have coverage in sources in places that Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. That's my main concern here when it comes to articles like that one and it's why it's probably better to make one big article than one small one with some pretty serious notability issues. In the end it all boils down to whether or not you have enough reliable sources to back it up and so far that seems to be the big issue with those pages. It's not about whether or not the furry fandom is weird or not. (BTW, I have nothing against furries and might even be considered a borderline one myself.) It's all about reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Jfgsloeditor

Since the user has been confirmed as a sock of a banned editor and in-line with WP:DENY, I am proposing to tag the following pages created by this account :

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 2
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 1
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of America's Next Top Model contestants

for deletion under CSD G5, I am letting you know as you have made a contribution to one or more of the pages, if you do not want me to then please let me know on my talk page or at the ANI. Mtking (edits) 23:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Hanging Garden (White novel)

Hello! Your submission of The Hanging Garden (White novel) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! WormTT(talk) 14:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tokyogirl. Thought I'd drop by and explain QPQ. Sorry about the TLA (Three-Letter Acronym), they seem to be everywhere on wikipedia. QPQ stands for Quid Pro Quo, which translates roughly as "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" (or more accurately as "this for that"). Did you know runs on a "quid pro quo" reviewing system, in other words, you do a review to get a review. Editors who are new to the process (under 5 DYK) are considered exempt, but you're around that point, so you're going to have to start reviewing soon! When you do, feel free to drop me a message on my talk page, and I'm happy to double check your review, see if you've missed anything. When you edit a DYK nomination, check out the Edit Notice at the top of the page, it does really help. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I've replied at my talk page. WormTT(talk) 13:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Witches of East End

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Canada (novel)

Hello! Your submission of Canada (novel) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

DYK for The Hanging Garden (White novel)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Robert Peernock

Hello! Your submission of Robert Peernock at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SilverserenC 06:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Magazines

Agree magazine AfDs are very difficult under current rules, unlike works of art, magazines are rarely reviewed or have many awards. It would be great to have guidelines for certain topics that seem to fall by the wayside. I have some thoughts on how to judge notability of magazines, happy to discuss somewhere if you think there is a possibility of creating magazine-specific guidelines (not sure how creating AfD guidelines works). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

er, just saw this Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Witches of East End, Tokyogirl79!

Wikipedia editor Go Phightins! just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

excellent start; marking as reviewed

To reply, leave a comment on Go Phightins!'s talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beautiful Bastard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Good work on Rationality and Power. Bearian (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReaderofthePack/Archive_4&oldid=1254532214"