Jump to content

User talk:Booklover 2023

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

A plate of chocolate chip cookies.
Welcome!

Hello, Booklover 2023, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 09:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Booklover 2023, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jimfbleak, thanks for your message. I don't understand why the article was deleted, however. There's no conflict of interest. I simply looked at book pages on Wikipedia (such as this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Empathy) and noticed they use interviews and reviews as the basis of the article. I just read this book and wanted to provide a page on it. Could you please explain what kind of references you are looking for or should be there instead? Happy to re-do the article or have you proofread it if my references were not appropriate (I thought submitting the draft for review was exactly the right course of action to get help or feedback). As you probably know, it takes quite a bit of time to make contributions to Wikipedia and when an entire article is deleted based on presumptions or assertions, that is a bit demotivating. My intent was to provide a neutral synopsis of the book and an overview of the critical reception - thanks for letting me know and happy to work with you on how to make it better Booklover 2023 (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. just to explain, I thought author interviews and independent reviews in major outlets would be the main sourcing for a book page, not sure what else a Wiki contributor would draw on so any clarification much appreciated here! Booklover 2023 (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

  • When you write about a book, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the author or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the author claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
  • The only referenced material in your text was opinions and reviews. If you look at the notability criteria I've linked above, there is nothing to suggest how it meets the criteria above. Basically, you have described the book and linked to some reviews, but we don't know why this book is notable, if it is. The book has been described as an "authoritative" and "comprehensive" guide... is opinion, not fact
  • You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
  • The problem with having a lengthy "reception" section is that bunch of positive reviews looks like cherry-picking, and your text is basically a synopsis, a summary of hois views, and reviews, it's light on real facts
  • There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
  • You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.


Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources.

I've seen worse, and for what it's worth, the other article you linked to has the same deficits, plus the fact that many of the refs were to the book itself. If you wish< i'll sandbox the deleted text for you, won't be this evening though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak thanks so much, this is very helpful and I see your points. I'll go and study the guidelines you pasted here first, obviously I just went the easy route and happened to copy a bad example (I had perhaps mistakenly assumed that a published version must be a good example). If you could sandbox the deleted text, I'd appreciate that. I'll go and re-think the article in the meantime and see if there's better source material out there, thanks for your swift reply. Booklover 2023 (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need a background section, to set this book in context, see, for instance, Merchants of Doubt and the books that page lists here. A bit about the author (who has his own article) to show why we should care what he thinks. In Reception, a more considered review, like Aaronovitch's, is better than a vague "stand out" guide
Link misinformation at first use, use sentence case for headings, and italicise publications
Now here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak got it, these are great examples and pointers, will re-work the page accordingly, appreciate your help! Booklover 2023 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


@Jimfbleak, thanks again for your help, got distracted with other drafts and work, but have now re-written this article per your guidelines. I included background on the author to make a better case for why the book is of general interest and also condensed the reviews into one line pulling out two more substantial and considered reviews for the reader. Also added many more external references. Tried to move the page but I think I made an error. Hope you can help, thanks! Booklover 2023 (talk)
OK, moved now, I've italicised publications too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! Booklover 2023 (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The book cover of FOOLPROOF by Sander van der Linden.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The book cover of FOOLPROOF by Sander van der Linden.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. SmartSE (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Booklover_2023&oldid=1165475198"