User talk:Steph-osborn

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

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Extraction Point![edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Extraction Point!, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.doctravis.com/node/97.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi I am Stephanie Osborn, author and co-author of the entries I am adding. Dr. James K. Woosley wrote my original entry in Wikipedia and I only edited it for updates as he has been too busy. The entries come from open promotional blurbs intended for newspapers etc. to copy in entirety and are NOT copyrighted. The entries on Dr. Taylor's and my websites use those blurbs for conciseness and quickness of adding material about our books TO our websites. There have been no violations of copyright, there have been no biased entries made, and Dr. Woosley will be coming along to edit and fix after I've entered the material. Please give me a chance to reply. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I hope I have answered all questions. I was getting bombarded faster than I could enter responses, and the system was therefore not letting my responses through. I am willing to answer all questions you have, and I have been very careful not to violate the wiki terms. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so kindly for erasing all my work before allowing me the chance to respond to it. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Extraction Point![edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Extraction Point!, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.doctravis.com/node/97. As a copyright violation, Extraction Point! appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Extraction Point! has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Extraction Point! and send an email with the message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Extraction Point! with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Extraction Point!.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi I am Stephanie Osborn, author and co-author of the entries I am adding. Dr. James K. Woosley wrote my original entry in Wikipedia and I only edited it for updates as he has been too busy. The entries come from open promotional blurbs intended for newspapers etc. to copy in entirety and are NOT copyrighted. The entries on Dr. Taylor's and my websites use those blurbs for conciseness and quickness of adding material about our books TO our websites. There have been no violations of copyright, there have been no biased entries made, and Dr. Woosley will be coming along to edit and fix after I've entered the material. Please give me a chance to reply. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I hope I have answered all questions. I was getting bombarded faster than I could enter responses, and the system was therefore not letting my responses through. I am willing to answer all questions you have, and I have been very careful not to violate the wiki terms. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so kindly for erasing all my work before allowing me the chance to respond to it. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

Hello Steph-osborn. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi I am Stephanie Osborn, author and co-author of the entries I am adding. Dr. James K. Woosley wrote my original entry in Wikipedia and I only edited it for updates as he has been too busy. The entries come from open promotional blurbs intended for newspapers etc. to copy in entirety and are NOT copyrighted. The entries on Dr. Taylor's and my websites use those blurbs for conciseness and quickness of adding material about our books TO our websites. There have been no violations of copyright, there have been no biased entries made, and Dr. Woosley will be coming along to edit and fix after I've entered the material. Please give me a chance to reply. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I hope I have answered all questions. I was getting bombarded faster than I could enter responses, and the system was therefore not letting my responses through. I am willing to answer all questions you have, and I have been very careful not to violate the wiki terms. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Displaced Detective Series[edit]

The article The Displaced Detective Series has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reviews in reliable sources, fails WP:NBOOK.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi I am Stephanie Osborn, author and co-author of the entries I am adding. Dr. James K. Woosley wrote my original entry in Wikipedia and I only edited it for updates as he has been too busy. The entries come from open promotional blurbs intended for newspapers etc. to copy in entirety and are NOT copyrighted. The entries on Dr. Taylor's and my websites use those blurbs for conciseness and quickness of adding material about our books TO our websites. There have been no violations of copyright, there have been no biased entries made, and Dr. Woosley will be coming along to edit and fix after I've entered the material. Please give me a chance to reply. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews by reliable sources include http://madsci.us/2011/11/23/the-displaced-detective.aspx; http://ideaslikebullets.blogspot.com/2011/12/from-anothers-gun-review-of-displaced.html?spref=fb; http://indieauthoryvonnemason.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/a-book-and-a-movie-sherlock-holmes-and-company/;

http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/features/2011/12/OsbornPreview_111217.html; http://teddysratlab.blogspot.com/2012/01/review-three-for-one-extraction-point.html Steph-osborn (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I hope I have answered all questions. I was getting bombarded faster than I could enter responses, and the system was therefore not letting my responses through. I am willing to answer all questions you have, and I have been very careful not to violate the wiki terms. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Point Series (with Travis S. Taylor)[edit]

The article The Point Series (with Travis S. Taylor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable series, fails WP:NBOOK

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yunshui 雲‍水

hi I am Stephanie Osborn, author and co-author of the entries I am adding. Dr. James K. Woosley wrote my original entry in Wikipedia and I only edited it for updates as he has been too busy. The entries come from open promotional blurbs intended for newspapers etc. to copy in entirety and are NOT copyrighted. The entries on Dr. Taylor's and my websites use those blurbs for conciseness and quickness of adding material about our books TO our websites. There have been no violations of copyright, there have been no biased entries made, and Dr. Woosley will be coming along to edit and fix after I've entered the material. Please give me a chance to reply. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews of substance include

http://dadofdivas-reviews.blogspot.com/2011/06/book-review-extraction-point.html; http://www.gamevortex.com/gamevortex/sound_rev.php/122/extraction-point-sound.html; http://www.otherwheregazette.com/2012/01/13/extraction-point-more-fun-than-a-barrel-full-of-radioactive-mutant-monkeys/; http://teddysratlab.blogspot.com/2012/01/review-three-for-one-extraction-point.html Steph-osborn (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I hope I have answered all questions. I was getting bombarded faster than I could enter responses, and the system was therefore not letting my responses through. I am willing to answer all questions you have, and I have been very careful not to violate the wiki terms. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so kindly for erasing all my work before allowing me the chance to respond to it. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Project Tesseract[edit]

The article Project Tesseract has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable, no reviews on reliable sources, fails WP:NBOOK.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi I am Stephanie Osborn, author and co-author of the entries I am adding. Dr. James K. Woosley wrote my original entry in Wikipedia and I only edited it for updates as he has been too busy. The entries come from open promotional blurbs intended for newspapers etc. to copy in entirety and are NOT copyrighted. The entries on Dr. Taylor's and my websites use those blurbs for conciseness and quickness of adding material about our books TO our websites. There have been no violations of copyright, there have been no biased entries made, and Dr. Woosley will be coming along to edit and fix after I've entered the material. Please give me a chance to reply. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This entry links to The Point Series and I have, I hope, answered all questions regarding that entry, meaning that this, as a sub-entry, is valid as well. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I hope I have answered all questions. I was getting bombarded faster than I could enter responses, and the system was therefore not letting my responses through. I am willing to answer all questions you have, and I have been very careful not to violate the wiki terms. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry, this link connects to The Displaced Detective Series, not the Point series. Steph-osborn (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stephanie Gannaway-Osborn[edit]

The article Stephanie Gannaway-Osborn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are either affiliated, broken links or passing mentions; no in-depth coverage found. Husband appears notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi I am Stephanie Osborn, author and co-author of the entries I am adding. Dr. James K. Woosley wrote my original entry in Wikipedia and I only edited it for updates as he has been too busy. The entries come from open promotional blurbs intended for newspapers etc. to copy in entirety and are NOT copyrighted. The entries on Dr. Taylor's and my websites use those blurbs for conciseness and quickness of adding material about our books TO our websites. There have been no violations of copyright, there have been no biased entries made, and Dr. Woosley will be coming along to edit and fix after I've entered the material. Please give me a chance to reply. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition it may be noted that several of my books have been ebook best-sellers, most notably The Y Factor, and that Burnout is currently a major motion picture project, as well as having been nominated for awards in SF, mystery, thriller, and ebook. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I hope I have answered all questions. I was getting bombarded faster than I could enter responses, and the system was therefore not letting my responses through. I am willing to answer all questions you have, and I have been very careful not to violate the wiki terms. Steph-osborn (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews in reliable sources[edit]

Seriously, please read WP:RS (especially WP:USERG). Blogs, solicited reviews and personal websites are not considered reliable sources. Please provide reviews from national newspapers, trade press such as The Bookseller or coverage in other books from major publishing houses. There are the sort of sources required to pass the notability guideline for books. Whilst you're reading, I'll also reiterate my notice above; please read the conflict of interest guidelines and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various notes[edit]

Hi Steph-osborn and welcome to Wikipedia, even if it's been a rough welcome. You got a lot of negative messages very quickly because you did a bunch of things wrong very quickly. My first advice would be to slow down and work with us so that you can learn our processes - and accept that a lot of your recent work may be removed in short order.

  • Regardless of whether material from other sites was "intended" to be re-used by other people, we assume it is under copyright unless the other site explicitly releases the material under a CC-BY-SA license. And even then, we insist on attribution when the material is added here. If you are the author of that work, you either add the licensing info to that site, or use that sites email address to contact our WP:OTRS and donate the work. Keep in mind that just because you have registered the name Steph-osborn here, we have no way of knowing if it is really you.
  • We don't accept book blurbs as encyclopedic content, such as at Extraction Point!, even if it is properly attributed. That is written with the idea of getting someone to buy the book, which we don't do here.
  • As pointed out just above, you need independent reliable sources which discuss your books. It's great that you have fans of your series, but this is not the right place to reach them.
  • You mention in several places that your hard work is getting erased, but I don't see any deleted contributions for your account - so your hard work is all still there in article history as far as I can tell, it has just been removed from view (for now).

Sorry you've had a rough ride lately, but we apply the same standards to all material here. Please focus on getting those new articles into shape quickly, simply removing a {{prod}} tag does not end the issue, since the next step is to send the article to the deletion process. There really are multiple problems you need to get sorted out. Let me know if you have further questions. Franamax (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I surely hope I'm doing this right. Edit modes are just very counterintuitive for me here. Okay. I have gone on to add some information to the article about me which Jim Woosley created, including the short and feature films in work, whose scripts I wrote. I also added the various award nominations, finalists, and best-selling ebooks as well. Hopefully this is sufficient to prevent deletion of the page. I removed the deletion thing simply because publicly stating that my husband was worthy of an entry and I wasn't, was offensive to both of us. As for blurbs, I am indeed the original author of the blurbs. I am doing my best to modify the blurbs to make them not-PR, if that makes sense to you. Perhaps they need more modification, and I will try to do that. However, I don't know how to edit an article that I can't see in the search engine - I assumed that since I couldn't see 'em they'd been deleted. (I toldja this place is counterintuitive to me. ;-) And I just talked to Travis on the phone and he and I are both agreed that the material I used is free and clear. Short of meeting face to face I don't know how to prove that I am me to you. You are welcome to pop onto Facebook, friend Novelist Stephanie Osborn, and exchange a brief convo if you like. I do request that you not delete anything until you give Dr. Woosley and me a chance to modify them, then see if they suit your standards. Question: If a book has been nominated for awards, and/or is a best-seller, but has not necessarily had reviews placed in national media, does that still disqualify it for an entry in wikipedia? Steph-osborn (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now you do have deleted contributions, if you contact me through Wikipedia email I can send you a copy of the deleted work - if you understand that just posting it again wouldn't be a good idea at all. I see that DGG has acted on this, just to let you know, DGG is one of the editors here who works hardest to keep what deserves to be kept, so I would encourage you to read their comments carefully, even if they might seem brusque on first reading. As far as you and your husband being equal authors, can you understand that it's not that we don't care about that, it's that we can't care. We have to adhere to the standards of an encyclopedia, and one of our standards is that we need to see commentary in independent, reliable, verifiable sources. This often causes a problem for newer or more inexperienced aditors who want to write about something they saw personally, or something they just know is true, or about themselves, but we can't relax that standard and still be a source people can semi-rely on. To answer your question, generally yes, that book would be disqualified. A nomination for an award by itself is not enough notability, and it's hard to imagine a best-seller that someone in notable media didn't decide to write about. But not totally - long-lasting cult or underground or indie book series (for the series article) might still qualify as notable if there are a huge number of lesser-quality sources over a period of time, but that's a much harder road to travel. Sorry that your work has been deleted, but I do agree with the deletions. It is indeed a tough environment, but if you do assemble some good sources to back it all up, the articles can always be recreated. Franamax (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Displaced Detective Series[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Actually this is not the first time I have created articles. I have done so in the Internet SpecFic Database, which uses the same formatting. I just don't find it an easy system in the least. Steph-osborn (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Displaced Detective Series, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete The Displaced Detective Series page. They are fresh out and while they are getting rave reviews, so far none of them are likely to be accepted by your criteria despite the fact that several of my books have been reviewed in a popular webzine. Steph-osborn (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would, however, like my questions answered. 1) If a book has been nominated for awards, and/or is a best-seller, but has not necessarily had reviews placed in national media, does that still disqualify it for an entry in wikipedia? 2) How long do I have before you delete stuff to try to fix it? 3) Have the additions I have made to my personal entry (Stephanie Gannaway-Osborn) been sufficient to qualify me as a person, by your lights? Steph-osborn (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Status and Advice[edit]

It's not my view that is relevant, but it's my responsibility to carry out the view that people take here about the function of the encyclopedia .

I deleted the article, partly on the basis of the lack of license, but more on the reason that it was an undisguised promotional article for the book. I will try to help you, but I can only help you by explaining why the article will not be accepted.

A Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization or person, say what they do. It is wrong to copy from a web site, even your own -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. When you as an author write a jacket blurb for your book, that's advertising, pure and simple, in the most direct sense of the word. It was written to induce people to by the book. We would not use that material in a Wikipedia article no matter who submitted it. We do not reprint advertising.

Furthermore Wikipedia article also needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. In this case, it means reviews from reliable published sources, not connected with the publisher or the author. Nothing you as the author may have written shows importance. I see no indication whatsoever there are such reviews, either for this book or any other you have written. Being a best seller can be relevant, but only if some reliable third party source has written about that, and I see no indication of that either. Blogs and the like do not count. I therefore conclude that both the articles about them here, and the article about yourself as an author, are also entirely promotional, and I have listed them for deletion as such--I could remove them myself, but I prefer that another administrator judge also. If the other administrator declines to immediately delete them, I shall list them for a community decision,where you will be able to give your opinion, but it is only fair to remind you that what will be judged is not any rhetoric or yours or mine, but the existence of reliable sources for meeting WP:BIO and WP:NBOOK In this connection I note that only two of your books are in WorldCat, the library of Congress union catalog, and neither one is in more than 6 libraries.

I'm sorry, but I need to say when: when your books will have significant reviews in 3rd party sources , then you will be an author appropriate for an article in an encyclopedia , and someone other than yourself will write one. Even then, as a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know.

Really, the best I can do for you is to spare you from going to further efforts here to achieve the impossible. I wish you every success with your writings, but it's not the function of an encyclopedia to help you achieve that. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Project Tesseract[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Project Tesseract, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Point Series (with Travis S. Taylor)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Point Series (with Travis S. Taylor), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I can't find where the new stuff is in all of the stuff above, so I'm placing my reply here. The originator of the Stephanie Osborn entry on Wikipedia is discussing it with the admin who deleted it. I am trying to provide links for substantiation as I can. Any further entries on Wikipedia will be made by him or another party. I will not be making any more entries. If you desire to delete my account, you may; I do not anticipate needing it. Steph-osborn (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant reply and advice is under "Status and advice" a few sections above. JohnCD (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steph-osborn&oldid=1045242690"