| Revision as of 11:13, 10 September 2012 editDPL bot (talk | contribs)Bots668,963 edits dablink notification message (see the FAQ)← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:48, 17 September 2012 edit undoRrashmissingh (talk | contribs)167 edits →A kitten for you!: new WikiLove messageNext edit → | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC) | It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == A kitten for you! == | |||
| ] | |||
| This is for you for your help:) | |||
| ] (]) 16:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <br style="clear: both"/> | |||
Revision as of 16:48, 17 September 2012
Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's guidelines and that's ultimately what it boils down to: coverage in what Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Ubelowme U 03:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Neither he nor his books have received coverage by what Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Again, I stress this this is per Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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
Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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:)