User talk:Apollonia1992

Welcome!

Hello, Apollonia1992, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

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! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits

Please stop reverting the edits. I've elaborated on the talk page as to why I changed them back. Carroll Bryant is not a notable enough author to warrant having a long quote by him, whereas Ray Garton is. If Bryant had been quoted in a reliable source then that would be something we could work with, but to my knowledge the only sites that have reported specifically on his encounter are decidedly non-notable and non-usable blog entries. I also moved the blogs by the Stop the GR Bullies administrator and Foz Meadows down to the bottom because I'd had an admin remove a Huffington Post blog on another Wikipedia entry. In order to avoid having anyone talk about whether or not the blog is or isn't a reliable source, I moved them down to the external links section to avoid this entirely while still keeping both blogs on the article. We can use the Ray Garton blog because he's a notable author. As far as unethical reviewers go, that's an opinion and we can't state that as an opinion. On Wikipedia we call those WP:WEASEL words because it implies a specific viewpoint. The opinions on whether or not the reviews are unethical vary and even Goodreads themselves have refrained from taking a definitive stance on any specific reviewer. We cannot simply say "this person is unethical". We can get around that by saying that members that created sites to monitor the negative reviewers view them as unethical but we cannot state that they are unethical point blank because it's simply an opinion. I also had removed the hotlink to the site because we try not to hotlink to sites within articles. I just need to warn you that this is coming across sort of like you have an agenda. Articles must be neutrally written. You should not be able to go onto the page and tell what the opinion of the editor was that created the section. I'm all for having differing view points of the reviewer controversy, but it must be covered in sources that Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. Just to be fair, I'm going to have an administrator come in and view the edits to ensure that it's fair and balanced.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Apollonia1992. You have new messages at Tokyogirl79's talk page.
Message added 18:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Apollonia1992. You have new messages at Tokyogirl79's talk page.
Message added 19:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reverting my edits

Could you please explain why you reverted my edits at Goodreads? Stuartyeates (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it didn't have anything to do with the criticism of Goodreads and nothing was cited. Apollonia1992 (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The addition made it clear that the problems stemmed fro user-submitted content not Goodreaders authored content and that class of problem also effects other social media sites on the internet. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]