User talk:Books2read

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Books2read, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Marasmusine (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Doré Watson

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ellen Doré Watson, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.smith.edu/poetrycenter/poets/ewatson.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Review

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Colorado Review, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Colorado review. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Colorado review. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. gordonrox24 (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, "Books2read". I see you tried, quite correctly, to replace Colorado review by Colorado Review, and fell foul of misinterpretation of what you were doing. For future reference, a better way of achieving the effect you wanted is to use the "move" button at the top of the page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Forrest Hamer

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Forrest Hamer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No indication that this author is particularly notable

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Passportguy (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts to create authors' biographies Pohick2 (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not at all, i see we are covering the same ground, hope you don't mind my bio style which differs in tiny respects from yours. cheers Pohick2 (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style

well there is a WP:MOS, WP:Manual of Style (lead section) but it's clear as mud. as you see, i tend to have a single sentence lead for stubs, and have a life section, awards, works, etc. adding 4 sections gets you a table of contents, and makes the article look bigger, unlike a magazine article. they talk of using summary style in lead, and then detail in sections, but that's too topic sentencey for me. i tend to have a "powerpoint" bullet style, while you tend to be essay style (i will go to the essay, when i have more source material to fill out) -- it appears to be personal preference. Pohick2 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't advertise yourself here

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, your account has been blocked; you are welcome to create a new account with a username that represents only you. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline. If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you.

--Orange Mike | Talk 13:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orangemike,

I am a good faith editor of Wikipedia articles, and not representing any company. I was working to address the New Rivers Press article issues because of the invitation on the page to do so, and because I care about literature. I don't have any affiliation whatsoever with the press. Is it my "Books2read" handle that is the problem? I chose it randomly. I discovered later that it seems to be a bookstore in England (I am in the USA), but figured that the handle would not have been approved had it been a problem for Wikipedia. Please tell me what to do to address this, and keep in mind that I have trouble understanding Wiki instructions...I find them complicated (I'm not sure I've correctly figured out how to respond here)! Books2read (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Books2read[reply]

You put a link to that company on your userpage; that seems like a pretty solid indication that you were willing to advertise it! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Mike, I looked at a number of their recent contributions and found no evidence of promotional edits. This seems like an honest mistake by an inexperienced user to me (the book store link was added by an IP 11 months ago). —DoRD (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Books2read (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not representing a company. Books2read (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, but we don't allow usernames that match a company's name, even if you don't represent that company. There is no system for approving usernames prior to registration, so we simply block inappropriate ones. Please create a new account with an appropriate username. Sandstein 19:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Regardless the outcome of the discussion above, if you wish to rename your account, you may may request to be unblocked for that purpose by using {{unblock-un | user=new username | reason=your reason here}} on this page. —DoRD (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I utterly disagree with this block, and am reversing it. This person has been editing in good faith, without any promotion of any business; the fact that some random business in the UK happens to have this rather generic name is hardly a disqualifier, any more than it would be if there happened to be an unrelated business called "Sandstein" (oh, wait, there is -- http://www.sandstein.de/ is one, or for that matter http://www.sandsteine.de/, or maybe a promotion for http://www.saechsische-schweiz.de/start/click.system?navid=123). Further, the business name was not put on the page by this user; this user is not from the UK. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, what is the point blocking a productive editor? is it WP:pointy or WP:bite? Accotink2 talk 04:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The block, while a mistake, was in good faith. I was not paranoid enough to discover that the spamlink to a vendor of that name had been added by somebody else and never removed by this editor; it's the first time I'm ever heard of this being done. The unblock was rightly done, and I have no complaints. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello All,

Thank you for the consideration and informative discussion! I'm glad that you could see I didn't put the link on my user page...I had no idea that someone did that, so it didn't occur to me to delete it. It sounds as if I should change my handle, which I'll be glad to do. According to Jpgordon, I am now unblocked (thank you for that). Does that mean that I don't need to perform the unblock request as DoRD instructs above in order to change my handle? Do I just sign onto to Wikipedia using a new handle or is there a formal procedure I need to follow to do it?

Thanks, Books2read (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Books2read[reply]

Hi there. No, you don't need to use the unblock template I suggested above, and there really isn't any need for you to change your username as it would only violate our username policy if you actually were promoting something. If you do want to change it, however, you may make a request here. Cheers! —DoRD (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoRD,

Thank you...I'd rather not have to change my username, especially since it risks unintentional breaking of rules. Not wanting to break rules was why I offered to change it (per Sandstein's comment)! Would you be willing to remove this category currently at the bottom of the page: "Categories: Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names?" I don't see where/how to do it, and if I'm no longer blocked it seems like it shouldn't be there.

Thanks again! Books2read (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Books2read[reply]

September 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. CutOffTies (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CutOffTies,

I have attempted to do as you suggest in adding information to Patricia Smith (poet). Please let me know if I have not done it correctly--and if not, how (in layman's terms, please) I can correct it. I find Wikipedia instructions difficult to understand.Books2read (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joanna Fuhrman

The article Joanna Fuhrman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR/ WP:NACADEMIC

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Rusf10 (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Cavankerry Press

Hello, Books2read,

Thank you for creating Cavankerry Press.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The Cavankerry Press website is a primary source, as such it isn’t independent and therefore isn’t considered a reliable source. I would suggest that you find an alternative reference to support the information.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Dan arndt}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Dan arndt (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Re|Dan arndt}} Hi Dan, thank you for responding. I do have questions. I added 12 secondary source citations to Cavankerry Press, so 17 out of the 20 citations are now secondary sources. I see that the maintenance tag is back, so apparently that isn’t enough? Are no primary sources allowed in an article? ~~~~

{{Re|Dan arndt}} Hi Dan, I'd still like to know the answer to my primary source question above, but want to let you know that I've now deleted all of the primary source citations and replaced them with secondary source citations, as well as adding a ton of other primary sources, so I'm going to go ahead and remove the maintenance tag, since I've resolved the problem 100%, as I understand it. ~~~~

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kevin Goodan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cutbank. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carnegie Mellon University Press, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Tate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]