User talk:Cjennmom

No one seems to have given you the welcome message, so here it goes...

Welcome!

Hello, Cjennmom, 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! -Phoenixrod (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Horse (1990)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dark Horse (1990), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.iblist.com/book12775.htm. 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) 17:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Sender (1998)

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Sender (1998), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sender (1998). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with The Sender (1998). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Storm Trooper (1998)

The article Storm Trooper (1998) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable. can't find a review.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vinithehat (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ritual Bath

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Ritual Bath, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/104106.The_Ritual_Bath.

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) 22:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[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 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonvarld series

Wikipedia isn't really the place for large scale plot dumps. Also to be frank the articles read like copyright violations. Are they entirely your own work?©Geni 01:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Read and summarize.

Deletion discussion about Mistress Of Dragons

Hello, Cjennmom, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress Of Dragons whether the article Mistress Of Dragons should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Mistress Of Dragons, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When adding books...

I noticed that you've been adding a lot of books to the Wikipedia. When adding books to Wikipedia, it's a good idea to find reliable sources (WP:RS before you publish the article. Unsourced articles can be deleted or put up for AfD, as evidenced with Mistress of Dragons. While it might seem like these books are obviously notable to you, you still have to provide reliable sources to prove that notability. Not all books are considered to be notable per WP:NBOOK, so it's a good idea to start these on a userspace (WP:USERFY) and slowly polish them up until they meet notability guidelines. If you want to try to argue that a book meets NBOOK by way of criteria #5, be prepared to back that up with proof as well. For instance, one could claim that since Anne Rice's work is taught in many colleges and high schools, all of her work could be considered notable as a result. (But be prepared to provide links to prove this! One class doing this is not enough.) Overly detailed plot synopses aren't really necessary on Wikipedia, so just remember the old saying of "Less is more". Try to summarize as much as you can and above all else, try to keep it neutral and encyclopedic! (WP:NPOV, WP:Better) The reason I'm saying this is because in many of your summaries it doesn't really come across as encyclopedic or easy for the average user to really be able to read and understand. What might seem clear to you is not always obviously clear or helpful to other people. I highly, highly, HIGHLY recommend that before you add anymore articles to the Wikispace, that you look into talking with some of the users in Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. Not only can they help you find reliable sources but they can also help teach you how to write an article that more closely fits the Wikipedia style. Again, not all books are considered notable per Wikipedia's guide to book notability. One of the main reasons that these guidelines exist is because it helps keep a lot of obviously non-notable books from being added to the database. For example, if I were to write and self-publish a book (let's say it's absolutely horrible, worse than My Immortal, and only sold 2 copies, both of which were purchased by my mother), the guidelines would keep that book from being added because it is not notable. The guidelines might seem strict, but it helps keep a lot of the cruft from being added. Just like Encyclopedia Brittanica doesn't need to have an entry for everything, neither does Wikipedia. It doesn't mean that we are literary snobs or that we're trying to promote one book over another, it's just that the books need proof of notability and it's generally considered that if a book is notable it will have at least 2-3 sources. I hope I'm not coming across as mean since that isn't my intention, but I just want to let you know some of this stuff so your next articles can be a little better formatted. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

If you need help, feel free to ask me. I'm studying for finals, but I'll try my best. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

File:Perdita 070709.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Perdita 070709.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Perdita 070709 b.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Perdita 070709 b.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Perdita 070709 a.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Perdita 070709 a.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chaim Potok, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In the Beginning (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) 11:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bram Stoker's Dracula's Guest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Smith (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) 10:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-redirected articles

I've re-redirected the articles back to the main article at Dragonvarld. The problem is that there isn't enough notability for each book to merit their own article at this point in time. I did try to find sources when I'd originally re-directed them, but there just wasn't enough coverage for them to pass WP:NBOOK individually. If I were to take this to AfD, odds are very, very high that it would end with the articles remaining as a redirect. Please understand, we have to show that each book passes notability guidelines and just existing does not extend notability automatically, nor does the notability of the author. If you can find coverage in reliable sources then we could have an article for each one, but the sourcing for the books was rather weak and all we had overall were trade reviews. There were blog reviews, but none that would be considered anything but a WP:SPS. The thing to remember here is that not every book merits an entry, so it's better to try to find a happy medium. There's no point in trying to have individual entries that have very high odds of getting deleted and in many cases it's better to settle for a series page that can show notability overall for the series. It may not be as satisfying, but it's easier to establish notability for a series and it's better to have a series page than no pages at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Jon Bruno

Hello, ust alerting you to the above discussion - you created the article a couple of years ago. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Code Conspiracy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Code Conspiracy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Code Conspiracy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Brycehughes (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Everyone Loves Mel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Everyone Loves Mel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everyone Loves Mel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

The Film Creator (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]