User talk:HypnoSynthesis

Welcome!

Hello, HypnoSynthesis, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Talk:Hypnosis

Hi. Please look at Talk:Hypnosis. I believe that I have clarified your question; and, as well, the article seems better for it (just follow the link from my answer to the article). Lindsay658 10:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.Please look at Talk:NLP and science re the NLP articles. Your contributions as an editor are welcome but please read the main NLP site's talk and history first. Fainites 18:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Yakuman (数え役満) 10:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated reply, because I've only spotted this comment recently... I've got no idea whatsoever what this "warning" refers to. I've definitely never deliberately vandalised an entry. I'm guessing maybe there's some kind of mix up. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Talk:Paul McKenna/Archive1 on April 27, 2007

Your recent edits to Talk:Paul McKenna/Archive1 could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. Thank you. Your comment can be found here.— Dorvaq (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HypnoSynthesis, the talk page archive was blanked per an WP:OTRS request. I blanked the AMA case you created as well; I hope that the issues resolve themselves and I suggest, unless further consideration is necessary, we drop the issue. --Iamunknown 12:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		Have a barnstar! You replaced some sections I removed, but with the happy addition of references that addressed the concerns I had. That's good, sources are the best, keep it up! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a couple comments on your page I'm a bit hesitant about the barnstar, but purely based on the quality of your recent contributions I'm taking the risk. Note a couple changes I made here. A couple links you might find useful:

MOS:CAPS - only proper names and first letters in a sentence should be capitalized, particularly in section titles. Also note that wikilinks are case sensitive (the software will work around [[Nicholas Spanos]] but not {{main|Nicholas spanos}} - that's why I removed the initial {{main|Hypnotic Susceptibility}}, I thought the article didn't exist which was totally my bad)
WP:CIT - citation templates, which I didn't have time to add, but are good. The ref name tags might also be helpful for duplicate references
WP:OVERLINK - a wikilink should appear once, perhaps twice, at most three times in a lengthy article - James Braid shouldn't be linked every time.
WP:QUOTE and WP:SS - you seem to be adding a lot of lengthy quotes to pages. Generally summaries are better choices, with the source of the quote being appended as a reference.
WP:NPOV and WP:OR - one should be wary of statements that appear to advance a certain position, summarize or synthesize information to come to a novel conclusion not in a source.
WP:HEAD - basically don't repeat the page title or previous section headings in sub-headings.
User:WLU/Generic sandbox - an essay I wrote for newcomers. I think it's funny and useful, others have agreed with me.

Now, here's my qualifier - it's WAY harder to add text than it is to adjust it. I've adjusted, but you added. You did the heavy lifting, I dusted underneath. So, good work! Keep it up! Be sure to discuss edits calmly and a source will always be worth a thousand words in making a point! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm just muddling my way through. I started fixing some things I thought needed attention and kind of got sucked into making more and more changes. I need to brush up on the rules and how to do referencing, etc., but I'm learning a lot of stuff as I go, and hopefully not doing anything too controversial. As for the messages above. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what the one about vandalism is about. All I can say about that is that I have absolutely definitely never done anything which I thought was vandalism. I can only assume I must have naively made an edit that someone else found objectionable -but I don't know what it was. As for the thing about McKenna. That was because I posted a comment to a Talk page questioning whether we should update the article with information about a news story. I was trying not to post anything controversial; my honest view is that they massively over-reacted to something which I doubt anyone else would find objectionable. I immediately deleted the comment anyway, but it was archived and came up on searches, so I had to get help removing it permanently. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, wikipedia sucks you in. If have any questions, feel free to ask me and I'll do my best to help (I'm not perfect, but I like to think I know my way around moderately well and I'm usually here pretty much every day). You could also ask questions at the Help desk, or add the template {{helpme}} to your talk page along with a question. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of serious misinformation in James Braid article

Hi, I have requested that the title for the article on James Braid be changed from the inappropriate, misleading, and historically incorrect current title of James Braid (physician) to the appropriate and historically correct title of James Braid (surgeon).

On the basis that you have contributed to the current article in some way, I thought that you should know that the article will be moving within 7 days from James Braid (physician) to the appropriate and correct title of James Braid (surgeon) unless there is widespread, informed, and fact-based objections.

It would be helpful if you could express your support for the correction of what seems to have been, originally, an inadvertent error, at site of the discussion of proposal. Thanks, in anticipation . . . Lindsay658 (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Platonic Definitions

Hi, concerning this source you added, can you give some detail on it? I have not heard of it. Apart from getting the sourcing clear, I would also like to consider whether it should be mentioned after or before Aristotle.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

No problem. What sort of information are you after? You can find out more pretty easily just from a search online. There's actually a very brief page already on Wikipedia for it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_(Plato)

It was attributed to Plato but is believed to have been written by Speusippus or some of Plato's other early followers in the Academy. It's included in collections of Platonic writings. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see you added the wikilink, which helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2013 (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) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, HypnoSynthesis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, HypnoSynthesis. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stoic Opposition has been accepted

Stoic Opposition, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SeraphWiki (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Hello, I'm SeraphWiki. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Stoic Opposition, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SeraphWiki (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, HypnoSynthesis. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donald Robertson (writer) (April 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Triptothecottage was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Donald Robertson (writer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Donald Robertson (writer), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Triptothecottage (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HypnoSynthesis! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Triptothecottage (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donald Robertson (writer) (April 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by I dream of horses was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Everything from the seventh source down is unreliable/primary in nature (User-generated content, etc.), leaving a large portion of the draft not very well sourced at all.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Donald Robertson (writer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Donald Robertson (writer), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donald Robertson (writer) (March 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Donald Robertson (writer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Donald Robertson (writer), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Donald Robertson (writer) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Donald Robertson (writer). Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Donald Robertson (psychotherapist) has been accepted

Donald Robertson (psychotherapist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article, or a draft for a Wikipedia article, about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article's talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

You have an obvious conflict of interest, please don't write about yourself, your friends or relatives and read the guidance below:

When you write about a person, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.

Let's look at the sources. Even at a quick glance, seven are his own books, and four are interviews with him, clearly not independent third-party sources. We don't want to know what he says about himself, and it's difficult to see how referencing his own books can establish anything other than that he wrote them. Several other refs on closer examination also turn out to be quoting him, or just reviewing his books. Any notability doesn't depend on what people think of his books, see the criteria.
Even if we ignore the lack of proper sources, it's not clear that he meets the notability criteria we need. He's written some books and done some research, neither of those establish notability for academics.

You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews. You say that you couldn't see any spamlinks. Try this, we have a price and BUY THIS BOOK. Since his own books can't possibly be independent third-party sources, it's pretty clear that using them and reviews of them as references has little purpose other than to promote them.
There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. You must also reply to the COI request above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification. My understanding from reading the policies and discussions with other editors is that it is not prohibited for someone to post an entry about themselves on Wikipedia, although it's discouraged. So that in itself wouldn't be a legitimate reason for deletion of the page, is that correct?

Regarding the sources, another editor confirmed that there were sufficient high-quality independent sources in the article. Would the correct course of action not be for you to remove sources you considered unsuitable therefore rather than deleting the page?

In terms of notability in general, obviously I have to allow others to be the judge of that, but I'm the author of six books with three major publishers, the most recent of which was a best seller in the US and has been translated into fifteen languages. My work's been covered many times in mainstream media, e.g., by the BBC, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, etc. If that doesn't meet the criteria, fair enough, but it's not the case that there's no justification whatsoever for the page meeting Wikipedia's criteria - there were sources cited in the article that were not as you described.

What I would have suggested is that rather than delete the page you flagged up the sources and questionable, etc., and allowed other editors to comment, as there's already been quite a lot of input from at least one other editor on the page and he confirmed that it met Wikipedia's criteria. So why not state your objections to his rationale, for example, and allow him and others to reply rather than just deleting the page? Thanks. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's only by chance I came back to this page, if you want me to know that you have replied here, start the message with my username,

Jimfbleak and sign it in the same edit.

Writing about your self is discouraged, but not banned, as you correctly state, but you must be transparent and put on your user page that you have a conflict of interest when writing on this topic. Concealing a COI is not permitted.

I believe Kvng made an error in accepting this draft, not least because biographies must have independent third party sources, I've pinged so they know and can comment if they wish.

So many of your refs were not independent third-party sources, or were reviews, that there would have been nothing intelligible left if I'd removed the refs and the text they claimed to support.

I've not said that you are not notable, but to establish that we need proper sources, not what you say about yourself. I deleted the article because it seems to have little purpose other that to promote your books. Why do we have links to reviews of your books? The article is about you, not them, and, even for books, notability depends on factors other than what people think of them. As I said, some of the pages were pretty promotional as well. Why didn't you just put a list of your books in a Publications section, as we do for other authors (see Emma Louisa Turner for example)?

You talk about discussion but the speedy deletion nominator, experienced admin RoySmith felt that it was blatant enough to merit immediate deletion, and so do I.

To take another example, the DEFRA document confirms that you were a co-author of the paper, but we also have a link to the paper itself, which doesn't confirm that and is a primary source that shouldn't be used anyway. What we don't have is a genuinely independent document, without you as an author, telling us why that report matters and why it helps make you notable.

You have to realise that if you write about yourself, you must get it right; proper sources, no links to your own books and the like. You can, of course, try again if you wish. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak, what article are we talking about? ~Kvng (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, Donald Robertson (psychotherapist), which started out as Draft:Donald Robertson (writer). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak Well, for what it's worth, I only created this page in the first place because a bunch of people had asked me why there wasn't already one and suggested there should be. And quite a lot of work went into vetting the sources already so it would be a shame just to delete it without discussion. Otherwise, though, it's not a big deal. I certainly never intended it to promote my books. (Again, for what it's worth, it would not actually benefit me in any significant way to do that - I'd probably only sell a handful more copies!) In any case, rather than speculate about my motivation, I think it would be best to focus on the more objective question of whether or not the evidence meets Wikipedia's criteria. My understanding is, also, that the Wikipedia policies do not prohibit the use of book reviews in reputable sources (e.g., Wall Street Journal) to establish notability - is that not correct, though? The reason for citing the book reviews was that some of them contained independent third-party information from credible sources about my life and career. Likewise, are all interviews considered unreliable? My understanding was that if an interview was published in a credible newspaper or magazine, such as Forbes or the Globe and Mail, that it was potentially considered a credible source for the purposes of Wikipedia - is that not correct? HypnoSynthesis (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HypnoSynthesis, Interviews are problematic, WP:Interviews explains why. Forbes is a complicated case; articles written by Forbes staff are generally considered to be WP:RS, but articles under the "contributed" banner are not. See WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To give another example of why I think this might arguably have been a bit of an over-zealous deletion, I think you cited Publisher's Weekly as being a spam site but it's actually one of the best-known trade magazines for the publishing industry, and regarded very highly as a publication. HypnoSynthesis (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted under WP:G11 because Jimfbleak judged it to be unambiguous and exclusively promotional. I would not have accepted it if I thought that was the case. It is possible I made a mistake. Since the content is now deleted, I am unable to reassess. ~Kvng (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss the point with PW, I'm not criticising it as a reliable source if used appropriately, the problem here was that you shouldn't be be using it at all. Books don't need references, and your notability doesn't depend on what people think of your books per se, so to link to a site containing a positive review, the price, and BUY THIS BOOK, even if not intentional spam, is inadvisable. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Stoicism

Your matter has now been addressed. 182.239.146.18 (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]