User talk:LuvToRead3

Welcome!

Hello, LuvToRead3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as A CINCINNATI PRIVATE EYE PROTECTING PRINCESS DI: A Fascinating Footnote In History, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of A CINCINNATI PRIVATE EYE PROTECTING PRINCESS DI: A Fascinating Footnote In History

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on A CINCINNATI PRIVATE EYE PROTECTING PRINCESS DI: A Fascinating Footnote In History, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is fine. The book or story itself is the proof. Many want the article deleted because a google search did not reveal a boatload of data on the topic. I feel as if that is small minded. There likely would not be much on a google search because we are talking about 7 confidential days in the lives of two people in 1993. Thanks to everyone for your input. LuvToRead3 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at A CINCINNATI PRIVATE EYE PROTECTING PRINCESS DI: A Fascinating Footnote In History

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from A CINCINNATI PRIVATE EYE PROTECTING PRINCESS DI: A Fascinating Footnote In History, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==I would like for the article and title to be deleted. I purposfully agreed with the speedy deletion; it was not a mistake on my part to ask for it to be deleted. If anyone knows how to completely delete the title or template from the SEARCH ENGINE could you please do it for me. I'm in way over my head. Thank you. You folks are really sweet. LuvToRead3 (talk) LuvToRead3 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==I think the article is fine. The book or story itself is the proof. Many want the article deleted because a google search did not reveal a boatload of data on the topic. I feel as if that is small minded. There likely would not be much on a google search because we are talking about 7 confidential days in the lives of two people in 1993. Thanks to everyone for your input. LuvToRead3 (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:BestCoverFront.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:BestCoverFront.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The author has given permission and the publisher, authorhouse.com, has given permission. Thank you. LuvToRead3 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi. I can't help with your notability issues, but could straighten out your Reference tags for you in your book article. I've been waiting for you to pause so I can step in. :) - Dave Crosby (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance! LuvToRead3 (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from A Cincinnati Private Eye Protecting Princess Di: A Fascinating Footnote In History. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. 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. Beloved Freak 16:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Thank you. It was not my intention to attempt to remove the article. Quite the opposite; I would like the article to stay.

LuvToRead3 (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, I just wanted to point out our guideline on editing with a conflict of interest. Although it's not forbidden to edit articles on subjects you are connected to, it's generally discouraged. Writing about your own book is not the ideal situation. Now that the article has been created, it's fine for you to try and improve it and participate in the discussion of it (especially as you're trying to keep it from being deleted) but it might be a good idea to familiarise yourself with that guideline anyway. --Beloved Freak 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==I think the article is fine. There is no conflict of interest as this book is simply a footnote in history; we are talking about 7 confidential days in the lives of two people in 1993. The book or story itself is the proof. Many want the article deleted because a google search did not reveal a boatload of data on the topic. I feel as if that is small minded. Many things in life have occurred that will not pop up on a google search. Thanks to everyone for your input. == LuvToRead3 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is fine. There is no conflict of interest as this book is simply a footnote in history; we are talking about 7 days in the lives of two people in 1993. The book or story itself is the proof. Many want the article deleted because a google search did not reveal a boatload of data on the topic. I feel as if that is small minded. Many things in life have occurred that will not pop up on a google search. Thanks to everyone for your input. LuvToRead3 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of A Cincinnati Private Eye Protecting Princess Di: A Fascinating Footnote In History for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Cincinnati Private Eye Protecting Princess Di: A Fascinating Footnote In History 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/A Cincinnati Private Eye Protecting Princess Di: A Fascinating Footnote In History 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Beloved Freak 13:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has been improved, per all the rules, and should not be deleted. Thank you. LuvToRead3 (talk)

I understand that you want the article to be kept, but you are missing the points that are being made at the deletion discussion. (It's also not hugely helpful to call eveyone else participating "small minded".) As I said on the article talkpage, we are not using google results to determine that the article should be deleted, but you haven't provided anything else in the article that says why it meets our notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (books). As far as we can tell from the article, your book hasn't won a major literary award, it hasn't been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works (I'm referring to the book, not Princess Diana herself). The article hasn't been improved "per all the rules", in fact no changes have been made to it since the deletion discussion started. I'm sorry that this isn't working out the way you want it to but the fact is that as an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia isn't just a list of everything that exists. I haven't read your book, so I'm in no way passing judgement on it. It may be very good and may turn out to be considered an important work, but until we have evidence of that in secondary sources, there's nothing to suggest it meets our notability guidelines for inclusion. If you don't like those guidelines, you are welcome to suggest changes at the relevant talkpages (eg. Wikipedia talk:Notability, although I must warn you that they have been developed over many years and are unlikely to change overnight in your favour. I am adding this here because of your multiple replies here today, but if you have further comments to add about why the article should be kept, I'd recommend doing so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Cincinnati Private Eye Protecting Princess Di: A Fascinating Footnote In History, as that is the formal deletion discussion. --Beloved Freak 15:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BestCoverFront.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BestCoverFront.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding references to that book

There's no indication that the book you are trying to add to the Diana, Princess of Wales article is notable. On the contrary, an article about it has been deleted through AfD. Favonian (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not adding any "references" to "that book." What book was I adding references to?? Please explain.

I was adding a book for "further reading" regarding Princess Diana. It is a very positive book about her. The only reason the book article was deleted through Wikipedia is because it was a brand new book and I did a poor job of understanding each rule for adding it to Wikipedia. Being deleted through wikipedia does not make an article irrelevant. The book is becoming very notable in the Cincinnati, Ohio USA area. LuvToRead3 (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be notable in Cincinnati, but you have in no way demonstrated the relevance to the article on Diana. Further attempts to add this book may lead to your account being temporarily blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Favonian, I need your help. I don't know how to demonstrate the relevance of the article on Diana. I've read all the tips and suggestions on Wikipedia regarding this topic but nothing explains how to demonstate relevance for "futher reading". I've read the list of "futher reading" material on that site but I don't see any die-hard proof of relevance for most. Could you please help me. I think I just need your assistance. What may I provide to you to deem the "further reading" listing worthy? The book is nothing but favorable to Diana. The book is in public libraries, in newspaper articles (locally), available in every bookstore. What is different about this "further reading" item versus most of the others on the list? Favonian, could you please assist me? I need help. Thanks, LuvToRead3 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of A CINCINNATI PRIVATE EYE PROTECTING PRINCESS DI: A Fascinating Footnote In History

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on A CINCINNATI PRIVATE EYE PROTECTING PRINCESS DI: A Fascinating Footnote In History, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Yoenit (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]