User talk:Penroseabc

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Penroseabc, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Badgernet (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Detective fiction. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Goochelaar (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Barret (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:51, 19 August 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).

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

Request reason:

I did not realize that Wikipedia's policy was to reject what seemed to me to be a useful link to a book relevant to the pages modified. Now that I know this I will behave accordingly in future - but would like to be unblocked so I can leave text amendments from time to time, where my contribution would have some value. It was, in effect, a mistake rather than a Spam attempt.

Decline reason:

No response to query below in two days. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 23 August 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

My reason for requesting an unblock remains as above, with the addition that I didn't realize (since the User Guide does not mention it) that I had to check in and reply within 2 days. So, once again, I'm sorry I inadvertently offended and that I did not check this page within 2 days (not always possible) but would ask that the decision be overturned. As to Daniel Case's query, I have no particular updates in mind but was merely seeking to clear the channel for any useful amendments I might think of in the future.

Decline reason:

Your response to "what non-spam edits you intend to make" is "I have no particular updates in mind". That doesn't give me any faith that you understand the spam policy or intend to abide by it. Smashville^talk 14:13, 24 August 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.

Please explain what non-spam edits you intend to make, and give an example if possible. Sandstein 16:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Unblock on hold|1=Anthony Bradbury|2=We seem to be going round in circles over this. I suggest that, if I knew what amendments I might make in the unspecified future, the chances are that those pre-planned updates might indeed be part of a Spam policy. I don't know what additional info I might be able to put up, because I don't have a fiendish scheme up my sleeve. I am merely trying to clear the way to make helpful changes as and when. They're NOT Spam, and I do (now) understand the spam policy. But if you're convinced otherwise I don't know how else I can persuade you to change your mind. So: last time, before we all get tired of this exchange, can I now please be unblocked?|3=Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Ok, we will give you the chance to demonstrate that you do in fact understand the policies on advertising and promotion on Wikipedia. Since you have already been blocked for it and have stated very clearly that you understand the policy, you could be re-blocked without further warnings if you violate the policy again. Welcome Back.

Request handled by: Beeblebrox (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Speedy deletion nomination of Russell James (author)

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 Russell James (author), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It appears to be a clear copyright infringement of amazon.com/Russell-James/e/B001K7TLSE. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the article. Since the material has appeared elsewhere online, special permissions have to be in place before we can accept the material here. Please see wp:donating copyright materials to learn how this is done. You might also look at our notability requirements for authors, which can be found at WP:AUTHOR. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

An article you recently created, Russell James, is not suitable as written to remain published. An article needs more information and citations from reliable, independent sources to remain in the mainspace. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline, has suitable content and thus is ready for mainspace, first place {{AfC submission|T}} atop the article, publish, then click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Silikonz💬 19:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russell James (author) (January 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Russell James (author) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Penroseabc! Having an article draft 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! Theroadislong (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russell James (author) (February 1)

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

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

nothing here to suggest that they pass WP:NWRITER?

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Russell James (author) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Russell James (author) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Russell James (author). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Penroseabc. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Russell James (author), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to drag this out but I honestly can't see what the objection to this page is. RJ is a writer of some thirty years practice, ex-chair of the Crime Writers Association etc., and as far as I can see the proposed page is little different in format and cross-references to those already in Wikipedia for other living writers. I assume I'm missing something buried in the general caveats above, and if I knew what that was I would try to make suitable changes. What should I do?

Thanks. Penroseabc (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russell James (author) (March 16)

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

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.

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Early life section is entirely unsourced. Recent source additions are mostly book listings, and not helpful in establishing notability.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Russell James (author) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Greenman (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russell James (author) (March 20)

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please remove all commercial links to purchase books, from Amazon and Barnes and Noble and note that Goodreads is not a reliable source.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Russell James (author) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russell James (author) (August 11)

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

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Russell James (author) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russell James (author) (October 23)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Qcne was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Qcne (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that our lead author is 'not sufficiently notable'. Surely an author of more than two dozen books (including four biographical dictionaries), the ex Chair of the Crime Writers Association, a member of the by-invitation-only Detection Club and a published author for the last thirty-five years is at least as 'notable' as many current authors listed in Wikipedia? Can I ask you to check with others whether that is a fair assessment?

James Havers, Prospero Books. Penroseabc (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Russell James (author)

Hello, Penroseabc. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Russell James (author), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]