User talk:RichM90071

Welcome

Hello, RichM90071, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! NeoFreak 00:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Notability concerns

I'm glad to see you are interested in improving the material on Wikipedia! Alot of editors want to focus only on adding new material and in turn neglect the material we already have. Concerning those two artilces, some of the best ways to look for third party attibution is to check the various conventions that cater to those particular mediums and the artists that frequent them. I would also suggest that you look into raw nubers you can get for sales and the like, sales can go a long way to establishing notability. Your best bet is to look in the traditional sources of media. Local papers will often archive stories on local artists on the net. The artists or fan pages will of provide links to independant review or coverage of a subject as well. I will be the first to admit that the anthropomorphic genre isn't really my scene. I'm no expert but there are a variety of editors with not only vast experiance but also a great enthusiasim for this area. I would recommend Serpent's Choice, GreenReaper and Conti. They are all experianced and friendly editors that I hold in high regard (Conti is also an admin) and I have no doubt that they would respond to a request for anthropomorphic info. If you have any other questions that you think I can help you out with such as interpretation of the notability rules, please don't hesitate to ask! I hope this was of some help. NeoFreak 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi there; I see that you are asking to be adopted, though it is clear that you have already worked out many of the basic steps in Wiki participation. I am a user of one yesr's experience, which in today's techno-rapid world is quite a lot. If you would like me to adopt you I am more than happy to do so; check out my user-page and let me know.--Anthony.bradbury 12:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted your userbox, and you now show as an adoptee. Ask me anything. If I don't know the answer, I will know a man who does.--Anthony.bradbury 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi there; you have unerringly selected one of the really hot potatoes within wikipedia; how to assess or define notability. There is no consensus, though you way like to read through, and if you wish contribute to, the current debate in WP:PUMP (policy section). Essentially, while some topics (e.g. my cat is called Spike) are obviously not notable, and some (e.g. George W Bush) clearly are, there is a middle ground which is not always clear. And this is at the mercy of the subjective assessment of the editing community. There is NO authoritative source from which you can derive definitive on this.--Anthony.bradbury 12:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can, of course, study WP:NN, but this is more a guideline than a definitive source, and still leaves the decision as a subjective one on the part of the author.--Anthony.bradbury 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Samurai Cat

Hi there. Hmm, finding good sources that document the notability of a character is often much harder than finding good sources for the books that feature the character, so it might be worth thinking about creating an article about the series of books instead of having the article about the main character of said series. The content would largely be the same, but I think it would be easier to find useable sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (books) for our guideline on when a book (or series of books) can be considered notable per our standards. Now for finding the actual sources, there are a few useful websites out there. One is the Google news archive search, which searches through years of newspaper articles. Another usually useful site is Google scholar, although I doubt it will produce any useful results in this case. It would also be "helpful" if the books have won any kind of award, of course. --Conti|✉ 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi there; as you have not felt the need to seek help at all, I shall remove your adoption userbox tonorrow unless you ask me not to. Happy wikying.--Anthony.bradbury 23:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]