User talk:Transcendentalist01

newcomer

Hi,

I am totally new as a potential contributor to Wikipedia. I would like to help out, but I'm not sure where to begin.

Transcendentalist01 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction and User:SuggestBot. —Tamfang (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Transcendentalist01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Transcendentalist01/sandbox (February 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. 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, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Transcendentalist01/sandbox.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about this nonsense, it's generated automatically. Just click here and then go to "edit" and it will work. Richard75 (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS- did you request that that article be reviewed, or did the review message appear by itself? You don't have to request permission to create an article in your own userspace until it's finished. Richard75 (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Anomaly (novel)

The article Anomaly (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable book, no serious critical attention.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheLongTone (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my reply on this article's talk page, all content on Wikipedia needs to be referenced in some way to a reliable source. If you are going to say something about a work of fiction, it will therefore have to have been written about, and by a reliable third-party source. (Articles on works of fiction also need to consist of more than a plot summary, which is only there to make any exegesis make more sense). Sorry to put up yout first article for deletion, but it's probably best to get used to editing wikipedia by expanding existing articles in your area of interest.TheLongTone (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshed out article

Hey, I went in and turned the page into an entry about the series as a whole. In any case, LongTone is right in that we have to have notability established via reliable sources. Existing just isn't enough to show notability via Wikipedia. I'd love it if we could have an entry on every book published through a major publisher, but we had to become more selective over the years due to various issues and backstory that I won't bore you with.

Long story short, notability for books is usually established through coverage in reliable sources. In the case of Anomaly, I found several reviews in various places such as USA Today. There are a lot of trade reviews, but a word of warning over those: technically they still can be used to show notability but they're so brief that there has been some contention over whether or not they should continue to be used as a notability giving source. There are a lot of arguments over that, but if you're interested in knowing the full backstory then let me know. If you're interested in editing a lot of book related articles then it's good to know what the arguments are. Luckily I also found coverage in the Christian Post and Crosswalk, which helped a lot. Unfortunately the problem with Christian fiction books is that coverage for them is extremely limited, as not a lot of places will cover them for various reasons. (Not interested, they don't have a reviewer who is familiar with the genre, outside of their usual reading sphere, etc.) There are Christian themed publications, but many of them aren't considered reliable sources for various reasons. Unless they're incredibly well known ala William P. Young or Dekker, most will fly solidly under the radar of the mainstream press.

I made the entry about the series as opposed to the individual book because ultimately the two other books in the series don't look to have received as much coverage as the first book. The first book kind of had issues with coverage as well, so making it about the series allowed me to pool all of the coverage together. It's the whole "sticks in a bundle are stronger than the stick by itself" argument in a nutshell. Plus this will make it easier for us to add more information about books 2 and 3, which would have been limited if we kept it for the one entry. Not scolding you or anything- I'm pretty much just explaining why I did this, as this is a way to salvage articles about books that are part of an ongoing or limited series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendentalist01, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Transcendentalist01! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks but ...

You don't really need to announce on the Talk page every time you add something to an article; that's what the History page, and a well-written edit summary, are for. But when you do write on a Talk page, please use the New section button so that your note doesn't look like a weirdly irrelevant contribution to whatever conversation happens, at the time, to be last on the page. —Tamfang (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I do explain on the Talk page when my change is drastic, or the reason for it cannot be made clear in one sentence (the edit summary). —Tamfang (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tip about links

Hey, thanks for the work you've been doing fixing links on List of science fiction novels. I just thought I'd let you know about a helpful aspect of link syntax—when you want to link to, say, Rocket Jockey (novel), you can use the syntax "[[Rocket Jockey (novel)|Rocket Jockey]]" so that the link will look like "Rocket Jockey" but when someone clicks on it, it will lead them to the correct page. See Wikipedia:Piped link for more information. Cheers! —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hi. I see you're a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia. It looks like you're doing some good work in our coverage of SF, for which "thank you". You've now been an editor for more than one month, and have made more than 200 edits. Did you know that you are now entitled to display the service badge of a Novice Editor? Keep up the good work! RomanSpa (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC The Night Tourist was accepted

The Night Tourist, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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!

Gigs (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article and the article on Marsh still require some improvements. Your continued support of these articles would be appreciated. Gigs (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 19 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Kre-O page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2015 (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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]