User talk:Bblueberry

Ways to improve List of postmodern novels
Hi, I'm Graeme Bartlett. Bblueberry, thanks for creating List of postmodern novels!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The list should have clear inclusion criteria and sources. There only seems to be sources for two entries.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Graeme, thank you for the message. Though I created this page but the content was not from me, I copied and pasted the entire content from its previous location: Postmodern literautre on the wiki, to creat a separate page, just to make that page more clean. So I don't have any source of those content I am fraid, and I don't know who originally wrote those content in the postmodern literature page neither. Shall we just put a 'source from' or sth like that into the page? Thank you. Bblueberry (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The article The Mayfair Affair has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable unpublished book lacking in-depth, non-trivial support."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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. red dogsix (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of London Single Lady


The article London Single Lady has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Does not meet notability requirements at Notability (books). It may do in the future post-publication, at which point the article can be recreated."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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. Miyagawa (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tibet.1Page.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Tibet.1Page.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

conflict of Interest?
Considering that you have been writing exclusively only about a single author and her books, it seems reasonable to ask you whether you have any paid or unpaid conflict of interest-- See WP:COI. Perhaps you are just a fan, which is fine and need no tbe declared; but it seems to me more likely that you are either the author, the author's representative, ot the author's or publisher's press agent. Unless it is a paid COI, you need not specify just which, but you need to declare the existence of COI on the talk page of each article. If the COI is a paid COI--such as if you work for the publisher & your job involves writing these article,s, or if you are a pPR agent of any sort, yo umust declare it more specifically according to WP:PAID--you must disclose the nature of the relationship, and who it is that has paid you.

Declaring COI is not optional, particularly if it is a paid COI.

There are reasons why we do not permit undeclared paid editing, or editing with a undeclared COI. The principal one is that articles written with a COI are very likely to be promotional. And it seem to me that yours are, to the extent that they might be subject to deletion for that alone, regardless of notability, unless they get promptly fixed. In particular, an article on a work of fiction should normally not include a list of chapters; it should not go into detail about how quickly it obtained various levels of best seller status,;it should not use best seller status on Amazon at all, because we regard that as a meause of promotiona, not importance; it should nt use unsupported adjectives of praise.; it should not have images of inside pages of the book; it should not use "recomendations that amount to blurbs, because these are not actually as reliable as formal published book reviews; asnd interviews with the author are not usually considered independent sources because the author can say whatever she may care to say to promote the work..

Isuggest you clean up the articles immediately; after that, it will be time to see if the individual books are actually notable, or whether they should be combined into the article on the author. Even if they should be technically notable, it remains a preferred option to write a combination article igf there is nothing significant and encyclopedic to say.  DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The London Scene (short story column)


The article The London Scene (short story column) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "no actual notability for this short story collection"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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.  DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chinatown (2015 novel)


The article Chinatown (2015 novel) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "a novella in a collection, not a novel .no actual notability; promotional article"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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.  DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Personal Statement


A tag has been placed on Personal Statement, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the.  DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of In London (2018 novel)


The article In London (2018 novel) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "nonnotable promotionalism"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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.  DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eyes in Subway


The article Eyes in Subway has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "non notable book"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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.  DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of London Love Story


The article London Love Story has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "no notable book, only refs are amazon placements ad her own web page"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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.  DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. If you post an article it will be assessed as it stands. If you don't want that to happen, you should write it as a draft. I deleted your article because
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines for books. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the book or associated companies, 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 author or publisher claims or interviewing them. Amazon is a sales site complete with prices and isn't suitable anyway since entries are self-written. The book itself obviously isn't an independent third-party source either
 * Looking at the other entries on this page, it's clear that you either haven't read, or don't understand independent verifiable sources or notability guidelines for books. There is nothing verifiable in your text to show how the book meets those essential criteria.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
 * The plot summary is actually largely spam, eg Only after reading this novel, which is so close to reality, then you can see the real Beijing life and the truth of those celebrities under the bustling aura of the entertainment industry.
 * Half your text is just the publisher's promotional blurb for the back of the book, obviously carefully selected and edited positive reviews. In any case, wikipedia isn't a review suite, and such reviews are just spam and are irrelevant to notability.


 * the article was a copyright violation. 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. A large proportion of your text was a translation of the book's back cover, and translations of copyright text are still copyright. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial but there is no indication that the copied site allows free use, it would be astonishing if a publisher allowed free copying. 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. But in any case the copyrighted text is far too promotional to be useful for Wikipedia's purposes, so there would not be any point in your jumping through all the hoops that are required. Although short quotations can be used for illustrative purposes, mass copying for spamming is not permitted
 * I note that you write exclusively about this author. If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your book is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Requested articles for the article to be created. See also guidance for editors with conflicts of interest and writing about yourself.
 * If you are the the author or work directly or indirectly for the him or his publishers, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the person organisation you are writing about, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:    . If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

We often restore deleted text on request, but for legal reasons we don't do so for copyright violations. In any case, there was little factual content or evidence of notability in your draft, just spam. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC) for info Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Say love


The article Say love has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No sign of notability, no secondary sources, created by SPA editor with clear COI"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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. bonadea contributions talk 09:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

April 2020
As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Bblueberry, and the template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. ''

You do not seem to have addressed the conflict of interest issue at any time, despite being asked specifically about that several times (e.g. here, here, and here.

Your additions here are almost entirely inappropriate. There's a lot of undue/minor/irrelevant detail, it is written like an opinion piece, and most of it is either unsourced or sourced to the author's own blog or YouTube channel. bonadea'' contributions talk 12:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

To reply above concern, I can certainly confirm that I am not employed by any company or person for editing on wiki and have never received any payment or finaical stake by any edits I have made. If this is your concern. Regarding the reference sources, I hope you can use google transtion tool to actually read those referenced pages, to check those contents, such as the announcement of Lan Lan's death was made by the editor of Caixin.com in her blog (it's more like her column in Caixin, a Chinese news website). Or if you google her name in Chinese, you would find lots of oversea Chinese media have reported her death and the reason I chose her own blog/column as reference, is for the respect of her works written when she was alive.

For the additions you mentioned, if you think the death threats to a writer is entirely inapporpriate and undue/minor/irrelevant on her/his wiki page, that's your opinion. I would say a public release/record is the best way to prevent any possible assassination and that's why I disagree those contents are inapporpriate. End of reply.--Bblueberry (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that the references are in Chinese is not the issue – I don't think anybody has ever suggested that it was, and I know that I certainly haven't. But regardless of language, sources have to meet WP:RS and article content has to be relevant to the topic and neither promotional nor undue. In your comment above you mention one small part of the text I removed, namely the death threats; if an author receives repeated and serious death threats that are reported in secondary sources, that would be encyclopedic information, but that was not the case here. In this case, the threats were mentioned vaguely in the sentence "Meanwhile, Yilin Zhong also received death threats from China as she found someone listed her name together with Lan Lan in New York and Fang Fang in Wuhan: three female Chinese writers who are all writing about Covid-19 lives in London, New York and Wuhan" (the sentence goes on after that to talk about the other two writers). The source for the statement is this, a link to the front page of a blog kept by one of the other two people mentioned. This is not a secondary source, and it is not even specific enough to allow the reader to verify that the blog mentions this; the fact that it is not in English means that it is even more important to be very clear and specific about the source, and not leave it up to the reader to find the correct part of a website. As regards the content itself, writers – especially female writers – get threats. There are concerted attacks by groups, as well as lone fanatics, who target writers with vile harassment. That it is ubiquitous does not make it acceptable or commonplace, but just like everything else, if it is discussed in a Wikipedia article, it needs secondary sources, it needs to be reported on by people who are independent of it.


 * This applies to other details as well. Take this text, for instance: "On 6 February 2020, right after the death of Dr. Li Wenliang, one of the 'eight gentlemen' in Wuhan, Yilin Zhong posted a Weibo to have questioned Dr. Li Wenliang's death suspiciously, suspecting that he was not naturally dead but was killed by some Wuhan malfeasance officers in order to destroy evidence of their malfeasance during the Cornornavirus spreading in late December 2019 and January 2020. Her post was immediately deleted by Sina Weibo and she was forbidden to post on her Weibo account for seven days. Then she was scolded by a large number of Chinese official media, together with CNN who also suspiciously questioned about Dr. Li Wenliang's death." (added here) It is sourced by this, which mentions Zhong Yilin in passing, saying something on the lines of she lives in Britain and has commented on Chinese food hygiene and the epidemic, using drastic comparisons which does not support any part of the information about Weibo, or multiple scoldings, or anything else relevant to her. I accept that you are not employed to write about Zhong Yilin, but it does appear that you are in contact with her and so have a conflict of interest, as you have access to all these details that have no source! Thus, the guidelines around editing with a conflict of interest still apply.


 * Please note that Wikipedia articles do not really care about what an individual says about themselves, and should not be a vehicle for people's own writings or opinions – the expression "her/his wiki page" indicates that you might think that the Wikipedia article Yilin Zhong belongs to her or should be controlled by her. That is not the case. We all have plenty of outlets for our own writing, and that applies to Zhong Yilin as well – Wikipedia's purpose is to summarise (without analysing) what other people write about her in reliable sources, not in blogs or discussion forums. There is no reason to believe that any of the details about broadband access etc is not true. That is not the issue. The issue is that it is not encyclopedic information, and that it is not discussed by independent sources – only by herself and people connected to herself. In some instances, the links even say things like "I will show a picture here and if you don't understand what it means, ask your friends" – that is not a source for any kind of encyclopedic information. I apologise for being long-winded, but hope that this makes sense. --bonadea contributions talk 14:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

To reply: Firstly thank you for writing those detailed wiki guidance (which obviously I had no idea about) above to let me understand your points, and only for replying your message now I have to log in to respond your message otherwise it seems inapporpriate or impolite.

For your major concerns, that 'you have access to all these details that have no source!', and 'There are concerted attacks by groups, as well as lone fanatics, who target writers with vile harassment...it needs secondary sources, it needs to be reported on by people who are independent of it.' I have to tell you the reason I was unable to provide those public sources or secondary sources, was because it's far too many to be quoted: it's not hundreds, but thousands. I don't know if you use Weibo.com or Weibo app, which is the largest Chinese social media in China, something like the combination of Twitter and Facebook(both are banned in China), where Yilin Zhong's account was already banned and closed for her article on reasoning the death of Dr. Li Wenliang Dr.Li's death she posted on 14th Feb 2020. Even so, if you now search her Chinese name 钟宜霖 on weibo.com, then this is what you will see: weibo search which is exactly the public source or secondary source you wanted to see, that you can see there are thousands of posts ALL scolding her in any kinds of way (while no single post saying she is good); more, if you look into those massive comments under each post, there are hundreds of threats match 'concerted attacks by groups, as well as lone fanatics, who target writers with vile harassment', many are death threats such as 'is she alive now?', 'why I want to beat her after seeing this','I want to drown her to death','why is she still alive?','I hope she catch the virus', 'she will die badly', etc.. Such as this weibo post, its content has only three words: 'cheap or not?', but it was re-posted 604 times with 653 comments, all scolding, plus 4521 likes, and this Dr.li rubbish was posted by a famous government paid user with 6.28million followers, scolding Zhong is a 'rubbish', received 757 comments and 4103 likes; or see 8th photo, 4878 re-posted and 1519 comments. Those posts and comments are all public and can be viewed by anyone using Weibo.

So was the news link you mentioned with CNN. The problem is, google translator can only translate the websie words, but it couldn't translate the words in photos, so it's hard to explain why that article was criticising Yilin Zhong by her comment on Chinese food hygiene and the epidemic, however the cached photos are showing her comments on Dr.Li's death. But if you can read the title of this article, you would understand what the author was trying to address, on all those news agents and persons he mentioned and listed in the content.

Again thank you very much for writing those guidance to help but I really don't think I could - or I realize in fact I don't know how to write those information in wiki. So I was about to close this account and leave for peace. As I said I am not professional on this, so it was me inapporpriate with wiki editing method, not the content I tried to add, with appology. If possible, may I ask you or anyone who can help on this please, to write them in the right way. Clearly I had no idea about those terms and won't be qualified to do so, so please correct anything which I put in wrong way. Thank you or anyone for your help in advance. Bye for now. Bblueberry (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)