User talk:Booksellergirl

Retitling the category
I renamed the category to Category:Speculative fiction writers of color, in accordance with the naming conventions for categories in Wikipedia. Since I know and love so many of these folks (I came to tears last October at an SF convention when I thought I saw Octavia out of the corner of my eye, and then realized I couldn't have), I went ahead and moved everybody around so you wouldn't have to. I'll try to remember some more folks to add to the cat; thanks for creating it. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC) (booksellerguy)
 * You remembered Mary Anne before I did! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

SF writers of color
It seems this category is just a catchall for African-American, American Indian, Asian, Caribbean, etc. authors. I would suggest it needs better definition if it is to be a useful category.Shsilver (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to update the definition. It still may need some tweaking. -Booksellergirl (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How to Handle Black SciFi
I've decide to leave the definition alone. Let someone else handle. Call me a quitter but it's really hard :o)


 * There's been a lot of thought, but little progress, in defining speculative fiction. One of the issues I'm bumping into with Wikipedia is that it needs to be based on reliable WP:PSTS secondary sources. There seem to be no references available to a lay person that would qualify as a secondary source to help in writing the definition of something like speculative fiction or Black science fiction. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Other Writers of color who write speculative fiction
Not quite sure how to handle these writers since they do not exusively write speculative fiction.


 * Phyllis Alesia Perry
 * Toni Morrison
 * Gloria Naylor
 * Jewelle Gomez
 * Charles Johnson
 * Toni Cade Bambara
 * Maryse Conde

Just because Morrison writes mainstream novels, doesn't make her cease to be a writer of SF! Add them all; some folks are in a dozen categories or more. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Category renaming
For starters, purge "scifi" from your vocabulary; many SF people consider it pejorative. Next: I am not aware of any way to move a category the way you move an article. You will need to create the new categories, as proposed (omitting the problematic word "novel" in favor of "writing"). Then for each member of each category, you have to hand-trim the old cat and paste in the new one. It's not that hard; it's just a nuisance. I would suggest that in the definition page of the new categories you clarify that you are using science fiction in the broader, spec-fic sense of the term, not the narrow "talking squids in space" sense that excludes so much of the canon. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delighted I could help. Have you considered coming to WisCon? It's the single place where you're most likely to meet the people in this category, and many others you haven't heard of yet. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm a Southern (by upraising) white boy; how could I be clueless about color and race? Smart fish know about water. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Speculative Fiction by Writers of Color
Are you aware of the new page Speculative Fiction by Writers of Color? This may work better than the categories as I see that Category:Science fiction writers of color is up for deletion.

I'm personally on the fence on if Category:Science fiction writers of color should be retained. While I like the list the Wikipedia does not seem to be an appropriate place for constructing it as authors tend to be known by their name or pseudonym and not by their gender, race, or other characteristics. Thus an author's genre may be notable but not their race.

Are you familiar with the Internet Speculative Fiction Database? It's has both a wiki and database with the wiki standards for inclusion being far more open than Wikipedia's. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like you to consider these words
Hi. On the speculative fiction nomination, you said, "Many of you are very sorry excuses for human beings." I'd like you to know a little bit about me, and maybe take a moment to consider that statement. Before I moved to Seattle in the 1990s, I was one of Chicago's leading journalists on the subject of discrimination. I wrote the City of Chicago's first report on hate crimes. I wrote about gangs and redlining and the Holocaust and the challenges of public education below the poverty line. I know something about the subject of race. And you've dismissed me as a sorry excuse for a human being because I argued that certain books shouldn't be grouped together on the basis of an adjective collecting people who have no common racial background. I'm wondering why you think that kind of blanket statement is called for, when you knew very little about the people whom you were criticizing. Can you explain this to me?--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When you've become the subject of a hate crime, talk to me. I have. Some very serious, some minor. I know racism when I see it. -- Booksellergirl (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt you have very personal experiences that influence your outlook. But do you think that gives you license to make blanket inflammatory statements about people you don't know? That doesn't seem okay to me. That just sounds like hate.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

He's got a point. EraserGirl (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Booksellergirl - please do not despair even if the category gets deleted. There are many wiki-editors with an interest in science fiction and race issues that support what you are doing. All of us, even sorry excuses for human beings, are working to improve the Wikipedia. What gets interesting is we are doing this together. Sometimes I'll bump into someone whose apparently mindset is so at odds with the way I think that I can only conclude that one of us is nuts.  I take a deep breath, read-read, think, and sometimes it's taken me decades, if ever, to understand what some of the root causes of the misunderstanding or conflict are. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is the discussion that is important, results are always slow in coming. Perhaps WP is not conducive to subjective topics, and ensuring that the articles in the topic are complete and extensive is all that can be agreed upon. EraserGirl (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Former" Wikipedian?
I'm heartbroken. It's just the voices like yours that we need around here the most. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've taken out the "former Wikipedian" -- for you. I must admit that I'm just not sure what I can contribute here, though. The stuff that I would like to contribute would all dust up a fight and I'm not sure that I want that right now. This should be a fun diversion not a place where I have to play Rosa Parks every other week. Maybe I'll do some stuff later. For right now I think that I'll work on other projects that will leave me with a feeling of satisfaction instead of dispare. --Booksellergirl (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know how you feel, everytime I pop my head up and try to get the Screenwriters Project organized and moving, I get frustrated and disappointed, so I curtail my work to the thing that DOES give me satisfaction, writing individual articles. Perhaps you can find the same small pleasures in doing the detail work and maybe worry about classifications later. I am sure there are many many Science Fiction writers of color who need their articles written and expanded. That is definitely somewhere you could do great things. EraserGirl (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on your idea of "fun"! Some folks like doing New Page Patrol, or specialize in critiquing Articles for Discussion, or monitor the Help Desk, or just click "Random article" in search of articles that need tidying up. Each has its value. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wild Seed.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Wild Seed.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Geoff Wisner


The article Geoff Wisner has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. BostonMensa (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)