User talk:Chris at msco

I've added the "prod" template to the article Mark_Stevens_%28writer%29, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Mark_Stevens_%28writer%29. If you remove the dated prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Djcapelis 21:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AOC07-Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AOC07-Cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The age of conversation
A tag has been placed on The age of conversation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of The age of conversation and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Rnb (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:Age of Conversation Book Page Deletion
Yes you may rework the article, but in userspace. I took the liberty of recreating and moving it to this subpage for you: User:Chris at msco/The age of conversation. You may want to look up some of Wikipedia's policies such as WP:NPOV and a guide to writing your first article (see also this Wikiproject's guidelines that could help for book related articles) as you are developing it. When you feel it has shaped up more appropriately leave another message and I'll take a look at it.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article still needs alot of work. The lead is definitely improved but that is pretty much the only thing that constitutes the body of the article.  Try to get it closer to WP:STUB quality and include much more content.  Also, remove the section with the long list attributing authors.  Authors of a book should be placed in the gray infobox.  The description of the infobox: "100 of the world's leading marketers, writers, thinkers and creative innovators" isn't exactly neutral either.  Amazon.com seems to state two main authors: link.  Listing their names in the infobox would be more appropriate.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk)  21:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is starting to get closer. The last tweaks need to be made on the way its written.  For example, you used incorrect wiki-markup.  If you want to link to a Wikipedia article simply enclose the word with two brackets like this:  Article  produces Article.  Also, use appropriate header coding for the references and external link sections by enclosing the header with two equal signs like this:  ==Header==  produces a level 1 header.  You also accidentally inserted what appears to be | symbols after the links which broke them.  Lastly, you cannot insert an article credit to yourself, remove your signature and attribution at the bottom.  Once those problems are corrected, I'll move it to article space with a  and  tag on it.  Cheers,¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk)  22:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrighty...moved and taken care of. Now get to work ;).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk)  00:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Back at-cha! I've added the Table of Contents and a couple of other refinements, fixed broken links etc. Is it now worthy of full Article status instead of Stub-hood? ckieff (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Its going to take lots more work before it really is a full-fledged article. Chris I recommend you look at Wikipedia's Manuel of Style and the links I provided you earlier.  You would know that including a table of contents of a book is inappropriate if you had.  However, I understand you are new to Wikipedia and I'm glad you are doing a relatively good job for a beginner.  Try looking at Wikipedia's featured content to understand what Wikipedia articles should aspire to.  For example, The World Without Us article should give you a good idea for the layout of an article regarding a book.  That of course is the exemplary form of a book article but it gives you a few bases to work off of.  It includes:


 * 1) A brief lead (introduction) to the book, its writers, and its accolades.
 * 2) A book synopsis.
 * 3) Information about its publication.
 * 4) A balanced analysis regarding its reception (it abides by neutral point of view).
 * 5) Noteworthy citations and sources.
 * Those are the main criteria that you should incorporate in your article. If you follow that model, you are well on your way to leaving stubhood.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk)  22:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I see what seems to be the biggest problem with the article. I neglected to look at your external references and didn't realize most of them are blogs, I apologize for this.  There needs to be citations/external links to non-blog sites about this book.  I am not talking about Amazon.com or a bookseller or more blogs, but an actual noteworthy non-blog like site that analyzed this book.  See if you can clean up the language a bit more so that it has more of an encyclopedic tone.  Take out the table of contents you placed there as I mentioned to you before.  After these fixes, leave a message DGG's user talk page and ask their opinion of the article.  I rather not attempt to argue against its deletion myself because it would be inappropriate seeing as I have previously moved it from your userspace to article space and I respect DGG's opinions.  Feel free to contact me if you have any more questions.¤~Persian Poet Gal</i> <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship/Protege
I'm not really aloud to take you on as a mentor right now, maybe 2-12 months because of my recent block. You may check over the block at user talk:Nothing444/Archive2. I am not aloud to take you on as a protege, but if you really want, I'll check with more administrators if I can. But for now, you get your own personal help desk. Thank you for supporting my now-dead program. I appreciate it. . P.S. You should get a status changer at User:Misza13/Scripts  Not hing 4 44  12:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Marksbook.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Marksbook.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Kelly hi! 21:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AOC07-Cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AOC07-Cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mark Stevens (writer)


The article Mark Stevens (writer) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Notability not apparent and article written with unencyclopedic tone."

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. TeaDrinker (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Mark Stevens (writer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Stevens (writer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mark Stevens (writer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TeaDrinker (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)