User talk:Daniel ackerman

January 2014
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. LiquidIce (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Failing Man, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. LiquidIce (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

what the fuck are you talking about, liquid ice?

and where are my pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel ackerman (talk • contribs)


 * The page has been deleted by a Wikipedia administrator, not myself. The page you created served no purpose other than to attack its subject, so it was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy. LiquidIce (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

attack what subject? i'm very proud of the novel i wrote. you are the ones attacking it.
 * The book does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, so it will probably be deleted anyway. ... disco spinster   talk  04:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

notability? it is a real book. paperback, copyrighted, isbn... what more does it need to be notable?

evidence of notability? like what? a pulitzer? gimmie a break.


 * To be specific, the criteria used to determine whether a book is notable are listed at WP:Notability (books). LiquidIce (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

are you guys jealous that you can't write a novel. i have written 15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel ackerman (talk • contribs)


 * When I originally tagged the page, I couldn't tell that it was a summary of a book you wrote. As Discospinster mentioned, though, the page is likely to be deleted anyway. You may want to read Wikipedia's guidelines about editing with a conflict of interest. LiquidIce (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

it says in first word: novel. as in book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel ackerman (talk • contribs)


 * That really doesn't change anything. You need to provide evidence of notability.  Protoss  Pylon  04:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Failing Man


The article Failing Man has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not meet criteria of WP:NBOOK.

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 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 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. ... disco spinster   talk  04:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

it is as notable as any other paperback book out there.


 * Then why have you not provided links to where reliable sources have written about the book? The notable books that have Wikipedia articles have secondary sources cited in the articles. I've yet to see any evidence of a published review or other commentary about this book. —C.Fred (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I did! fellow, and more established author, Molly Cochran's review was on the page. you want a link? coming right up! https://www.facebook.com/daniacbooks/posts/126576244063548

look, i'm just trying to share an accomplishment and quality work of fiction and you guys are ganging on me and beating me up. what is up with you guys? nobody home because i proved my point.

Nomination of Failing Man for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Failing Man 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/Failing Man 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. ... disco spinster   talk  04:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Failing Man with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.  Josh3580 talk/hist 04:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

i did not remove content, you guys did. i kept putting it back with more.

Notability of books
I thought I'd explain a little more about why the book failed notability guidelines. The reason is that the book has received no coverage in what Wikipedia would consider reliable sources (WP:RS). A reliable source would be something along the lines of a news article about the book in a reputable newspaper like the New York Times or a reputable website such as the Library Journal or the like. Without coverage, a book does not pass notability guidelines. Every subject on Wikipedia absolutely must have coverage to assert notability regardless of what it is about- it's not just books that require coverage. The thing is, existence is not notability. (WP:ITEXISTS) It's always admirable when someone can work hard enough to put a book together, but that feat does not in and of itself mean that the book passes notability guidelines. While it'd be nice for us to be able to have an article on every book ever written, regardless of whether it was self-published, never published, or published through one of the bigger publishers, we can't and won't do that. A book has to pass WP:NBOOK to merit an article and I'll be honest: not even all of the mainstream books merit articles as we've had articles for New York Times Bestsellers that failed notability criteria. Please do not attempt to re-introduce your book to Wikipedia. On a secondary note, your remarks about various editors have been on the nasty side. I would really like for you to refrain from calling editors Nazis and accusing them of jealousy because they nominated your page for deletion. Not only will that NOT make people more likely to want to help you but it makes it very likely that you will get blocked for disruptive behavior. This is your last and only warning. If I see that you are trying to re-introduce the book and/or continuing to attack other editors as you have so far, I will block you for at least a period of 48 hours. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

i do not have the payola to get the NYT to cover me.

really? what is up with you people? mean much? you are ganging on me and beating me up for fun? first my page was viewed as an attack on something, not constructive, and finally not notable. you look for any excuse to bully a poor artist. i am a very established stagehand and sound engineer in milwaukee wisconsin who writes novels. i deserve the same chance as anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel ackerman (talk • contribs)


 * The wording of your original article made it sound like an attack page - that appears to have been a misconception. As for the notability: nobody is bullying you. You just seem to be deliberately ignoring Wikipedia's policies and then accuse us of doing this on purpose when we explain why. Please read WP:NBOOK, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Additionally, it's not a good idea to write an article about something you have created - this puts you in a conflict of interest, where your only purpose appears to be promoting your topic instead of furthering Wikipedia's content. If your book is as notable as you say it is, then eventually someone will write the article for you. Please don't equate having a Wikipedia article with "getting a chance" - Wikipedia is not a place to promote your work, it's a place to write about work that has already been covered by other sources - please see WP:SOAP. It's a compendium of available information. Without notability/verifiability policies, anyone would be able to post whatever garbage they wanted. It's how we keep content in check.  Protoss  Pylon  05:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

notability is subjective. the bible is popular as hell, but a poorly written book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel ackerman (talk • contribs)


 * The quality of content is not the same as notability. Again, please read WP:NBOOK.  Protoss  Pylon  05:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Arguably, the Bible is one of the most notable books, because of the volume of material that has been written about it in journals, scholarly works, and other reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that - I'm dispelling his apparent claim that a book's notability is somehow related to its quality.  Protoss  Pylon  05:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to second what Fred says- the Bible has had so much coverage in various sources that I don't think you could walk into any given library or bookstore without having one of the books mention the text by name in some form or fashion. The problem here isn't about how good your book is or isn't, but about whether or not it has received coverage. It has not. The other thing I should mention is that popularity doesn't equate to notability. The Bible's popularity makes it more likely it'll receive coverage, but the popularity of something does not automatically mean notability. (WP:POPULARITY) When it comes to quality, quality does not mean something is or isn't notable. I can point you to the articles for various notable reality stars that have little to no actual talent for anything other than being famous. They might not be considered high class, but they do pass notability guidelines. Now as far as bullying goes, nobody is trying to bully you and I'm sorry that you're seeing it as such. All we're doing is holding your entry to the same rules and standards that we'd hold any other Wikipedia subject to. Let me put it to you this way: when you do a job you're expected to do things a certain way, right? You can't just walk out on stage in the middle of a performance to fix something and they expect that if you were to apply for the job that you would fit the requirements/needs of the position. Someone who doesn't fit the needs would almost certainly be turned down, as would someone who didn't perform their job correctly. That's somewhat the same thing here: when you write an article you are obligated to show that the book passes Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Not yours, not mine, but Wikipedia's guidelines. If the article doesn't pass notability guidelines then it should be nominated for deletion and subsequently removed from Wikipedia if someone cannot show that the subject passes our very strict guidelines. I'm sorry that your feelings are hurt, but the book doesn't pass notability guidelines. The only thing I can recommend is that you go out there and try to get attention for your work in other ways that don't involve writing about it on Wikipedia until it passes the site's guidelines for notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just another quick note: when I asked that you not re-add content about the book to Wikipedia, I also meant that you should not re-add information and arguments to the article's talk page as well. I've salted the article's talk page, meaning that you cannot add information to that page either. Seriously man, the book just isn't notable. Saying that we're going to regret deleting it and other things just isn't helping your case out any. You're not going to get the article back on Wikipedia and trying to argue that you should be allowed to have immunity to all of the rules because your book is better written isn't going to work. The book doesn't pass notability guidelines and it has no place on Wikipedia at this point in time. End of story. If it does ever gain notability per Wikipedia's rules, I'll re-add it myself but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

then i wish to protest your policy regarding notability. i think your site is going about itself all wrong. you're only promoting already saturated material. to say quality means nothing and popularity is everything is so wrong. who needs to hear any more about crap like Harry Potter? you should encompass everything that exists. maybe another site will come along that will.

also, tokyo girl, FYI, if something goes wrong on stage, i am expected to go on stage in the middle of performance and fix it. and i have countless times. it's my job. (whatta poor analogy).
 * Feel free to suggest new criteria for passing notability at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books), but I will warn you that you are extremely unlikely to get them to lower the bar for notability guidelines. Again, nobody is truly saying that popularity means anything other than it makes it more likely for that subject to gain coverage. If you want, a good option is to create your own Wikia for your book as you don't have to fulfill any criteria on that website as far as notability goes. But the problem with encompassing everything that exists is that Wikipedia cannot and will not cover everything and everything out there. We're not a place for all information- we only cover what passes our notability guidelines. (Discriminate vs indiscriminate information) Plus as far as going onto stage goes, you know that there's a huge difference between going out on stage to fix something that is absolutely mandatory for the safety of everyone involved or is so negatively impacting the performance that the show cannot progress without it and someone going out there to fix something that doesn't impact the performance or impact human safety. What I'm referring to is that as an experienced stagehand you would know the difference between the two categories and wouldn't say, wander out into the middle of the stage to smooth down a piece of tape on a piece of equipment that is perfectly stable and won't impact the performance if the tape remained a little wrinkled. Big difference between going out for something imperative and something that isn't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In any case, it remains clear that you aren't here to do anything other than argue and write about your book, so I'm just going to go ahead and block you for a period of 48 hours. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

wow. are you sensitive. i'm sorry if your feelings were hurt. (smoothing out tape? that's not really what we call a problem.) thanks for finally telling me about this Wikia thing. i'll try that.

Blocked
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You can still edit the talk page, but the problem here is that you are willfully ignoring what myself and other editors are trying to get across to you. You've done nothing but insult and argue with people trying to help you while repeatedly re-creating articles and talk pages of articles that do not pass our notability guidelines. Please be aware that if you continue to be disruptive even on your talk page, the ban can become permanent and you can be blocked from editing your own talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

disruptive? i am merely challenging the narrow-mindedness of your site. if things are already so popular, why would they even need to be on wikipedia? it would be over-saturated redundancy.
 * But it is what it is and if you see selective-ness as narrow-mindedness, then I'm sorry that you see it that way. You need coverage to pass notability guidelines, which your book doesn't have. Once the block is up and you've cooled down a little, you can try to change the guidelines but I have to repeat that I think it is extremely unlikely that they will lower the guidelines for notability. Over the years the guidelines have only become more and more strict out of necessity. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

me cool down? it sounds like you're getting heated. why else would you block me? and i hear the term 'it is what it is' in my biz too. it is usually code for incompetency.

I don't deny that i am arguing with you. positive things can come from arguments. and i find it hilarious the way you are trying to condescend to me like a parent trying to scold a strong-willed child. 'now, junior. you know you can't create an article without notability. now go clean your room.' lol!

perhaps you're correct, and wikipedia is not a good site for me to use. it's true that my books are not popular, and i doubt 'promoting' them on wikipedia will make them so. i wanted to go on record with my accomplishment. writing novels is not easy. takes many things like time, effort, intelligence, determination.

the internet is suppose to be a place for the common man to have a voice. you would be happy turning into television. i had thought wikipedia was a place for facts. but now that i look closer at it, it is just an extension of Entertainment Tonite. Fact: my books exist. Nothing you say or think can take that away. My books are read by hundreds. (I'd like to send you copies if you have a P.O. box number. i love to give away my work. most offer to pay. some do. i take that money and give it to charity.)

anyway, an article on this will appear on Facebook and Google sites to get people to reconsider the relevance of your site. have a nice day.
 * Good luck. If you can get coverage of that in reliable sources about your book, it can gain an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)