User talk:GavinMoonAge

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Writers' Academy (Penguin Random House) (November 17)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tokyogirl79 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. 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, go to Draft:The Writers' Academy (Penguin Random House) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:MoonAgeMedia Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tokyogirl79&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:MoonAgeMedia reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:The Writers' Academy (Penguin Random House)


A tag has been placed on Draft:The Writers' Academy (Penguin Random House), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be a clear copyright infringement. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.
 * Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?


 * What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
 * Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your username suggests that you are editing on behalf of this company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately your username is problematic since it is a promotional username and Wikipedia's policy on this is quite definite: no promotional usernames. Now when it comes to making edits to pages when you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI), I'd recommend this: first, mark on your userpage that you have a conflict of interest and that you have been paid by this or that company to make edits. Secondly, I'd highly advice that you not make any large or substantial edits to articles of people that have paid you to edit. The reason for this is that many COI editors have made large edits that come across as promotional, meaning that you have a situation like the one on the draft article you created. Telling people to go to a specific site to enroll in a program is seen as unambiguously promotional and probably the most obvious thing I can point out, but the other issue is that you also used a lot of WP:PEACOCK phrasing to describe things. While it is fine and even recommended that you describe a program in a promotional light in other avenues, this is not acceptable on Wikipedia. What made the page even worse is that you seemed to have lifted the material quite liberally from the official page, to the point where it's such close paraphrasing that it's considered to be a copyright violation. Now as far as correcting information goes, it depends on what you're trying to correct. In many instances people usually want to correct minor information, like book release dates, birth dates, and so on, but sometimes that can lead to fairly major changes to the article. You'd have to have some sort of reliable source to back up the changes and preferably not a primary source if you're making a substantial section. Part of this is because while it's not exactly common, we have had instances where people have exaggerated claims on their own website. It's usually in relation to awards and the like, but sometimes it can be bigger things that can lead to some serious WP:BLP issues. Usually with COI editors we recommend that they post the information on the article talk page and ask for someone else to add it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tokyogirl79, and for your speedy reply. That's really helpful. Some of the things you have pointed out I wasn't previously aware of, so I appreciate you taking the time to explain. I certainly don't want to cause any problems, just to better understand the process. In terms of updating factual information, then, to clarify - if an author who already has an author page has a new book coming out and I've been asked by said author to add that book title and a synopsis (in the same way that his previous books are displayed on Wikipedia), are you suggesting he or I should post that info into the talk page and ask someone else to add it, rather than adding it directly? And what about a new author who is about to publish a book for the first time - who would add that author as a page on Wikipedia? Could I do that, or would I need to ask someone to do it for me, and if so, where would I ask? Sorry if these are silly questions. I just want to make sure the correct procedures are followed. Some years ago I was working for the publishers who published Dan Brown and had first hand info such as the UK jacket artwork and final synopsis, etc, but every time my colleague tried to update the Wikipedia page, it was rejected and replaced with factually incorrect information about the book from someone who clearly knew very little about it. I was always amazed how incorrect info could be approved on Wikipedia yet first hand factual information was rejected. Seemed a bit counterproductive. Many thanks, Gavin MoonAgeMedia (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You can reply without the unblock template if you want- I've removed it since you did post an unblock request above. Also, these are not silly questions in the slightest and I'm glad you're asking them. I was initially not leaning towards unblocking you, but you seem like you genuinely want to learn policy and improve- which goes a long, long way in my book, so I'm willing to unblock you as long as you look over our policies. In any case, you could add the book title and release date. Adding the information about the book ala the book synopsis is often problematic, since the standard is to just list the book title and the year of release, with occasionally information about the publisher if it gets a re-release or a re-titling. The problem with the final synopsis was likely due to the fact that your college was posting the official synopsis, which would be seen as a copyright violation. The only way around that is to file an official ticket giving Wikipedia permission to use the material, but even then it can sometimes still have issues because occasionally a synopsis will contain content that is considered to be promotional like "this thrilling mystery from the master of suspense" and things of that nature. But as far as minor stuff like adding book titles and stuff goes, that can be added with little to no problem. What you'd do in that situation is just put in the edit summary box something along the lines of "adding per request of publisher" and the like. Now if that gets challenged, the only thing you can do is ask the publisher to give you some sort of source to back up the claims, like publishing the artwork and synopsis on their website and mark that this is the final/official product. Now if the artwork isn't marked as final or isn't on the official website, then you can have some issues with putting that on the page because people could claim that it's incorrect and remove it, especially if the artwork is something integral to the book, like it usually is with Brown's books. It's kind of a tricky situation when it comes to using official websites (WP:PRIMARY sources) to back up stuff, since for the most part we can only use it to back up small, usually trivial data. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Now as far as creating articles goes... that's debatable. You can try creating more via AfC since that does make the option of having someone else look over your work first or you could request that the page gets created from one of the applicable request pages. I have to apologize for immediately going on the defensive with this, since normally I do try to be a little less WP:BITE-y with new editors. It's not really an excuse, but an explanation would be that we've had a lot of COI editors come on and create various articles, then be extremely resistant to learning about Wikipedia. That kind of leads to something else I have to warn you about: COI editors come on here with a deck really stacked against them because we've had so many people misuse the website in the past. It's kind of why I really want to make sure that you understand some of the policies before I unblock you. You will be fighting against the current here. We've had some excellent COI editors in the past and your willingness to learn shows that you have the potential to become one as well, but you will get a lot of guff from other editors in the process. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do have to kind of give the slight warning that it's sometimes very hard to prove notability for authors and/or their books. It used to be that as long as you were published by a major publisher you passed notability guidelines, but now guidelines require a lot of coverage in reliable sources and the like. There are so many authors that I can't add to Wikipedia because they don't have those sources. (sighs) To show you how hard it can be to fight for notability, a bunch of us had to fight tooth and nail to save an article for Tabitha King, the wife of Stephen King, because people were arguing that she wasn't independently notable of her husband. Eventually common sense prevailed, but only after some articles and reviews were provided. It wasn't the worst uphill battle I've ever fought, but it was one of the most frustrating ones. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tokyogirl79, Thank you so much for being so understanding. I really appreciate you doing that and for further explaining these points to me. You're right that I do genuinely want to learn policies and improve what I submit to Wikipedia. I have no desire to post anything that might be construed as anything other than factual information that may be of use to the consumers who browse the pages. In terms of the article for The Writers' Academy that was declined. That copy was passed on to me to post by the person at Penguin Random House who runs the Writers' Academy programme as they wanted the info to be available as a link from the main Penguin Random House page, to show people that the service exists. I can totally see how it was seen as outward marketing and a drive for people to go to the website. I would still like to make an entry for the Writers' Academy, which Wikipedia would deem suitable to approve. Are their guidelines as to what the best practice for this page would be? As for adding/updating book information, your advice is really clear and helpful and I will certainly take that approach in the future. You don't need to apologise for going on the defensive. I completely understand how difficult it must be to moderate something where people can try to upload whatever they think is right then be resistant to learning what the proper way of doing things is. I won't be that person as it is not in my best interest to object to policies. The thing with Tabitha King must've been very frustrating and it's a good example of how difficult it can be sometimes. I'm glad common sense on that one eventually prevailed. She is a great author in her own right. And that reminds me, I have to purchase the new Stephen King. Two books this year!! What a treat. As an aside, would it help if I changed my username to one that didn't look like it was a promo focussed name? Thanks, Gavin MoonAgeMedia (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That would help a lot- you could change it to MoonAgeMedia Gavin if you want, but I generally recommend more neutral-ish names because of how quick people are to kind of overreact to that. I'm probably a good example of how that can happen. I've removed the speedy template from it since this could be a good teaching tool. We'd still have to prove notability, which I'll admit will likely be difficult, but I can help show you how to edit it to remove the promotional concerns and still have most of what the publisher wants. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You can go about changing your username here: Changing username. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Article cleanup
I'm starting a new section for this one. I've started some cleanup on the article for the writing school. I've pretty much decimated the article to a few sentences, but it does remove the worst of the promotional content. Now we can't have all of the links to Twitter and the social media sites, but we can put the school's official website in the external links section. The typical rule for social media sites is that we can include them if the subject is particularly well known on that social media site, which almost always translates into the subject (in this case the writing school) having received coverage for their social media presence. Otherwise we typically don't include them because normally we assume that the official website will have these links on them and because it can sometimes be easily seen as promotion.

Now when it comes to the sources, that's where it runs into a bit of a problem. I have to log off since I have to drive home (I'm at work right now), but offhand it looks like a lot of the sources are based on press releases, which are seen as primary sources. I also see where Novel Kicks is a blog. Blogs are kind of the bane of my existence when it comes to writing articles about books and authors because most of the time we can't use them as sources at all because they're self published sources. (WP:SPS) There are a lot of book blogs that I follow and some that I even personally consider to be reliable, but because they're almost always un-edited we can't use them. This is pretty much a shame since that's the #1 way that most authors and publishers tend to get news across. I'll post more when I get home and can type more. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tokyogirl79. I too had to go quickly yesterday as I was called away to a meeting. Thanks for helping to cleanup the article on the writing school. To be honest, a few sentences is probably going to suffice. It was more about just having it there so that it was accurate in terms of showing that the school exists.

I totally understand what you mean about blogs and how they're self-edited and can't be used as reliable sources, so it's good to know that's a no-no.

I'm not sure what next steps I should take in terms of my account name (I've suggested a name change) and re-submitting the writing school page, so any tips would be much appreciated.

Best wishes, Gavin MoonAgeMedia (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked you, to the next step would be to go to Changing_username/Simple and put in your request there- there will be a list of instructions along with "click here to place your request". Here's what you'd need to enter:
 * You can add more as you see fit, but this should be enough- the name change will be mostly self explanatory and they can review this talk page if they need to. I do recommend keeping an eye on the page, since they may have some comments or general questions. I think that they do try to let you know, but it's always good to monitor it until they approve the name change. As far as the article goes, I don't know if there's really enough there (RS coverage-wise) to where it'd really pass notability guidelines outside of the main RH article as a whole. I do think it should have its own subsection, though. You can still hold on to it in the draftspace and continue to edit it until more sources become available. I'm going to do a search and see what I can find, but I think that part of the issue is that it's just so new- a lot of writing schools tend to take a while before they really gain a lot of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tokyogirl79. I've managed to successfully change my username, so that's great. And that's fair enough re the Writers' Academy page. Maybe it can just sit as a mention on the main RH article for the time being, until there are more sources available and I'll leave it as a draft until there is. Thanks for searching. I don't want to take up lots of your time as I feel I've already done quite a lot of that.
 * Eh, no problem. I don't particularly mind. If you need anything else, feel free to "ping" me by writing in your message on here or by dropping a note on my usertalk page. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it looks like we need a section about Penguin Random House UK as a whole at Random_House. You interested in helping me write something for that? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Tokyogirl79. So sorry for the silence. Had a crazy mad week with work and deadlines and am way behind on my emails. Certainly happy to help as much as I can for the Random House pages (or find the info that might be needed from the right person, at least). Let me know what you need. Thanks! GavinMoonAge (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We'd need some basic information like when the branch opened, their imprints, the head of the branch, and stuff like that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft:The Writers' Academy (Penguin Random House) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:The Writers' Academy (Penguin Random House), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Writers' Academy (Penguin Random House)


Hello, GavinMoonAge. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Writers' Academy".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)