User talk:Gbooks24

Message posted on Friday, June 8, 2007
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Butseriouslyfolks 17:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Message posted on Friday, June 8, 2007
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Butseriouslyfolks 17:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Message posted on Friday, June 8, 2007
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Butseriouslyfolks 17:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Message posted on Friday, June 8, 2007
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Butseriouslyfolks 17:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights
Please note that, by submitting content to Wikipedia, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License. Please read that license. This would mean that Simon & Schuster would no longer hold the copyright for the information. I don't think this is what you want to do. Therefore, I will delete the pages you created unless informed otherwise (if someone else hasn't deleted them already). -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Heather Vogel Frederick was deleted for the same reason. As SpuriousQ has stated, even if you hold the copyright, you can't just post that text here.  You have to send an email to the Wikimedia foundation releasing that text under the GNU Free Documentation License.  This would be incompatible with your copyright so make sure you understand the implications before you do this.--Isotope23 18:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Elizabeth Scott (author)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Elizabeth Scott (author), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Elizabeth Scott (author) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Elizabeth Scott (author), please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Elizabeth Scott (author) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this was speedily deleted. The page clearly stated that she is a published author. Does that not make her notable?Gbooks24 18:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. There was nothing to indicate the author would satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  Has she received significant coverage from independent reliable sources? To be honest, I probably would normally not speedily delete such an article, but you've been mass posting borderline-promotional biographies of authors and as you work for the marketing department of Simon and Schuster this suggests a conflict of interest. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in making pages for a bunch of our authors. Is that not allowed? All I am posting is their biography (the information comes from their own websites, our websites, and the websites of other booksellers, etc.), their bibliography (which includes books published with Simon & Schuster and other companies) and external links to their personal websites and our website. I am trying to make it easier for readers to find out more about the authors when they search for them online. Please let me know how to do this in a way that will not end in the deletion of all of the pages I've created. Thank you. Gbooks24 19:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read through our policies and guidelines below. The most important thing for you to do is to rewrite biographies using your own words (or release the copyright of those your company has written into the public domain) and make sure you respect Neutral point of view by referencing your material to 3rd party reliable sources. See also Notability (people). Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) It's not strictly disallowed, but you should carefully read Conflict of interest and keep it in mind when editing. For an article to remain, it must satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines on notability.  That is, you cannot draw only from their websites and their publisher's websites, but from reliable sources independent of the subject's themselves.

Wikipedia is not the advertising or PR medium that other popular sites such as Myspace tend to be; articles about people here are intended to be actual biographies of notable people. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I am only using information that is publically known(for example, if an author won an award, that award is public information), and I will put it into my own words. Though some of this info is repeated on the author's and publishers' websites, the information itself doesn't create a conflict of interest. Anybody can go into google and find many websites independent of the author and his/her publishers that say what books they have published and what awards they have won. I'm trying to follow what I'm seeing in other author wikipedia pages (like those of Scott Westerfeld and Cassandra Clare, two of our other authors that made their own pages). I really just want to do what Wikipedia intends, which is to present a biography of an author who is gaining a lot of popularity, and allow those searching the internet to find out more general information about them.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure
You should also state on the article's talk (discussion) page that you are creating the author's article as an employee of their publisher so that readers can factor that into their understanding of the article. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Do I have to? I'm putting in the same information that the author would put in if they were creating their own article, and the same type of information that is on other author articles currently available on Wikipedia. There are no disclosure statements on other author articles. I would rather not have to identify myself. Thank you. Gbooks24 20:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Authors really aren't supposed to be creating their own pages either. Wikipedia isn't a vanity press.  It is (in theory at least) a place to write articles about notable subjects supported by citations to verifiable sources.  If these authors are truly notable, someone will eventually write an article about them.


 * Technically, WP's conflict of interest policies do not require you to identify yourself or your employer. You should keep in mind however that others are likely to figure out what you're up to and mark the article accordingly.  If it were me, I would rather be the one to disclose the potential conflict than have someone else blow up my spot. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What I'm writing isn't a conflict of interest, because all I'm posting is a little about who the author is, what books they've published, and where to find more info about them. Anyone, from a fan of the author, to the booksellers themselves, or an employee of the publisher, has access to this information on the web and could have created this article. It's not exclusive information by any means. The only reference to Simon & Schuster I've made is a link to our site. And honestly, most people don't even know publishers' names; they only know the books and authors they've published. I'm hoping that fans of these authors will find these articles and add more information about them, as you said. Thank you all for all the information you've passed along.


 * You may not feel that your article does not suffer from your conflict of interest, but the conflict is there and readers have a right to know that the article was created by someone with a connection to the subject. If one of your authors was involved in a notorious and newsworthy scandal, you might choose to omit that fact from your article because of your connection to the publisher, while a neutral writer would probably include it.  Rather than allow your silence on the issue impose your own judgment of whether the article is neutral, I believe you should own up to your connection to the subject and let the reader make his or her own judgment. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your Conflict of Interest notices. Will the notices always be on the pages? Thanks. Gbooks24 21:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Due to the nature of Wikipedia, nothing can be assured of permanence. However, comments are not supposed to be removed from talk pages, and article tags are not supposed to be removed unless the reason for their placement is eliminated. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As an admin who tends to focus on spam-related speedies, I've spared a couple of these articles, but I want to add a really strong caution here. This campaign of yours appears to be a fulfillment of Raul's Law #6, and is openly-admitted spam. You are an admitted rep of your employer, and you're writing articles to promote your products (yes, I realize that the real product of any publishing company is the author, not the book). What concerns me is that you say you're complying with our policies and guidelines, but you really aren't. You are most welcome to edit here, but as a private citizen, not as an employee. Edit subjects that aren't related to the authors whom its your job to promote. You've been told about references and sources, but you're adding MySpace and Blog links, which are contrary to our External Links guideline. I don't want to come down with the hammer, so I'd suggest that you pause for a few days, thoroughly read our guidelines, and then, if you want to keep editing, stay away from S&S's authors.  AK Radecki Speaketh  00:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Deborah Reber for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deborah Reber 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/Deborah Reber until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)