User talk:Kim1532

June 2013
Hello, Kim1532. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article User:Kim1532, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. – →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  00:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Kim1532 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)I am an author and there are several other author sites on wikipedia of similar levels of noteworthiness.

The five pillars of Wikipedia.

--My article is written from a neutral point of view.

--Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. - My page wasn't even up for five minutes when someone contested it.

There is no form of tabloid journalism in my article, and therefore has not violated wikipedia rules.

I have not spammed. Scott Westerfeld, Cassandra Claire, Victoria Foyt, Alan Baxter and others include their website on their wiki page, and Mr. Locke (see below) has sales and pricing on his page. If there was something on the page that Davey2010 felt was not appropriate, why wasn't it pointed out to me (as stated in the wiki guidelines) so that I could fix it and why wasn't I given ample time to do so.

--"Be welcoming to newcomers: People new to Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with policy and conventions. Please do not bite the newcomers. If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake. You should politely and gently point out their mistake, reference the relevant policy/guideline/help pages, and suggest a better approach." (I had a new message and didn't know how to use the message system. I didn't understand what I was being asked to do when I was asked to sign my post. I only later learned what this meant when I went to the wikipedia talk page help and then their guidelines page. My page was contested 5 minutes after I posted it. I was not welcomed as a newcomer.)

I don't even know if my page is live or not, that's how much of a newbie I am.

Only after an hour of trying to figure out the issue was I able to read Davey2010's comments. And in that same hour my page was subsequently deleted.

--Verifiability Burden of evidence --Inline citation was used.

"Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form)." Interviews have been published on the web.

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; No more or less (and probably less than some) than any other author's page. it does not involve claims about third parties; (I have made no other third party claims other than those directly related to my life.) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; That wasn't done. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. My page is not primarily based on my website, but on interviews and other 3rd party sources.

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." I believe I have done this. My page was less than 400 words, contained no type of advertizing whatsoever and was formated in a fashion similar to other author sites I saw on wiki. I provided an overview of my novel and upcoming series, related my page to interviews I've done and gave a brief blurb about my personal life, as other authors have done. My page consisted of a into blurb, a books section, personal life section, bibliography section, references, and external links. All of these I found on several other author sites on wiki. I did have a link to my amazon page to reference my book, which may have been in error. Again why wasn't I alerted to this. I could have easily created a wiki page for my book as other authors have done.

I would like to add that John Locke (Author) has a page that includes the price of his books etc. in his sales section. "Sales [edit] Locke's novels are priced as low as $0.99, significantly below the standard prices for e-book editions of works from established authors of print books.[9][10] On June 20, 2011, John Locke became the first independently published author to sell over 1 million Kindle books using Amazon's Kindle Direct Publishing platform, having sold 1,010,370 Kindle books. [11] Locke has conducted a reader poll to determine whether he would publish a particular work which he gave a synopsis for. The decision was not to publish the work.[12] Simon & Schuster has signed to publish his works in print format.[13]"

I hope that my page, unbeknownst to me was up for not even 5 minutes before it was challenged, then subsequently taken down, was not unduly targeted.