User talk:Ladysybilla

Possibly unfree File:Magic_mirror_by_Anne_Stokes.jpg‎
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Magic_mirror_by_Anne_Stokes.jpg‎, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.63.31 (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan100 (Talk) 18:26, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Candycandy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Candycandy.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 18:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lady Sybilla
A tag has been placed on Lady Sybilla requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Russet Noon
A tag has been placed on Russet Noon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page 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 guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Russet Noon
A tag has been placed on Russet Noon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Russet Noon
A tag has been placed on Russet Noon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page 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 guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Russet Noon
I have nominated Russet Noon, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Russet Noon. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Ged UK  09:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia, because it appears to be mainly intended or used for promotional purposes of a company or group. See FAQ/Organization and Conflict of interest''.

In addition, accounts are for individuals only, not for companies or groups or other collective editing, and your username should reflect this.

Wikipedia is not a promotion website; this kind of activity is considered spam on Wikipedia, and forbidden by policies, and usernames that appear to be promotional also violate our username policy. Editing on Wikipedia is not intended to be used to promote anyone, or anything, and its use for that purpose will result in blocking of the account involved.

If you feel that there has been a mistake, please appeal this block by adding the text  on your user talk page or contacting the administrator who has blocked you. Your reason should include a clear response to this issue and a new username you wish to adopt that does not violate our username policy. Please check that your new username has not already been taken here. Nja 247 12:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

First, can you confirm whether you are in fact the same Lady Sybilla as the author of Russet Noon (where the concerns are a conflict of interest) or are you not (where it's lesser concern about your name). I'm talking with the admin who blocked you but generally the relevant standard for sources is at WP:RS (in particular, blog are NOT reliable enough). The other relevant standard is for not yet published books. If you can show that there is significant independent reliable sources concerning the book, your article may survive. Things like "News, blogs, articles and comments about the release of this already controversial book can be found just by conducting a Google search on the book's title or the author's name" aren't helpful so look for and describe the specific news you can find. However, it would be better, even if it does, for you not to edit the article directly and instead to use the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ricky81682:

I will be more than happy to compile quotations from various mainstream sites related to Twilight which have been documenting this controversy from the start. I will need a few days to do so, however, because it's a time consuming task, so all I ask is that you hang the article until I can put together a more neutral version of this controversy.

And yes, I am the same Lady Sybilla as the author. I can prove this by acknowledging so on the Russet Noon official website, but I'd like to know if that will be enough proof. Something else I can do is privately give you the ISBN number that I had originally purchased for Russet Noon. I can also provide proof my myidentifiers.com that this registration was withdrawn due to copyright issues brought up by the fandom community. I understand that it's best for me not to edit the article any further. However, how you can you get neutral facts about this book if you only allow access to editors that are basing everything on the gossip and hearsay that is going around online?

Once again, I'd like to reiterate that the book is being offered for free to public libraries and any interested parties who would like to own it as a collectors item. Due to the accusations of copyright infringement, Russet Noon will not be sold for money ever again. However, the impact it has had on the artistic community, not only the Twilight fandom, merits its inclusion in Wikipedia. Ladysybilla (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You appear to be unwilling to stop editing the article about your book- but you were blocked because that was the only way to get you to stop. You now want to be unblocked in order to show that your book really is notable.  I'm willing to acknowledge that possibility; it would help if you could substantiate that notability by pointing me toward two or three newspaper or magazine articles about your book.  Not press releases or forum discussions, but articles in real newspapers, or science fiction or publishing magazines.  The publication of a work of fan fiction without the original author's permission would definitely attract the attention of the media; as the author, you're in a position to know what newspapers and magazines have been interviewing you, and in what publications we can find articles about it. You can put the links here, and it will do much to strengthen your case for unblocking. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear FisherQueen:

I apologize if I appear to be "unwilling to stop editing the article." I'm just trying to provide balanced information about it, since I feel that the editors trying to delete it haven't done the necessary research to verify the extent to which this controversy has impacted the online artistic community. But if you guys decide I shouldn't edit it, it's fine. All I ask is that whoever edits or moderates it actually does so without bastardizing it (please notice Frogwidget's vandalism-style modifications to it, especially the link she added to the external links list). That's all I ask to be allowed to do in reference to the Russet Noon article. As for my editing privileges, my Wikipedia editor account has been in good standing for many years now, so I don't deserve to be blocked. I am willing to abide by Wikipedia's regulations. As for the evidence you request, I would like to emphasize that I'm not claiming the book has attracted mainstream media attention yet. I haven't received any kind of legal communications on the part of Stephenie Meyer or her reps, which, in turn, leads me to believe that they don't have a problem with me publishing this novel as long as I do so for free. The reason I'm arguing that the Russet Noon article warrants inclusion in Wikipedia is because of the massive controversy it has spawned on the net. There are sites exclusively devoted to documenting updates on Russet Noon, and many fans have openly commented that they want to read the novel no matter what. The Russet Noon phenomenon is all over the net and, if given a reasonable amount of time to do so, I can provide evidence of it. Ladysybilla (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no reason you can't start now with links of the type FisherQueen has asked for. Post links here.  Many of us have looked for evidence in all the typical places but overall, if the book hasn't received mainstream media attention yet, then it doesn't belong here.  This is for things that are already notable and known to the mainstream, not for things that could become notable and known.  The copyright concerns (and what's going on with Meyer) are ultimately your issue, not any of ours.  We just want some indication that this is actually in the mainstream, and there is information that can be verified in a manner that's consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note that controversies just on the net is not enough. See the standard for reliable sources and if there hasn't been mainstream media attention yet, it's too early to belong here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ladysybilla (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Ricky. I totally understand your point, and, yes, you are right.  It is way too early for this book to have a Wikipedia page.  Go ahead and delete the article.  I won't try to appeal this issue any further.  However, if you can be so kind as to restore my editing privileges, I would really appreciate it.  When the book comes out, I'll request for the article to be created.


 * I've left a comment for User:Nja247 since he was the one who blocked, and I imagine he'll respond in a few hours his time. Sorry about the delay but as a general rule, we don't go around countering each other without at least some discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ladysybilla (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that. Please let me know what the final decision is.

Orphaned non-free image (File:Russet-noon-book-cover.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Russet-noon-book-cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter David
Thanks. I've been thinking of adding his blog entries about the Russet Noon/Potato Noon thing to his article, so I'll just do that now. However, the link you provided is to a list of search results on Google News, rather than a press release by Google News itself. Clicking on the first two results brings me to two opinion pieces on something called PRLog that appear to have been written by you or your fans. It says at the bottom that they were issued by "AV Paranormal". Who are PRLog and AV Paranormal?

And btw, welcome to Wikipedia! Just so you know, new posts and sections on Talk Pages go at the bottom. Thanks again. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding your April 26 message on my Talk Page, I'm not sure which article you were referring to that I write, but I indeed used David's blog entries on the Russet Moon matter as sources for the statement regarding his views on copyright infringement in the Public Persona section of his article. However, articles must summarize the most salient aspects of their subjects, rather than list every public matter in which they've participated, and I don't know that the Russet Noon/Potato Moon matter is noteworthy enough to mention in detail. Most of his public conflicts with others that are mentioned in that same section, after all, are not mentioned in great detail. Moreover, I'm not sure how opinion pieces on independent publishing sites that refer to him as a "right wing conservative" or a President Bush-type really constitutes another "side of the story", since this really has nothing to do with his views on copyright, and seems particularly odd when you consider that he's a liberal who criticized Bush many times (yet another thing heavily referenced in that section). I'm also not clear on how referring to his group parody novel as an "Inquisition" is worthy of mention, when there's really nothing being done with that novel that's much different than what you did with Russet Noon. It is, after all, just a parody. I wasn't even familiar with the Google matter or Author Shit List matter, and in investigating them, it does not appear that there are any sources to support those things that would be considered reliable by WP.


 * As for the External links matter, again, I don't think the matter is noteworthy enough that it bears such prominent mention in an EL section, especially since, as aforementioned, I already included it in the Public persona section. But if you have any other questions or suggestions, or any need any other tips on editing, just let me know. Thanks again. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you love those characters very much, and I hope writing the novel was rewarding, and may lead to fruitful future endeavors. But just so you know, copyright infringement does not require that you make money off the property that you're using. Legally, any time you use a copyrighted character or property without the permission of the owner (unless it's done for purposes of parody, or under a claim of Fair Use for journalistic purposes), it's copyright infringement. I don't know what accusations are being made by which sites, but that's the law. In any event, good luck to you. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, no problem, thanks. As for the copyright issue, Stephenie Meyer does allow her fans to write fanfics, so if I get sued for giving away a fanfic novel, all the other Twilight fans that publish their fanfics online would also get sued for violation of copyright laws.  All in all, I believe that, as long as I don't make money off it, SM and her people won't have a problem with it.  Thanks again and take care.

Ladysybilla (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Potato Moon
Thanks for your message. It seems to me that the entry has all the sourcing it needs at the moment, but of course if you would like the entry to read differently, you are always free to edit it; be assured that I have no feelings of ownership about it. Enjoy! IceCreamEmpress (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Potato Moon
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Potato Moon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable web content

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Passportguy (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Potato Moon
I have nominated Potato Moon, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Potato Moon. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Ged UK  21:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)