User talk:Lesliejas

AfD nomination of The Civilization Loop
The Civilization Loop, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that The Civilization Loop satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/The Civilization Loop and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of The Civilization Loop during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  Acroterion  (talk)  19:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Repost of The Civilization Loop
A tag has been placed on, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a. If you can indicate how The Civilization Loop is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template hangon underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:The Civilization Loop saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Civilization Loop: The End is the Beginning


The article The Civilization Loop: The End is the Beginning has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Self-published book which only sports two website reviews.

While all 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. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Goochelaar (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of The Civilization Loop: The End is the Beginning
I have nominated The Civilization Loop: The End is the Beginning, 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Civilization Loop: The End is the Beginning. 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. Goochelaar (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability concerns
if i may, i would like to address some of your concerns about notability, as they pertain to "loop" but also in general.

I have begun researching your sources you have requested others to look at, such as search, news, books, scholar, and images. Search and images have plenty related to this book.
 * these tools are considered a first start for establishing notability. finding citations and images does not establish notability in and of itself. a recent article, "raptor jesus", got literally tens of thousands of image/citation hits, but was deleted as nonnotable because none of the citations or images were themselves notable. as you must realize, the nature of the internet is to have multiple, mirrored sources for many pieces of data. data doesnt equate to relevancy.

Scholar turns up nothing, but even The Plot to Save Socrates hardly even has a citation, with only books such as the Harry Potter series or Stephen King novels having a large volume of citations.
 * Not all notable books will have scholarly citations. notability as defined in WP is somewhat mutable. all the guidelines are just that, guidelines. if someone can point out an overriding criteria for notability that is not already discussed, an article can stand.

Google books allows self-published authors, like myself (yes, this is my book), to post their own books simply by mailing them a copy, such as Publish America's production Vortex of Revelation which is visible on Google books currently.
 * well, yes, this is why a google books listing doesnt automatically confer notability. it may help show notability in some cases.

As far as news, even the Plot to Save Socrates, which you have as an article, does not turn up any results related to the book.
 * this is an excellently chosen title to compare with yours. its about the same length, has just a couple of reviews linked to, and is obviously not from a major author such as asimov, clarke, etc. so whats different? tor is a major trade book publisher, and has published a number of books by this author, who has a fairly well fleshed out article himself. most notable novels will have an article about the author as the primary article, and then sub articles about the authors novels. in essence, notability here is established by the willingness of a publishing company to put hard cash on the line, in hopes of selling product. its worked 5 times for them, thus this book is being read by probably 10-20 thousand readers, more if in libraries. its really hard to find reviews for books online, so this is NOT the main criteria in this case. in this case, the book itself is the main source for establishing notability: it exists, it was published in large quantities, most likely had an ad campaign in magazines like Locus. the article needs improvement, and fewer blue links in the plot synopsis, but is unquestionably notable. the authors first novel may not have qualified him for an article, but by this time its easily established.

Furthermore, in terms of notability, Wikipedia is not considered a highly notable source for information, specifically because of allowing any user to enter information as they see fit, from any location on Earth. Please see the following article from the New York Times blog about Wikipedia and the Stokke's article: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/who-gets-a-wikipedia-entry/ Lesliejas (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, thats precisely our point here. Wikipedia itself is notable, but it is automatically excluded as a primary source for information, precisely for the reasons you state. just like when we were in high school and instructed to NOT use encyclopedia articles for research.

I would also like to add for Google books, the major stipulation for inclusion is "your books must have ISBNs in order to be included." See the site for yourself: http://books.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=43782 That by definition makes any book represented hardly note worthy if that is all that is required, in addition to sending them a copy.Lesliejas (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * google books standards have nothing whatsoever to do with WP notability. books do NOT need isbns here to be notable, though for most modern works its usually necessary but not sufficient.

I also have found it quite interesting that you refer to the two reviewers of this book as not being professionals. I would like to direct your attention to the following link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professional which outlines the definition of what being a professional is all about. I'm sure the reviewers who practice reviewing books at these sites for a living and consider themselves professionals would have something to say about your comment.
 * there are undoubtedly right now book reviewers publishing exclusively on the internet that are making money at their trade. the problem is, its hard to distinguish between someone who has paid x/yr to have a website where they write as they like (a wonderful luxury in this modern world), and someone who INFLUENCES the book world. any web reviewer who has become a force in the book business is also likely to have been cited somewhere, and possibly have a WP article on them. I think that by "professional" they meant major professional, like michiko kakutani of the nyt, etc, or russel letson of locus, on down to more obscure niche reviewers in many fields. like a supreme court justice said once: i cant define pornography, but i know it when i see it. sometimes notability is that slippery here, but once we recognize it, we can start to build a case for it.

Look, i utterly sympathize with your efforts to get the word out on your book. its obviously meaningful, important, relevant to every person who has read it. i may actually like it. hell, if you send me a copy ill probably read it, i love "2012", and terence mckenna, and jose arguelles, who i have read since 1981. i worked in the book business for a decade, and saw books like "mutant message down under" go from being self published to the bestseller lists as a harpercollins title. there are an infinite variety of routes by which your book may become notable. this WP project is utterly fascinating in its intricacies of argument, like a bunch of rabbinical scholars debating the Talmud. I do not have the final word here, and any further references found for reviews of this book may actually establish notability. send a copy to Locus mag (they may not like self published works, who knows, but its worth a try). send copies to sf bookstores. at some point in publishing, self published, print on demand and ebooks may be so dominant that traditional publishing becomes less notable. this has not happened yet, if you glance at publishers weekly or books in print.

I suspect your arguments will be dismissed for reasons like i gave above. PLEASE, continue to contribute to WP, we need everyone. i started with one edit of one fact that i knew, and it grew. I would like to write an article on a seminotable family member, but until i feel they have enough references, im restraining myself. good luck with your novel, and if you or your novel start to attract any more attention, add it back. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mercury, it's like I said, I had to try. I believe in all of this what I wish I had done is searched more, edited more, before I submitted my book to anyone. Obviously the users involved in this process, particularly Goochelaar, tried to exhaust every possible avenue to keep the article before deleting it. Otherwise, and I know this is true from Recreant, Goochelaar would have proposed speedy deletion and there would have been no discussion whatsoever. For that, I thank you Goochelaar.

I would also like to apologize for any rudeness I presented, particularly in the final part about professionalism, that wasn't very professional of me. That is the reason Wikipedia prefers articles about a topic be created by an unbiased, third party who will not go on the defensive for something they created in the first place. I knew my book was not noteworthy enough, but there is always that small, glimmer of hope that perhaps it might just make it. That's essentially the essence of my book, to be honest.

I will be glad to continue to contribute to WP on topics I know something about, but that I am not intimately related to. It is a beautiful quick reference tool that has outlined things that truly interest me, otherwise I would not have been fighting so hard to have The Civilization Loop included. I to was trying to refrain Mercury, but my passion for the book got the better of me. I actually read an article that outlined a process some could take to try and get a non-notable article through on Wikipedia, that to me seemed a bit more like a cheaters way to get an article kept on WP. It made sense, in a sketchy sort of way, because it suggested having friends of yours contribute something after months of editing other articles. According to WP's guidelines, if the article is presented by an unbiased source with a good history of acceptable edits under their belt, the article may be kept. But, that's not how I work and it doesn't appear how you work either, Mercury. We both would rather have the material we put into WP stand alone on the merits of its notability rather than cheating with buddies just to pass it through, even if you have to post it yourself.

I appreciate all of the users' time and candor in this matter, and when the book is more noteworthy perhaps I will not have to be the one reposting it. It's always been a dream of mine to write something that one day becomes a movie. We'll see. Thank you all again.Lesliejas (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Yello. Just wanted to say that it would be better if you provided a summary to your edits, instead of just typing in " ~ " each time. You don't have to "sign" your edit summaries. -  SoSaysChappy   (talk)  00:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Chalk that up to my inexperience there. Still getting the hang of this, but certainly enjoying it. I'll remember that from now on. Thanks!Lesliejas (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:CivLoop5.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:CivLoop5.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 22:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)