User talk:Nightwriter93

Nightwriter93, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Proposed deletion of Kathy clark author


The article Kathy clark author has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. United States Man (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It always comes down to verifiable information from reliable, 3rd party sources not connected to the subject with in depth, significant coverage showing the subject meets notability guidelines. OR WP:42. Dloh cierekim  04:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the formatting was pretty good. Just needs sourcing. any content not reliably sourced may be challenged. Dloh cierekim  04:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

duh moment and ref's are better
So perhaps you and the subject are the same person? Did not see it in the text, though "self-promotion" has been removed. You might want to read WP:COI to avoid conflict-of-interest issues. I see there are refs. Social media sites and your blogs and your personal webpage cannot be used to establish notability, though they can be used to fill in personal details. (Social media sites just make the article look spammy.) (I would put as little personal info as I could out. It just leads to trouble.) You might want to use template:citeweb to make in-line citations. We love in line cites. Helps us pin down sourcing. Dloh cierekim  05:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not the author / not self promotion. In addition to the several awards linked on the submission already made I have several copies of newspaper and former publisher notices supporting the fact that this author has in fact published novels since the mid-19890's. Her books are on sale in used and newer ebook forms by her old publisher, Harlequin as well as used book stores. She also of course has the ISBN # for all re-released.

How do I send you these pdf documents?

I am not the author / not self promotion. In addition to the several awards linked on the submission already made I have several copies of newspaper and former publisher notices supporting the fact that this author has in fact published novels since the mid-1980's. Her books are on sale in used and newer ebook forms by her old publisher, Harlequin as well as used book stores. She also of course has the ISBN # for all re-released titles.

How do I send you these pdf documents?

Nightwriter93 (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. Nightwriter is the name of subject's webpage, so nightwriter 93 kinda looks like. . . . Ahem. A link to sourcing online is best. Newspaper notices or articles? Notices won't help. Publisher notices aren't 3rd party sources independent of subject. There is a way to cite paper sources Template:cite_news, just leave out the place for the URL. I don't think pdf copies of print sources will help us and small, local papers won't count as significant coverage. The more widely read the paper, magazine, professional blog maintained by a news agency, the greater the significance of the coverage and the greater the claim to notability. Putting the links in for the online sourcing you have is a big step. The awards tend to establish notability. If there is a link to an independent body that has given an award, that would help. I'm half asleep and starting to ramble. Hope this helps. I have not taken down the PROD; I want someone else to rule on them being "reliable, 3rd party sources". BLPProds give us at least a week to establish sourcing, and the reviewing admin will look at the sourcing to see if it's still valid. He may decline the PROD and we're done or the article might wind up being discussed at WP:AfD, but cross that bridge when you come to it. Dloh cierekim  07:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Trying to clear but not really understanding the core purpose here.

Dissecting what you said -

Nightwriter is the name of subject's webpage, so nightwriter 93 kinda looks like. . . . Ahem. '''Kathy uses the brand name of Nightwriter93 to capture her two author names, Kathy Clark and Bob Kat. The mix because of the desire to seperate he ryoung adult books from the more amture novels. Puclic decency consideration. It is also her tax ID registration.'''

A link to sourcing online is best. Newspaper notices or articles? Notices won't help. Publisher notices aren't 3rd party sources independent of subject. There is a way to cite paper sources Template:cite_news, just leave out the place for the URL. I will investigate his further. H'''e past books were pre-internet and the public information available. So the pdf's are from those pre-internet days. I'm sure there are 1,000s of living people with pre-internet pasts.'''

I don't think pdf copies of print sources will help us and small, local papers won't count as significant coverage. The more widely read the paper, magazine, professional blog maintained by a news agency, the greater the significance of the coverage and the greater the claim to notability. Putting the links in for the online sourcing you have is a big step. '''I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I view the USA Today as a national newspaper not a local newspaper.'''

The awards tend to establish notability. If there is a link to an independent body that has given an award, that would help. I'm half asleep and starting to ramble. Hope this helps. I have not taken down the PROD; I want someone else to rule on them being "reliable, 3rd party sources". BLPProds give us at least a week to establish sourcing, and the reviewing admin will look at the sourcing to see if it's still valid. He may decline the PROD and we're done or the article might wind up being discussed at WP:AfD, but cross that bridge when you come to it. Dlohcierekim 07:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC) '''The links provided point to websites that describe the awards recently won by her books. These are 3rd party awards. For example another one I didn't even send is http://www.beverlyhillsbookawards.com/2013-BHBA-Winnners-and-Finalists.htm#you and the last book on the page is one of her "Bob Kat" winners.. Why are 3rd party award references not sufficient? There are five or six of them submitted.'''

'''I'm trying to put the facts on the table of an author with 30 novels published, 23 traditionally published and 7 indie published. All that is available are references that show these books are sold on the open market, they have won numerous 3rd party awards dating back to the first book in 1985 and ending in December, 2013. The links, pdfs I haven't sent and the preponderance of online web sites all point to this. I'm not sure what else besides these 3rd part verification is needed. She's a real person, who has written these books and received numerous awards from 3rd party organizations for having done so.'''

December 2013
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kathy Clark (American author). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. Thank you. ''Please stop adding links to copyrighted material. Please see WP:COPYLINKS.  red dog six''  (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer on not doing that. Just the cite information without the link. Fill in the template. It's just like in citing a quote when writing for school. Dloh cierekim  21:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. 220  of  Borg 05:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Response
I was not aware of the edit summaries and should I ever make a change I will try and do that properly. Nightwriter93 (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC).


 * Then I am glad that I made you aware of them, Nightwriter93. Happy editing! 220  of  Borg 11:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Nightwriter93, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Best practices for editors with close associations
 * Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked you for two reasons. The first is that your username suggests that you are either the person you're writing about or someone who was hired or otherwise asked to write on her behalf. (the user who posted above - they've changed their username) brought up concerns of a conflict of interest and you never clearly answered this, you skirted the question. This is extremely suspicious on your part, particularly as Wikipedia (and most other places) require that any individuals with a conflict of interest be transparent about it.
 * The other reason is that the article for Kathy Clark was written in a fairly promotional way. You listed tons of awards, many of which lacked any type of sourcing. Many of the awards were from places that would at best be considered non-notable as far as Wikipedia would be concerned and at worst, vanity awards. The thing with awards of this nature is that listing them typically makes a person seem less notable on Wikipedia than more, as it's seen as a fairly common - almost universal - marketing tactic to boost notability claims for non-notable persons or topics. Essentially, the gist is that if someone has to list non-notable and vanity awards, then they're almost always non-notable to begin with. This is a very good way to shoot one's self in the foot, particularly as it seems like Clark is likely notable - the coverage just pre-dates the time when content was readily available on the Internet.
 * Given the lack of clarity on the conflict of interest paired with the puffery in the article and your defense of this content when it was brought up by Deepfriedokra, it seems that you are only here to promote the author. Please read over the conflict of interest guidelines before contesting the block. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I actually do see where you answered the concerns about being the author, but to be honest I'm concerned that this may not be the truth. It's very concerning that you're using the author's online handle to edit the Wikipedia entry and that your only edits have been to her article. It's still questoinable as to whether or not you have a conflict of interest another way, such as being a family member, friend, or someone who was asked or hired to create and edit the page. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)