User talk:Riotmelody

Removal of templates
I specifically requested that the templates on Bizarro fiction not be removed without discussion on the talk page. The article is seriously distressed and judging by the nature of edits performed on it, I'm beginning to suspect a conflict of interest. I would be happy to speak with you about this if you have some issue. I'm reinstating the templates; please don't remove them again without consensus. Chromancer (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm still getting the hang of using wikipedia. What can I do to help improve the page. Riotmelody (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My suggestion? Start removing material. Most articles associated with Bizarro fiction are being interpreted as promotional material and deleted as such. Only reliable sources are acceptable to create articles, which means that all of the personal blog fluff, blurbs about how weird or gross the author's writing is, and glowing recommendations from fans and authors associated with the genre just manage to make the articles look worse and worse. Better is to add good sources with critical commentary, whether that is good or bad. I can see you're a fan, but Wikipedia is where fandom ends and serious consideration begins. Newspaper reviews are great, but blog reviews... not so much. Amazon profiles? Not at all. You see what I'm getting at here? I'm going to tell you straight away, though, that unless a lot of these authors sell a lot more books and get a lot more press, they aren't going to be notable enough for the wiki. One of the best things we can do here would be to start eliminating cites from the Bizarro Starter Kit or 3:AM Magazine; the first is a primary source while the wiki likes secondary sources, and the second is just not notable enough as well as having I suspect some WP:COI conflict of interest problems. — Chromancer  talk/cont 02:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting what you mean. Would a blog like Boing Boing be considered a good online source? Riotmelody (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, blogs aren't considered very reliable sources. Boing Boing would bear more weight than a personal blog, but not much. What you really want here is printed matter, the good old-fashioned stuff: it's practically unassailable on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the farther out of the mainstream you are, and these guys tend to be far, the harder that is to come across. I'm not going to lie to you and say your task won't be difficult, but look for reviews in major publications, like peer-reviewed journals or ALA publications like Booklist. I think I saw a reference a while ago. If some of these authors have written freelance articles for major magazines, even if they were little articles, it could help build notability for them. Keep looking for sources, and if you like, you can come to me with them; I'll help you rewrite and source these articles the best that I can. Oh, and a quick note, when responding to someone, add a colon in front of your first sentence, and additional colons as necessary (look at the source to see what I mean.) It keeps the conversation flowing to the right so people know who's saying what to who. Have a good one — Chromancer  talk/cont 03:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Burk
You're actually this guy, aren't you? -- Leoadec 17:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fan of his. Riotmelody (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)