Bubbly1558
Welcome edit
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Please stop your self-promotion on Wikipedia edit
Please stop adding your own novels to Wikipedia. if you continue to do so, you will be reported to administrators and may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
November 2017 edit
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising. Softlavender (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I find this rude, and I think you don't need to police Wikipedia in such a way. Everything I have added in my edits is true and verifiable, and fully relevant to and noteworthy for the subject of the encycolpedia pages. There is nothing wrong with saying certain literary works exist, when they do, and there is evidence to show that they do. There is no self-promotion in the text of my edits, any more than there is in any of the other listings of such works as I list.
The definition in Wikipedia of self-promotion is:
Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable.
All my edits are from a nuetral point of view.
Bubbly1558 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
ANI edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Softlavender (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh my ... edit
Goodness, I really have more important things to do with my time than this. I therefore bow out to your superior persistence. Bubbly1558 (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Shirt58 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Bubbly1558 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason for the block is unjustified, as explained below.
One of the comments on the Wikipedia Administrator Incidents Noticeboard states: 'This editor is spamming unreferenced mentions of his recent self-published novels which are for sale on Amazon for Kindle for 99 cents each. I searched on Google and could find no independent reviews of these books. Mentioning these novels adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia and is a glaring conflict of interest.'
This statement is factually incorrect. One of the books I added to Wikipedia, in the appropriate sections of appropriate pages (Perhaps a Little Madness) is recent release. Consequently it has no reviews as yet. However, the other book I added to Wikipedia, again in the appropriate sections of appropriate pages (Hamlet) is about a year old, and does at least have independent ratings and reviews (average 4.5 stars) at Goodreads.
In addition, the edits I made in Wikpedia originally referenced the author webpage as citations. Thus they were referenced. When accusations of self-promotion or advertising started flying about, I did not provide these citations when I re-entered the edits, in case they were what was seen as advertising in some way. But they could easily be added in, or the Goodreads page could be used as a reference.
The text I added into Wikipedia, regarding the books, differs in no way from the text that lists other books in the sections I wrote in. It is not promotional in any way, and simply records that the books exist and gives some brief details about them, in the same way that other listings of other books do. It expressed a 'neutral point of view', and provides no 'glaring conflict of interest'.
The author of these books has a Masters degree in English Literature, and a PhD in History. No one can decide accurately if the books are 'notable' or not, without having read them or at least having perused the reviews and ratings of them. Particularly in today's publishing climate, the fact that the books are self-published is no means of assessing their quality or notability or 'value'. Nor is their price: many quality and classic works of literature are free or very cheap on Amazon.
There is no reason an encyclopedia article (or section of an article) on adaptations of works of literature should not record that these works exist. Self-promotion or advertising would state that the books are good, or give references to where to buy them, or create an article or articles exclusively on them, and would be inappropriate. I have not done any such inappropriate editing of Wikipedia.
I have had an account to edit in Wikipedia for barely a week, I think. It is far too early to make an assumption that I have no intention of editing any other articles, as some users have stated, when in fact I would like to do so. Bubbly1558 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool for promotion. Adding mentions of these books to multiple Wikipedia articles is promoting them: It's meant to raise awareness of these books that no reliable secondary source has written about. Goodreads is user-submitted content without editorial oversight, not a reliable secondary source; neither is, for obvious reasons, the author's website. The works don't meet our notability guideline for books (that's not an assessment of their quality; I haven't read them, and I don't need to read them to assess their notability, the way Wikipedia uses the term). Huon (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Bubbly1558 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wish my serious objection to be recorded, to the strange standard by which this decision has been reached. You are blocking one of the minority of editors who in fact has college education and is therefore qualified in some decent way to be a reliable editor of an encyclopedia, I believe because of bias backed up by doubtful citations of policy. The notability guidelines you have referenced state that they: 'provide some additional criteria for use in deciding whether a book should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. Satisfying this notability guideline generally indicates a book warrants an article'. Further text in that guidelines page shows that it is talking about a standard for 'a separate, stand-alone article' about any given book, not single sentences or paragraphs that mention a book within single sections of larger and broader articles. My edits were single sentences or paragraphs within single sections of much larger and broader articles where my little edits were relevant. Therefore this question of notability should not apply to the books mentioned in my edits, because I did not create any stand-alone articles about these books. As you note, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is by definition a compendium of verifiable information. It is a fact that these books exist. No secondary source should need to discuss them in order for that fact to be verifiable, through a primary reference. I would note, therefore, that in terms of pure scholarly technique, this particular Wikipedia standard of 'notability' is quite strange. But I say again, I did not create an article for either of these books, and therefore I have not breached the standard. I also note that the guidelines page states: 'a book may be notable, and merit an article, for reasons not particularized in this or any other notability guideline'. I would argue that higher-degree qualifications of an author could be a suitable category of notability. Nevertheless, I reiterate, I did not create a stand-alone article for either of the books, only tiny additions to other much larger articles. Adding the existence of two books to three Wikipedia articles (one on one page and one on two other pages) hardly, I think, qualifies for an accusation of having put them on 'multiple pages'. Bubbly1558 (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Wow. As you not only don't affirm understanding the reason for your block and that you won't repeat your mistakes and offer suggestions as to how your editing will henceforth be productive, you quite contrarily and verbosely (I might add) deny having done anything meriting a block, I have no choice but to decline to unblock you. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- (Non-administrator comment) "Adding the existence of two books to three Wikipedia articles (one on one page and one on two other pages) hardly, I think, qualifies for an accusation of having put them on 'multiple pages'." Bubbly1558 added his self-published books to five different articles, and repeatedly edit-warred to keep them there, even after two warnings not to: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
That is actually true. My apologies. I had completely forgotten one (the general list of adaptations or classic works). If my edits were ever deleted from there, I did not even go back in to check. For one of the others, I reconsidered the relevance of my edit to the overall content of the page, and was happy with the removal, and again did not reenter it. Hence my remark about 'three'; and I maintain the rest of my case, that the edits were reasonable where I eventually placed them. Bubbly1558 (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Bubbly1558 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not in fact requesting an unblock any more, and wasn't really with my last addition to this talk. (I have placed it in this template so that what I write may be observed by administrators; that is all.) I have reconsidered my desire to edit anywhere on Wikipedia again, not only because of this very strange case of mine, but also having read how strange and cliquey a club Wikipedia editing is, and the difficulties many people have with negotiating through the ridiculous and complicated quantities of rules and guidelines and then dealing with other editors' and administrators' extraordinary interpretations of those rules and guidelines, their unreasonable over-edits and blocks, and their biases. For your education, there is a difference between 'verbosity' and making a reasoned, pointed argument concisely. I have done the latter. You have not effectively addressed my arguments, but merely objected to me making them at all. You also seem to confuse understanding the reason for a block with not accepting a fallacious argument for imposing that block. I perfectly understand everything that has been said by other editors and administrators. I simply disagree with it and the reasoning of it. I will not admit fault where I believe I have made none. I am also appalled that someone seems to have deleted my earlier argument, constituting half my case, from this page - my own talk page. That is misleading for anyone who ever happens across the page. I shall therefore add that earlier argument again below. Someone will perhaps then delete all of my justifications. I can only think then that they are concerned that my case is actually perfectly cogent. But I do not intend to come back here, because I find the behaviour and words of some editors and administrators unthinking, unreasoning, and verging on bullying. The reason for the block is unjustified, as explained below. One of the comments on the Wikipedia Administrator Incidents Noticeboard states: 'This editor is spamming unreferenced mentions of his recent self-published novels which are for sale on Amazon for Kindle for 99 cents each. I searched on Google and could find no independent reviews of these books. Mentioning these novels adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia and is a glaring conflict of interest.' This statement is factually incorrect. One of the books I added to Wikipedia, in the appropriate sections of appropriate pages (Perhaps a Little Madness) is recent release. Consequently it has no reviews as yet. However, the other book I added to Wikipedia, again in the appropriate sections of appropriate pages (Hamlet) is about a year old, and does at least have independent ratings and reviews (average 4.5 stars) at Goodreads. In addition, the edits I made in Wikpedia originally referenced the author webpage as citations. Thus they were referenced. When accusations of self-promotion or advertising started flying about, I did not provide these citations when I re-entered the edits, in case they were what was seen as advertising in some way. But they could easily be added in, or the Goodreads page could be used as a reference. The text I added into Wikipedia, regarding the books, differs in no way from the text that lists other books in the sections I wrote in. It is not promotional in any way, and simply records that the books exist and gives some brief details about them, in the same way that other listings of other books do. It expressed a 'neutral point of view', and provides no 'glaring conflict of interest'. The author of these books has a Masters degree in English Literature, and a PhD in History. No one can decide accurately if the books are 'notable' or not, without having read them or at least having perused the reviews and ratings of them. Particularly in today's publishing climate, the fact that the books are self-published is no means of assessing their quality or notability or 'value'. Nor is their price: many quality and classic works of literature are free or very cheap on Amazon. There is no reason an encyclopedia article (or section of an article) on adaptations of works of literature should not record that these works exist. Self-promotion or advertising would state that the books are good, or give references to where to buy them, or create an article or articles exclusively on them, and would be inappropriate. I have not done any such inappropriate editing of Wikipedia. I have had an account to edit in Wikipedia for barely a week, I think. It is far too early to make an assumption that I have no intention of editing any other articles, as some users have stated, when in fact I would like to do so. Bubbly1558 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Bubbly1558 (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Thank you for your comments. Please do not place any more unblock requests here unless you actually wish to request a unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.