User talk:CarverSindile

Non-free rationale for File:Mark Greaney at Rhodes College.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mark Greaney at Rhodes College.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it, can you check my work? CarverSindile (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conroe

The page you submitted about Conroe has two sources: 1) the adirondacks dot net page, which is an interview (Conroe talking about himself) and 2) Conroe's own site.

As well, you have made zero assertions of notability.

I'm going to be nice and make the page into a draft rather than just deleting it. I expect you to improve it, with genuine sources. If you cannot find genuine sources, then by definition that is an indicator that Mr. Conroe does not meet notability criteria.

I have also removed the mentions of Mr. Conroe that you added to other pages. Please do not restore them unless a proper article about him exists — bearing in mind the possibility that this may mean "don't do it, period". DS (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add/create the ORACLE one on the List of Fictional Espionage Organizations or the one on the Urban Fantasy page. CarverSindile (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: What do you mean talking about himself, he is not he is talking with an interviewer. CarverSindile (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CarverSindile, interviews are considered non-independent because they are by definition the person talking about themselves (the interviewer's participation is just asking the subject questions). We want to hear what independent sources say - a newspaper article about someone, for example. It's okay for a reliable source to quote the subject, but it can't just be the subject talking. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: In my experience that is the only way to get background info, history info, early life info, etc. for a person the other way is for a book to be written about them but that usually happens for an autobiography or after the person is deceased. Plus I've seen interviews posted on Wikipedia in regards to references and other things. CarverSindile (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody has written about Mr Conroe, then by definition he does not meet notability criteria. Interviews are fine for facts and completely worthless for notability. I could give you hundreds of facts about my cat but that wouldn't mean she should be on Wikipedia. DS (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting me confused so I'm not supposed to have facts on the Wikipedia page for John Conroe and not used an interview for where he was born or YouTube videos even though they are references that use YouTube videos. And what about RefSeek? Edit: Laurell K. Hamilton Wikipedia page uses interviews for references/sources and Tom Clancy Wikipedia page uses YouTube video for his page. CarverSindile (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" and "verifiability" are two different things. The interviews that you mentioned - both with Mr Conroe and with other authors - are certainly full of facts. However, there is no evidence that he meets notability criteria. I say again: I could provide hundreds of facts about my cat. Nobody would care, and she should not be on Wikipedia. There are a very few individual cats who meet notability criteria, but the vast majority do not. Similarly, some authors meet notability criteria, but the vast majority do not. To be clear: there is nothing wrong with using interviews and the subject's own website, as long as you don't only use interviews and the subject's own website. DS (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, didn't give me enough time to create it. When you removed it, it took months to a year of planning to get to that stage and I used various authors as a basis from Laurell to Tom Clancy to Mark Greaney and various other authors throughout history (that have a Wikipedia page) as a basis for the Wikipedia page and if you left it up there within a month or more it would have met the notability criteria but because you removed it, it's probably going to take months to a year to meet the notability criteria now. Also, give me a number of people that it would take to meet notability criteria (this is more for my benefit so I have something to visual and something as a real-world example because it will help me). CarverSindile (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Didn't give me enough time to create it" - you had a month between when you started it and when I moved it back into your userspace. And don't whine about it being gone. It's in your userspace. You know it's in your userspace. You've been editing it. "If you left it up there within a month or more it would have met the notability criteria" - how is that supposed to work? Do you think more sources would have spontaneously come into existence? DS (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not whining I just stating info and I never said it was gone. Because it would of given me enough time to find sources. Which is easier to explain with this story. I was looking for a person to commission an artwork for me and I went searching for somewhere between a month and two years (don't remember the exact time that passed) but I finally found a person to do it by accident because when I search something up on the internet it takes a while to find it (I'm not very good at researching and finding things on the internet) so I would eventually found sources for it not by looking but by accidentally finding them while looking up something else entirely i.e. examples about Wikipedia. And you never addressed the things I've said down below. And why not help me edit the article.CarverSindile (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Also, what about the Demon Accords novel series does it warrant a Wikipedia article/page (I noticed some works of fiction have a Wikipedia page but don't have an author page) and also what about the Demon Accords Wiki, can it have a Wikipedia page like the Wookieepedia page on here. Also, can you address this: "I didn't add/create the ORACLE one on the List of Fictional Espionage Organizations or the one on the Urban Fantasy page." Why can't it be on Wikipedia without being linked to the author page? I've noticed several works of fiction on the "List of Fictional Espionage Organizations" that don't link to any work of fiction on Wikipedia. And the same thing applies to the Urban Fantasy page. CarverSindile (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, your account isn't the one that added Conroe's works to "fictional espionage organizations" or "urban fantasy". He does have fans, no one ever claimed he didn't. Every entry in the list of fictional espionage organizations has at least a bluelink to the franchise or the author. Even so, that list does need to be cleaned up - various people have shoved worthless garbage into it over the years. Don't be one of them. "Can the Demon Accords wiki have a wikipedia page like Wookiepedia does" - I don't know, does the Demon Accords wiki have news coverage in Wired, Forbes, Variety, and the Times of London? If not, then no. Read the guidelines on notability. Understand what they mean. Understand that John Conroe does not at this time meet them, and neither does any of his work. As for why I'm not helping you to edit the page: I'm not interested in wasting my time on trying to do something that's not possible. When you want to write about a topic, the first thing you should do is find sources. If you can't find sources, you can't write an article. You can't just decide "oh, I like that author's work, I will put him on Wikipedia!" or "I like that novel, I will put it on Wikipedia!" I have researched the topic of Mr Conroe and he does not at this time meet notability criteria. Nothing you can do will change that. DS (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a statement of info. You said you researched it and since you haven't told me what your research found, I will tell you this (if you don't already know this): Joseph Bruchac who has a Wikipedia page is aware of John Conroe and his Demon Accords series and had this to say about it: "John Conroe’s first book does more than display his familiarity with the currently popular sub-genre of vampire stories. It also showcases a truly individual and engaging storytelling voice. With intelligence and sly humor, Conroe has crafted a tale that is more than mere genre fiction. It’s a truly engaging and rewarding read."

CarverSindile (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CarverSindile, That is not a statement of info. If somebody isn't notable, we cannot write about them. The point of DS's research is: they didn't find enough. Notability is measured by how much reliable sources have written. If they have written very little, then there is no notability. I suggest you move on to editing another topic. I know having an article declined is no fun, but writing articles from scratch is very difficult. You might wish to edit some existing articles for the time being :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a statement of info but you don't personally know me but other people would know when I said it was a statement of info it was. CarverSindile (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek:It's been a year, how have you been? I found one interview does this count: http://freebookreviews.blogspot.com/2011/04/author-interview-john-conroe-author-of.html CarverSindile (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello, I'm Bovineboy2008. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Gray Man (upcoming film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 20:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The info came from a newsletter I received from Mark Greaney. CarverSindile (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you cite the source then! BOVINEBOY2008 21:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I cite an email newsletter? CarverSindile (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend {{Cite mailing list}}. BOVINEBOY2008 21:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know any examples I can look at? CarverSindile (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, I'm afraid. I've never used it. I would recommend going to the talk page of the template and asking for some guidance. BOVINEBOY2008 21:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. CarverSindile (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response

You pointed me to a post Mr Conroe made on Facebook, wherein he asked his fans what they think about "a streaming series adaptation" of his novels, and said that it was "one of [his] goals for the series", and that he might take fan comments into consideration if he gets the chance to make a pitch.

You then asked, if this were to take place, how long would it take for the adaptation to become the topic of a Wikipedia article, and, as a corollary, whether this would mean that Mr Conroe could also be the topic of a Wikipedia article.

Answer: it depends on whether this possibly hypothetical potential adaptation meets notability criteria, which are a measure of how much external coverage there is of a topic. However many fans a streaming series has is not relevant if no one has written about it in a reliable source.

Could a streaming series adaptation of a novel be made without meeting notability criteria? Absolutely: you could do a super-low-budget version on Youtube, and no one would care except maybe the people who were involved.

As for whether the existence of such a hypothetical possibility would mean that Mr Conroe himself would (in that eventuality) meet notability criteria: not by default, no. He would still have to meet notability criteria. DS (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:TBS title

Template:TBS title has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]