User talk:Cordova829

Welcome!

Hello, Cordova829, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Jason, To learn how to edit a page and format it properly, I strongly advocate going through the Tutorial above. It takes about half an hour and is very useful. For information on stubs, see Wikipedia:Stub. If you have any other questions, let me know.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Alcubierre drive

Can you explain what type of book this is? A sci-fi novel? TIA ---CH 01:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

From Piotrus

Hey Jason, yes, I kind of stopped blogging and reading blogs, as I got sucked more and more into Wiki. Otherwise all is fine :) How is your writing going? Regarding the userpage, it is completely yours, and you can create any content for User:Cordova829 you want! Glad to see you on Wiki! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

For the article to be in mainspace, a review would be very useful to prove [Wikipedia:Notability (books)|the book notability]]. I will certainly help with copyediting and other wiki edits once you create the article (let me know when!).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Question on a bio page

I voted for keep. Indeed, a rather stupid nomination, writers are notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the result of the biography AfD, Wikipedia has standards on the notability of books that Mike's do not pass, and the book pages should be redirected to his biography. Grsz¹¹ 01:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, WP:CREATIVE covers notability of authors. Grsz¹¹ 01:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The very first line in the notability of books clearly shows that his original, widely released books in fact do qualify. Cordova829 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Criteria 1? I'm not sure how. Grsz¹¹ 02:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm failing to see how the verification citings and websites I pointed out and left links for fail to meet the Wiki standard.Cordova829 (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can answer that. Blogs are never reliable sources unless they are published in the editorial section of a major publication, ie NY Times or USA Today. A fan site like SF Site would be no more appropriate than say iloveobama.com: as a sci-fi fan site, it will comment on any and all science fiction literature they come across. I'd be happy to answer any other questions. Grsz¹¹ 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions that is, after I finish these last minute papers. I'll most likely be back later tonight. Thanks for your cooperation and calm attitude. Grsz¹¹ 02:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

My only concern is the definition and difference between a blog and am independent reviewer. Authors like Mike, Eric Flint, John Ringo and Mercedes Lackey all rely on these independent reviewers to recommend their books and give them decent reviews. Without these independent reviews (more often than not, these reviewers don't even recieve a free ARC (Advanced Reader Copy) from the publisher, often investing in the book with their own money) readers would not know which book to consider the next time at the store. I mean, would you consider Laura K Hamilton or even Eric Flint to be non-notable authors? Both are NY Times bestsellers with millions of books in print. SFRevu [1] and sites like it reviewed Laura and Eric as well. It's only fair to take into consideration which independently run sites (which SFRevu is, and not a weblog).

I disagree with Mike on quite a few things, far too numerous to count. My biggest complaint is his attitude towards people who disagree with him. But to call him a non-notable author and to delete his article is simple pettiness. By the standards you are following to the exact letter of the law, Robert Anson Heinlein would never have gotten a Wiki entry until 20 years after his last book was published...Cordova829 (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"My biggest complaint is his attitude towards people who disagree with him." Haha, I think I discovered that side of him in his recent blog. I've withdrawn the AfD, assuming you'll add some sources to the article. Now I believe we can focus on the novels. Like I stated above, these are hardly notable books, and should probably be redirected to the biography. Grsz¹¹ 06:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for rolling the books into a massive universe stub or even rolling it into his biography. He has quite a few books in the universe and has even more contracted with Baen Books as well. His readers aside, I think the first step would be to roll the books into one large article and then deciding what to do afterwards. Cordova829 (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Song translation

Just mail me the song via Wikipedia email. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, in that case, Wikipedia:E-mailing users will help :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

re:Assistance

If you could point me out to specific articles being deleted I could be of more help. For now, I'll say that nobody can delete something "just like that". Deletion process is now quite fossilized and there are numerous rules. If it is a proposed deletion, you can easily challenge it. It can then be upped to a proper deletion/voting discussion, but this involves multiple editors, where "one guy's bias" is no longer that important. All that said, notability of fiction has always been a problem on Wikipedia, and I've seen a number of articles about fictional items deleted; that included a number of topics I've contributed to and which were related to some rather "big name" authors or franchises (David Weber, Battletech). Wikipedia is not the friendliest place for fictional subjects. However, if she is a book author, note that books are usually notable, and a lot of content about one's fiction can be included in book articles. Ditto for short story articles, or series articles. I hope that helps. PS. Glad to hear back from you again! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (books) seems somewhat stricter than I thought. Still, I'd consider a book reliable, provided we can find at lest one review or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the articles, I see one major problem: they are unreferenced. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream Dancer for one place I provided a number of references, those should estabilish notability. Next, I have a suggestion: try to get free advertising by writing a sufficiently long and referenced article that it can make it to T:TDYK and appear on Wikipedia's front page. I've done it for several books of my favorite authors, for example Czarne Oceany, Inne Pieśni or Perfekcyjna Niedoskonałość (mind you, nowadays DYKs need inline cites, but they are not that dificult to learn). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, you should comment in the deletion discussions. This is where the decision is being made - not on article's talk pages (and certainly, not on mine). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:MichaelWilliamson.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:MichaelWilliamson.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MacMed^talk_stalk 22:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Lawyers in Hell cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lawyers in Hell cover.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Use

==License=={{Non-free book cover}}

to categorize the image in addition to the non-free rational. Otherwise just remember to scroll and select the license on the upload form. Marcus Qwertyus 05:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawyers in Hell deletion nomination

I see you commented on the detetion nomination of this book at Talk:Lawyers in Hell. You need to copy it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawyers in Hell for it to be noted. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Admin Reviews

Admins are elected in a popular vote, and require a super majority (see WP:RFA). Proving that an admin is biased is very difficult, not the least due to the usual organizational issues (admins sticking together, and so on). You can always complain at WP:AN about an admin, but I've rarely seen that work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lawyers in Hell cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lawyers in Hell cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Some Thoughts

Note I am not an admin. I would have to look at the problem in more detail, and my next three weeks are crazy. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Books or Wikipedia:Notability (books) would be a good place to start a discussion? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus of the Heroes in Hell Merge - Did it include all of the Books and Stories?

According to my memory during the Lawyers in Hell AfD discussion about merging the Heroes in Hell articles into one large article, it was decided ALL the articles were to be merged. No mention was made of leaving any of the articles separate.

When I went to merge the one remaining article, one editor got really upset saying that the merge discussion did not include this article, Gilgamesh in the Outback. I believe that the consensus was for all articles. The admin who is currently handling the dispute was not involved at the time, and needs to see a show of hands. If you have any opinion on the issue could you please make your opinion known at Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Z. Williamson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Z. Williamson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  ‑ Iridescent 06:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brad R. Torgersen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dragon Award (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)