Talk:Carbon Dreams

This article was nominated for deletion on 2010 May 4. The result of the discussion was keep.

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Laurids2 (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

AFD?

This doesn't look notable William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I've redirected it to the author. Not sure about her either, but that is another matter William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted you, please get consensus before doing such things, thanks mark nutley (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You had a chance to talk and didn't bother. You're still not doing anything but blind reverting. Oh well, I'll AFD it instead William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been busy, you only tagged it yesterday. Nice of you to give me time to look for other sources mark nutley (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, read the comment above, from the 2nd. No matter, tis posted now William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, two days, very gracious thanks. How did you find this article btw? mark nutley (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found it rather poor, and definitely non-notable. How do you find it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the article is maybe not the best out there, but instead of "mocking" MArk nutley, you could do some work in the article and make it better (since you spot so many weaknesses (and I don't meaning removing stuff, improve it)? Nsaa (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publication date?

The infobox says 2000, Amazon says 2001, the text says 2009. When was the book actually published? Guettarda (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed all (incl category) to 2001 per Amazon via ISBN. Vsmith (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, thanks for improving the article. Nsaa (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

I removed the Reiken review, incorrectly attributed to the Association for Women Geoscientists. To begin with, it wasn't published by them, it was simply reproduced to advertise a book signing by the author. More importantly, it comes from the blurb (see the back cover of the book on Amazon) - it's a promotional comment, not a review of the book. Guettarda (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushaw-Newton review is actually a review of the author's second book, Echos of Life. Yes, it opens with a few kind words about this book, but it this book wasn't the subject. Not by a long stretch. Guettarda (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Bushaw-Newton review as Carbon Dreams wasn't the focus of that review. Vsmith (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focus? Please read the quote ... Nsaa (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI template tag and neutrality tags added without explanation. Review and remove?

Please review the page, which was already reviewed many times in the past, and remove the tags. Wikipedia rules note that it may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved or if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page. Please review this page and remove the tag if you do not find any controversial or unreferenced edits. Or remove any problematic edits. Laurids2 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the part admitting that you are the person discussed here. COI tag is appropriate tag, as you are promoting yourself in some of your edits. Under discussion at WP:COIN. --- Possibly ☎ 19:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was trying to maintain some privacy, as this is embarrassing, but I thought it was clear I was connected. Wikipedia does not prohibit one from editing information about one's self or one's work, if the edits are not controversial, and honestly did not see how they were controversial or particularly promotional, as I added references to reception in the media. I will happily refrain from editing the page, if that is a problem. I didn't know that I could simply suggest references here on the talk page. I did not add this page or most of the content. (Note that the edit you reverted was factual except for the mention of "lab lit". I would suggest backrolling it and simply deleting that, as it adds to the completeness of the page. But I will not do that myself)

Please see the discussion at WP:COIN. I believe this has been resolved so that the tag can be removed.Laurids2 (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]