User talk:GreyGhost1313

November 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ashley Biden. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Red Panda 25 00:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry won't happen again GreyGhost1313 (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Motel on Murder Mountain

The article Motel on Murder Mountain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing this book per WP:GNG / WP:NBOOK.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster _talk 15:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Motel on Murder Mountain for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Motel on Murder Mountain 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/Motel on Murder Mountain 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. ... discospinster _talk 19:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new novella published by Entertainment Inc, along with Street Stalker: Stalker Di Strada

These novellas are an attempted revival of the Weird Menace, and Giallo sub-genre. I have nothing personal to gain from this, no profit, I'm not the author. It's simply for love and hopeful revival of the genre. I will provide more links with articles about this topic. This is a new, yet noteworthy book to the longevity of the genre. It's the first giallo audiobook as well. GreyGhost1313 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that this claim - that it's the first - is difficult to prove. There would need to be coverage in independent and reliable sources. The reason for that is because this claim is at least technically incorrect. The term 'giallo' comes from the Italian pulp book series "Il Giallo Mondadori", which would often publish non-Italian authors like Agatha Christie. This could be presumed to place her works - or at least those translated and republished under this series title - in the realm of giallo fiction. Since much of her work has been adapted into audiobook format, radio plays, and the type, this makes the claim of this novella being the first giallo audiobook technically wrong.

This novella wasn't published exclusively to audiobook format, so this would pose an issue with the audiobook claim as well since it could be seen as promotional puffery since it's not uncommon for print (ebook or paper) books to receive audiobook narration. It can be more difficult for indie authors, but it's not impossible - especially in this age when podcasting is a popular outlet to reach readers. Heck, it's how Scott Sigler managed to reach most of his fanbase.

There's also an issue with the term 'giallo' as well. It can be applied to fiction but isn't typically done, so it can be argued that there are many books that would fall into this genre, either intentionally or not. Some fiction is published with the term readily applied to it. Others use it as a way to describe mystery novels that are a bit more gory and lurid than others. (On a side note, some view exploitation films as a separate genre from giallo, even though they overlap greatly. I think it's a "all apples are fruit but not all fruit are apples type of deal".) It's a pretty broad term, to say the least.

My point with all of this is that I want to impress upon you how important it is to have independent and reliable sourcing that explicitly states the claims being made, particularly if the claim is being used to establish notability. I understand if all of this seems frustrating - it's frustrating at times for me as well, since there are a lot of indie authors that I'd like to put on here. The coverage just isn't there.

On a side note, I'd really like to see more literature in the giallo genre. A lot of it tends to bounce around or be lumped into a broader genre, especially as horror lit as a whole is still greatly struggling to reach the levels of popularity that it had years ago. (Paperbacks from Hell is a great read on the topic of horror lit in the 70s and 80s, if you're interested.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, GreyGhost1313, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be here predominantly to promote and otherwise write about an indie novella. Your edits are made up of attempts to insert mentions of the novella and its author into various articles. The only edits that do not center around this was to comment on the deletion discussion and vandalize the page on Biden's daughter. The promotional editing would be problematic enough, but pairing it with vandalism makes your edits extremely problematic - even if you just did it as a test and apologized for doing so. In order to be unblocked you would need to be able to show that you understand what you did wrong and to promise not to edit about the novella or its author, as well as give an example of what you will do if unblocked. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]