User talk:Rosalindfranklin

Welcome!

Hello, Rosalindfranklin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation Army Works[edit]

Some of those books by William and Catherine Booth should probably be placed on the respective pages for those people. They are Salvation Army works in the regard of these people being the founders, but they are not all about the Salvation Army directly, but about general spirituality. There are also many other books by high-ranking Salvationists that would fit a general categories - perhaps you could make an article about Salvation Army writers or literature? Happy Editing--WPaulB 13:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diggory Press[edit]

Thank you for adding lists of works to various articles. A couple things to note: you should not add links to external websites such as diggorypress.com which exist to sell products (see the guidelines on external links), and you should only link the first instance of Diggory Press in any list of books (see MOS:L). Also, I'm guessing you are affiliated with Diggory Press. For this reason, you should not edit the article on Diggory Press because of conflict of interests. If there is something on that page that you wish to change, please bring it up on the talk page. (Also, you'll note that I nominated that article for deletion since it doesn't seem to fulfill the notability criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia.) Let me know if you have any questions about this. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You replied via email:

Understood about the individual links, sorry about that. However, not sure why you are considering deleting our publisher page as we have stayed neutral and kept to the facts?

As Banner of Truth, have an individual listing, we considered that we could also. Just following that example.

Neutrality is concerned with the content, and aside from the ^TMs all over the place, it seems fairly neutral. However, notability is a separate question concerned with whether or not the page should be included in this encyclopedia at all. Banner of Truth has been around for quite a while and is well known and referenced. AFAICT, Diggory Press is rather new and has not had the same impact as BoT, and the Wikipedia is not here to act as a publicity vehicle for it. In any case, you can make your case as for why it should be kept on its deletion discussion page. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Can you please go through and remove the multiple links in the pages you have edited? Also please format the book titles with italics (use two single quotes: ''Great Expectations'' becomes Great Expectations). Thanks! --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you can reply here rather than by email. :-) --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh..derr...ok, thanks and nice to meet you

Ditto. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS, you may want to read WP:TPG on the conventions for using the talk pages. I've reformatted and signed your comments on the deletion discussion page for Diggory Press. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books and articles[edit]

Books about subjects added to articles should have some claim to importance, based usually upon availability at libraries, except of course it it is the only work available. I am removing all those you have entered which do not have some evidence of the sort. I further warn you

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to multiple subjects, for books your press publishes. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.

DGG 22:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographies[edit]

Adding additional books to bibliographies for important authors, however, is fine. However, just a listing of titles with ISBN and the name of a reprint publisher is of minimal importance; to put the material into context, the information should include at least the original date , place, and publisher. It is also the practice here to separate book-length works from smaller items, such as pamphlets.

My motive is to help you make use of your knowledge and efforts in a way which will best serve the encyclopedia. Adding only one's own publications is helpful ,if they are worth the adding, but they should not be biased towards you as a source, but contain the same information that would be given about any title that you did not publish. I'll be glad to answer further questions. DGG 22:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only entered about two external links to the website, and stopped doing this immediately I was told not to by Flex, as well as doing everything else he/she told me not to. I previously was only copying what other people have done elsewhere on Wikipedia, there are lots of links pointing to commercial sites of relevance, and certainly did not consider this to be spam as it was always absoltutely relevant to the subject or author in question. This was not done for search engine rankings or even website promotion and I am rather hurt you call it spam when I spent so much time doing this. There are far more effective and less time-consuming tools to promote websites than this! It was merely to add factual information in the correct place. (And if anything, we have far too much business to deal with at the moment, we do not need any more, we do not advertise for this same reason.)

I have added in some other works from other publishers that I am aware of, as well as facts and information on various subjects, so I think it unfair to accuse me of bias - but obviously my knowledge is more limited to the subjects and titles I have direct knowledge or interest about so I write what I know. This is not biased, it is entirely normal for anyone. I also do not neceesarily have all the information to hand about previous publication dates, place of original publication etc but this should not make anything I add to be void or unimportant in itself - that is after all what Wikipedia is about, other peope with more facts adding them in at a later date. When I have more time, I will add in some extensive research I have done on other subjects that have not been published yet and probably will not be, I am merely going through my files one by one adding them in as and when - give me a chance!Rosalindfranklin 12:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaplain[edit]

Hi,

Most interesting list of books about chaplains, thanks. Not sure how large such a list could get before it ceased to be of value, but there is little about so probably not an issue.

Regards

Springnuts 15:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind Franklin, author[edit]

I have nominated an article you created, Rosalind Franklin, author, for deletion (please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosalind Franklin, author. Because of your user name, I assume that you are the same person as the subject of that article. Writing an article about yourself is a big conflict of interest. If you really are notable enough, then one day, someone may create an article about you. But starting one yourself is considered shameless self-promotion, even if that was not the original intent. Also, all articles must cite reliable sources, in accordance with our verifiability policy. Finally, we have specifically guidelines about whether we should create an article or not, please see WP:BIO. Feel free to weigh in at the AfD discussion. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 14:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please consider this, as a publisher yourself you set standards for what you publish, so does Wikipedia. For some reason, when people write Wikipedia articles about themselves, quality issues are neglected. Please don't do this. If you are going to write an article about yourself, use the Manual of Style to learn what goes in to writing a good Wikipedia article--the tone of the article itself should be what you would find in an encyclopedia, not a resume or brief note to the neighbor. At the very least add neutral sources (ie, not yourself, find newspaper and journal articles about yourself), discuss the subject of the article in a tone familiar to readers of encyclopedias, and write in complete sentences. I have removed much of the information from the article as inappropriate to Wikipedia, and rewritten what is left in complete sentences, and corrected the subject/verb number mismatch in another sentence. KP Botany 16:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you while we sort out the mess of conflict of interest edits you have made. I will ask other administrators to review this. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Penn-Lewis[edit]

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Jessie Penn-Lewis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father William Doyle[edit]

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Father William Doyle, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing[edit]

Hi, I see that you have added a list of books to the nursing page for the history of nursing. This is potentially really useful but it would be good if you could expand on the history section and footnote the books you have added. I have noted that you are currently blocked as an editor but in the event that this is reversed your contribution would be much appreciated. --Vince 19:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing Wikiproject[edit]

i have noticed that you have edited a number of times on the nursing article. Because of this, I would like to invite you to join the nursing wikiproject, a collective effort to help improve the quality and quantity of nursing articles. I hope you will consider it when you are again able to edit. Josh 14:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]