Howick
{hangon} This is unbelievable. Who are you to judge whether or not a recently published book is less notable than other books? Have you read it? I've read a number of the books listed on the sundry pages I was editing and I know that they have erroneous information. I consider the book we published to be superior to them --- care to read it? I'll send you a copy. In the mean time, unless you can prove that the other books listed in the general bibliographies were not listed simply because the publisher is trying to sell the book, you need to reinstate my changes and my editing privileges --- or point me to some one who can arbitrate our debate and determine whether or not you're being abusive.
- On wikipedia, notability is determined by actual citation to the book. There are no reviews to this book at all, and the capsule makes it look like a political piece. I don't think it should be added to any of the pages. I'll unblock you, so that you can appeal deletion of the article on your book, but on other articles you need to discuss the addition of your book on talk pages first (see WP:COI). If you simply re-add your book to these articles without discussion, I will block you again. I happen to know that many of the other books are not spam, however, because in some cases I added references myself. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
{hangon} Wait a minute, are you complaining because I'm adding the book to the bibliographic lists of articles that the book specifically discusses (e.g., The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act)? or because of the book and author pages? If you want to remove those, you're welcome to. They were added from a single link source early in my efforts before I realized that it wasn't what I wanted to do. However, if you want to remove the book from bibliographic lists, then you need a better complaint than "spam" or all of the books in any bibliographic list would need to be removed as well.
- Frankly, there are probably a dozen books more notable on the subject; some of these books are already used as sources and have been considered reliable in secondary coverage. At any rate, it's clear you are here to promote your book. This is not compatible with our policies. See WP:COI and Wikipedia:Spam. Cool Hand Luke 20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Spam edit
This is not a forum to promote your book. Please stop or I will block you. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 3 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Cool Hand Luke 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Spam before you contribute again. Cool Hand Luke 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Polygamy: The Mormon Enigma, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bielle (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please check WP:COI for information on why it is unwise to write about yourself or your books. One of the principal guidelines of Wikipedia is "Wikipedia is not an advertising service". "Informational articles" are usually not more than blatant advertising. Even your user page may be at risk with a stated purpose of using the account to promote your company's books. Bielle (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You may know not this, so just for your information: you have placed the query you have added to the above-captioned article's talk page at its first section. New materials belong at the bottom of the page. This is a standard convention on Wikipedia. If you leave yours at the top, regulars to the page will usually go straight to the bottom, looking for new material. Yours will either be missed, or the readers will start out with a bad attitude toward your request, because you appear to be trying to get preference for your question. In order to avoid any such misunderstandings, you might consider putting your question at the bottom of the list, in its own section there. If you have questions, please come to my talk page. Bielle (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)