User talk:Severenika

Welcome!

Hello, Severenika, and

. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of 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)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Thanx for welcoming me. Now I need at least a comment, though I'd prefer some advice.
The problem stays the same: my Dahlia Lynley-Chivers article stays pending after almost 7 days. So I wonder what else can I do to get it accepted (I've added quotations, references, pronunciation and more factual information and run out of ideas). Dahlia really is an important character in the Southern Vampire Mysteries and she can't be described through Sookie because in the Dahlia's stories another (both geographically and personally) perspective is represented.
Probably I shouldn't worry and should just wait patiently. But it's my fist article, so I can't.
There's also the question of uploading an image. Would someone, please, help me with it?
The image in question is the one with the link in the "character box" (http://i.usatoday.net/life/_photos/2011/02/10/daylightx-large.jpg)
Thank you in advance Severenika (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     I'll try my best to help you    :)
     Sorry but it appears to be a non-ecyclpediaic article and needs expert help but it's best to try an other article, sorry.

Picture: What about it?

Hope I helped,

    Bobherry (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry about spelling my hands hurt. Also I have no clue why it's making boxes.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deadlocked (novel) 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/Deadlocked (novel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just wanted to talk to you about what is usable as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Obviously Examiner cannot be used, but there's other things that need to be known about reliable sources per

. I saw that you're pretty new here, so I didn't know if anyone had told you about this stuff yet. (I had people reverting my stuff for months before someone finally decided to point me in that direction!)

Primary sources cannot be used unless you have multiple secondary and independent sources to back them up. What this means is that anything that's released by Harris or her publishers do not count towards notability. You can use them, but only if there's a lot of other articles that also back up the claims in their articles. Basically put, there should be so many secondary sources that you shouldn't have to link to any primary sources. (

) Links to merchant sites such as Amazon really aren't supposed to be used for the same reasons. Even though the things you're using it for are the more basic things such as page count and to verify that it's on the kindle (which really don't need a source to back up, BTW), it should be avoided as a source. Sites like that fall under the primary sources umbrella.

Be careful of brief mentions in articles. Brief mentions can be used as trivial sources, but if the book/subject is not the focus of the article or talked about in-depth, odds are it's only really usable as a trivial source. For example, the Fearnet link is good, but by many it would be seen more as a brief passing reference to the book and would be more of a trivial source than a main one. The same thing goes for the other link, which only very briefly mentions the book with 25 other brief mentions in an article. It's frustrating, I know. If there were a bunch of other sources it wouldn't be as bad, but these two are really the only links in the article at this time that would really be looked at. It doesn't matter that you've linked to other websites- the amount of links isn't what keeps the article, it's the quality of them and whether or not they pass

.

As far as other sources go, be careful. It's easy to link to something, only to have someone say something like "oh, you can't use that- it's a blog". (Had that happen to me!) Blogs can only be used if they're by someone who is considered to be an absolute authority. If Kim Harrison wrote a blog about Deadlocked it could be used, but if I wrote one it couldn't be. The best thing to do if you're unsure of whether or not a link could be used is to check with the

]

Oh, thank you very much for coming here and helping me out (out of my misery and confusion at least). I can see now that I was under the false impression that the closer the information is to the source the more reliable it is. I have a lot to think about now. Thanks again.Severenika (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Severenika. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
Message added 11:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Whpq (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlocking" the Deadlock novel

Bookmarks: News and notes from First Coast literature(April 26, 2012): "The latest installment in Charlaine Harris’ Sookie Stackhouse series, “Deadlocked” (vampires and murder spice up Louisiana life), comes out Tuesday" (http://jacksonville.com/entertainment/literature/2012-04-26/story/bookmarks-news-and-notes-first-coast-literature)

Deadlocked by Charlaine Harris REVIEW (April 27 2012): "Paying attention to the mundane and human parts of Sookie’s life keeps her relatively normal. The problem is, there’s not enough depth to the emotional side of Sookie’s relationships, or enough complexity to the politics of the various supernatural groups, especially when all three main groups (vampires, werewolves, fairies) have to be fitted in at once." (http://www.sfx.co.uk/2012/04/27/deadlocked-by-charlaine-harris-review/)

Dead treat: A chat with Charlaine Harris: "Harris will be in Miami Tuesday to talk about Deadlocked, the 12th and penultimate novel in the Southern Vampire series"(http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/29/v-fullstory/2771583/dead-treat-a-chat-with-charlaine.html) is that enough? more to come. Severenika (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Dahlia Lynley-Chivers

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Dahlia Lynley-Chivers, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted

.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dahlia Lynley-Chivers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dying For Daylight Dahllia.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dying For Daylight Dahllia.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlia Lynley-Chivers

Hello. I have noticed the recent undeletion, and I admit that there hadn't been sufficient discussion regarding the deletion. I would like to ask what sources exist that establish the character's notability (

WP:N). I'm not saying that the character isn't important in the context of the books, but reliable sources must confirm that for a separate Wikipedia article to be viable. While, of course, there are sources presently cited in the article, they're not independent (such as the books themselves, the forum, or an interview with the author), aside from the Adventure Gamers review. toweli (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I have converted the article to a redirect to the source material that the character is from, as the sources provided do not even begin to make a case for the character's notability. Please better familiarize yourself with

our notability guidelines before challenging deletion discussion outcomes again. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

there is no relevant information about the character in the article that you redirected it to.

The character has her own series and a computer game unlike any othe characters in the universe.

please, reverse your action Severenika (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you've deleted hours of work and group effort! how could you?! Severenika (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Dying For Daylight Dahllia.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dying For Daylight Dahllia.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]