Hello, LankyKeller, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to John Michael Cummings. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Auric talk 19:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LankyKeller. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page John Michael Cummings, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 12:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that you have a conflict of interest based on some of your edit summaries, e.g

I have included the cover image of my novel Don't Forget Me, Bro, which will accompany text about my novel on my Wikipedia page.

Also, if you have a source, you need to cite it, saying you know something to be true is not citing, it is original research, which is not permitted per the no original research policy. You need to give a source in the form of a web link, book cite, ect. See WP:SOURCES for more information on how to use sources correctly. also, you have been asked quite a few times to pleases read the articles talk page which can be found here. Thank you. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 12:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from John Michael Cummings. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 13:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Masum,

Is this where we should communicate?

LankyKeller (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But you might want to create a new section for that. Also If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{u|Masumrezarock100}} to your message, and signing it.. Masum Reza^📞 16:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your email. I have reviewed the article thoroughly and I removed the Autobiography maintenance tag as I didn't find any material that indicates it is an autobiography. However, we must keep citation needed and notability tag as the article doesn't have enough independent reliable sources that proves the subject is notable as described in general notability guidelines. Please help to establish notability by adding new sources to the article. But don't edit your own article. Ask someone who is an unpaid and non-coi editor. Please also have a look on our notability guidelines on biographical topics. Sincerely, Masum Reza^📞 11:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've striked out some of my words above because an editor reverted my edit with a good explanation.

Regarding the PDF file, please provide a link to the file (from the official website of your college), so we can add it as an reference. Thanks. Masum Reza^📞 13:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer communicating via talk pages rather than via email if the message doesn't contain any sensitive information. Someone might notice your message on your talk page and comment on it. About the PDF file, we simply can't use it as an reliable source if it isn't linked from reliable websites. Do your college's website have any online profile of previous instructors? Masum Reza^📞 15:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masum,

I think I have it now!

I spoke with the editor of WVU Press, which published my second book. She has offered to post all needed information under my bio on the press's website. This information would include my teaching experience, being a Paterson Prize winner, having one my short stories chosen as an Honorable Mention in The Best American Short Stories, and my third novel being excerpted in The Chicago Tribune.

Will this work?

LankyKeller (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to indicate notability, no, but it might serve to confirm the details about teaching experience and other unsourced info in the article. The Paterson prize and the Chicago Tribune excerpt are not relevant for Wikipedia unless possibly if they were thoroughly covered in reliable secondary sources. Your publisher is a primary source, and if your editor uploads info at your request for the purpose of linking from Wikipedia, that would be a self-published source, which is something Wikipedia avoids if possible. Again, factual details about work background etc can be confirmed by such sources. --bonadea contributions talk 17:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masum,

I left you a message but forgot to ping it, which I am doing here.

Masumrezarock100LankyKeller (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think we can use that as a reliable source but we still need more independent sources to prove notability (like news websites). I have watchlisted your user talk page, but it's still pretty hard for me to find out when you post message here for me as I've a pretty big watchlist. So I recommend you to ping me every time you post a message here. Masum Reza^📞 16:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mansum,

This is terrific!

I will work on providing independent sources for the additional information that further establishes notability.

Masumrezarock100

LankyKeller (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude you've spelled my name incorrectly. Ok, continue your work. By the way, I did some search on you in Google, but I couldn't find any reliable sources. I guess that's because I live in another country. Masum Reza^📞 17:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masum,

Here is the link to USA TODAY's recommendation of my novel The Night I Freed John Brown for Black History Month:

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2009-02-23-black-history_N.htm

Masumrezarock100LankyKeller (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masum,

I'm resending the previous message under a new section, as requested.

Here is the link to USA TODAY's recommendation of my novel The Night I Freed John Brown for Black History Month:

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2009-02-23-black-history_N.htm

More to come.

P.S. Where in the world are you?

Masumrezarock100LankyKeller (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bonadea,

Thank you for your directions. They are very helpful.

Kindly,

LankyKeller (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude I am from India. Masum Reza^📞 21:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done This link is already present in the article. Masum Reza^📞 21:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bonadea,

I just spoke with Abby Freeland, my book publisher, and expressed your point. She understands very clearly, but said that my bio has remained only one sentence since 2011 and should have been fleshed out from the beginning and updated several times by now. She noted her small staff as overwhelmed by work. She stated for the record that my updated bio is foremost for WVU and any linking to the new bio is secondary.

Here is the link to the updated bio as an independent source.

https://wvupressonline.com/cummings_ugly_to_start_with_9781935978084#3

I will continue to seek out other independent sources to corroborate additional facts in this bio.

Thank you very much for your patience with me.

LankyKeller (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I added this link as a source to the article. Masum Reza^📞 21:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But note that it is not an independent source. Currently the article only has one secondary source, the brief mention in USA Today's listing of recent books with a Black History Month theme. Of course your publisher should try to keep their bio page about you updated as much as they can - it's their job to market your books - but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia and hopefully the Wikipedia article about you form no part of their actions. --bonadea contributions talk 09:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Book Ideas appears to be independent, but it is a personal website so it is borderline WP:RS. --bonadea contributions talk 10:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Masum,

Thank you so much for your continued help, and I am very glad indeed the link has been added. At this point, what areas in the article should I support by providing links to reputable sites?

Masumrezarock100LankyKeller (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. Currently there is no reliable source in the article to prove that you were born on 1963. Also we need more sources to the Short stories and novellas sub-section. Masum Reza^📞 06:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Masum,

I want to finish the day here by saying that, in the morning, I will continue providing reliable sources to support my Wiki page.

My thanks to you and Bonadea for today's help!

Kindly,

Masumrezarock100LankyKeller (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Masum,

Here is a good, solid site that presents a strong, wide view of my career until 2012 or so, including information about my age, published novellas and stories, awards, and so forth: http://eijohnson4u.blogspot.com/2010/05/upcoming-interview-john-michael.html. It may fit nicely at the beginning of the article, as a citation after the first sentence, "John Michael Cummings (born 1963) is an American novelist and short story writer, and the author of the novels The Night I Freed John Brown and Don't Forget Me, Bro."

What do you think?

Masumrezarock100LankyKeller (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a personal blog website. Probably not a reliable source. Hey @Bonadea: what's your opinion? Masum Reza^📞 13:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masumrezarock100: I agree - it is not a reliable source for WP's purposes. --bonadea contributions talk 14:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[spam removed]

Masumrezarock100LankyKeller (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those show that the stories exist, not that there is anything notable about them. You selected these stories to list in the article - what were your selection criteria? --bonadea contributions talk 14:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bonadea,

Good day to you.

Thank you for your questions.

Simply put, these journals are notable intrinsically. Being published in them strikes a sharp mark of achievement for any writer. To be published in The Iowa Review, for example, is momentous to his or her early career. For me, it brought forth consideration for The Pushcart Prize and The Best American Short Stories series. Had this same story appeared in an unknown journal, not a glance would be given to it.

Same with the North American Review. NAR is the oldest literary magazine in the United States, started more than two hundred years ago--while the Battle of Waterloo was taking place. How can having 7,500 words of fiction published in an American castle of literature not be special, remarkable, extraordinary--no, outstanding? Does it need be defended? Please know I am asking this question with respect, somewhat rhetorically, and in a soft tone.

In Rosebud, one of the journals listed, my short story "Two Tunes" shared a page with a poem by Ray Bradbury. Mr. Bradbury and I were co-contributors to the magazine. To have your work brush up against a giant reflects the standing of the publication in which both works appeared and speaks to the question of notability.

If I sound elitist, I am not. I am simply saying these journals make the headlines in contemporary literature, cause consequences in the written arts, perhaps not with the weight of The New Yorker or The Paris Review, but nonetheless they are brick-strong with good worldly writing, carry their own notability on their backs, and have included me in their backpacks.

And that is my point.

Listing these journals gives knowledge to this encyclopedia of my career that is the subject of this page and is being fortified with information.

Thank you so much for the challenge and responsibility of answering this very important question. I hope I have helped you and myself.

How can I work further with you to resolve any and all issues with my page?

Masumrezarock100LankyKeller (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to ping Bonadea by adding {{ping|Bonadea}} to your message and signing it. Masum Reza^📞 20:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, all those things would be relevant for your own official website, or for your publisher's information about you. Of course the journals themselves are notable, but that does not mean that all authors who have been published there are notable, or that the stories themselves are, for Wikipedia's purposes. More information here. Again, the stories themselves don't work as references for anything other than their existence, and what Wikipedia needs is independent sources, such as reviews in reliable sources (not personal blogs, for instance). Incidentally, was this also a response to the question about why you chose to list these particular stories in the article - because they are printed in these journals? Also note that you are not in any way responsible for "resolving the issues" with the article (which, as you know, is not "your page") and as long as you are asking other editors to work on the article on your behalf, the conflict of interest/autobiography issue becomes increasingly relevant. --bonadea contributions talk 14:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea,

Masum pointed out I need to ping you with my messages. So I am resending my last message with a ping at the end.

Hi, Bonadea,

Thank you for your questions.

Simply put, these journals are notable intrinsically. Being published in them strikes a sharp mark of achievement for any writer. To be published in The Iowa Review, for example, is momentous to his or her early career. For me, it brought forth consideration for The Pushcart Prize and The Best American Short Stories series. Had this same story appeared in an unknown journal, not a glance would be given to it.

Same with the North American Review. NAR is the oldest literary magazine in the United States, started more than two hundred years ago--while the Battle of Waterloo was taking place. How can having 7,500 words of fiction published in an American castle of literature not be special, remarkable, extraordinary--no, outstanding? Does it need be defended? Please know I am asking this question with respect, somewhat rhetorically, and in a soft tone.

In Rosebud, one of the journals listed, my short story "Two Tunes" shared a page with a poem by Ray Bradbury. Mr. Bradbury and I were co-contributors to the magazine. To have your work brush up against a giant reflects the standing on the publication in which both works appeared and speaks to the question of notability.

If I sound elitist, I am not. I am simply saying these journals make the headlines in contemporary literature, cause consequences in the written arts, perhaps not with the weight of The New Yorker or The Paris Review, but nonetheless they are brick-strong with good worldly writing, carry their own notability on their backs, and have included me in their packs.

And that is my point.

Listing these journals gives knowledge to this encyclopedia of my career that is the subject of this page and is being fortified with information.

Thank you so much for the challenge and responsibility of answering this very important question. I hope I have helped you and myself.

How can I work further with you to resolve any and all issues with my page?

@Bonadea:

LankyKeller (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, Masum and Bonadea,

I am not sure whether you've had a chance to read my previous reply. I hope you will weigh the point I tried to make into our discussions as a clear, sound reasoning that fits with Wikipedia's policy.

In the meantime, I found for us a very strong, reliable source!

Bookreporter.com, a privately held, New York-based company, has provided an online forum about books and authors since 1999. The publication supports many details on my Wikipedia page and properly establishes the noteworthiness of them. Bookreporter.com terms me "award-winning" and uses the phrase even-handedly and without peacockery. Bookreporter.com acknowledges "The Paterson Prize" and, by virtue of such, recognizes its importance in literature. Bookreporter.com cites a review of my writing in a national newspaper that squarely characterizes my work and, at the same time, informs the reader that my writing has been excerpted in another national newspaper, The Chicago Tribune. Bookreporter.com names many literary journals listed on my Wikipedia page and presents them as a substantial body of notable works from which a story was commended by The Best American Short Story Series and another nominated for The Pushcart Prize.

For the record, I myself had no hand in publishing this information. Nor am I in communication with the company. This profile, as the website states, serves a “large and devoted community of booklovers since 1999.”

I would very much like to have the details about my career in the above paragraph included on my Wikipedia page and respectfully request that you help me arrange the information so it logically develops the present composition. By working together, we can use this source of Bookreporter.com to benefit Wikipedia's article as entirely truthful, accurate, and fully justified.

Here is the web address: https://www.bookreporter.com/

To reach information about me directly, go to: https://www.bookreporter.com/authors/john-michael-cummings

I thank you both very much and forward to hearing back from you soon!

@Bonadea: Masumrezarock100LankyKeller (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have real life too you know. Being a student (especially in high school) makes it extremely difficult for me to concentrate on both study and Wikipedia. I and all editors here, maintain both online and real world stuffs. I will reply when I can. @Bonadea I would like to hear your thoughts about this website. Masum Reza^📞 17:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked this website with author and publisher friends; it is in a sense a marketing tool for authors, and they review books that are submitted to them. From what I understand, they are mostly independent from the publisher and the author, since even though the authors/publishers actively send them books to review, it is not (as far as my sources are aware, and from what the website itself says) a paid service and the reviews are not necessarily positive. The author information is not really independent from the publisher's website, though.

But that doesn't actually matter since all the relevant information found on that site is already in the Wikipedia article about Cummings, and the promotional tone used on that site is not appropriate here. The Paterson prize and the excerpting in the Chicago Tribune don't belong in the article, and Wikipedia doesn't (or at least shouldn't) ever use the adjective "award-winning" to characterise people.

LankyKeller, re I am not sure whether you've had a chance to read my previous reply. - I responded earlier this afternoon, before you posted this, in the relevant section above. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made few changes to the Early Life section based on what I have seen in the website. Yes we mustn't use non-neutral words like that as described in WP:NPOV. Masum Reza^📞 21:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bonadea and Masum!

I am impressed by your writing in the replies. It is spot-on and hits my brain with an epiphany!

Thanks, too, for pointing out my position in this matter.

Before I furnish you with reviews in Kirkus, Booklist, and so forth, I want to show you a handful of articles from mostly West Virginia newspapers. I admit some might seem repetitive, but two or three, I think, might brighten this page with reliable, new information.

I promise it is not a waste of your time and hope you feel the same after looking at them.

Also, I have a question. Do I myself contact other Wikipedia editors for additional help? Or do I wait for them to find this Talk page and weigh in?

Below are the web addresses of newspaper articles. They are archived articles, but the page can easily be viewed at full size by clicking a tab. I will list them in order of possible effectiveness.

Finally, I am in the process of digging up a past story about me on West Virginia Public Broadcast System!

1.

http://www.shepherdstownchronicle.com/page/content.detail/id/508749/Book-reading-and-signing-with-John-Michael-Cummings.html

2.

http://www.spiritofjefferson.com/life/article_0f8cbb7e-147a-11e5-b532-97e7b44bb750.html

3.

http://www.wetzelchronicle.com/page/content.detail/id/524949/Cummings-Offers-Powerful-Book.html

4.

http://mms.stparchive.com/page_image.php?paper=MMS&year=2011&month=12&day=10&page=13&mode=F&base=MMS12102011p013&title=Mountain Messenger

5.

https://www.alleghenymountainradio.org/dont-forget-me-bro-by-west-virginia-writer-john-michael-cummings/

6.

http://gtc.stparchive.com/page_image.php?paper=GTC&year=2009&month=4&day=21&page=5&mode=F&base=GTC04212009p005&title=Grant County Press

@Bonadea:

Masumrezarock100

LankyKeller (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can contact other non-paid and non-coi editors for their help. Just an advice, ask for their help on their talk page and not via email (except for those with privacy concerns). I will try to look at the links within an hour or two. Masum Reza^📞 17:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First one seems like an RS but I am afraid I can't agree with the second one. I am too busy right now so I have to go offline now. @Bonadea: could you look at them for me please? Masum Reza^📞 19:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bonadea and Masum,

Good day to you both.

Here is another great review in The Boston Globe. (Scroll halfway down the review page.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20081021081401/http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2008/09/21/superman_born_in_cleveland/?page=full

@Bonadea: Masumrezarock100 LankyKeller (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me to your user talk page. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 15:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)LankyKeller (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea, sorry for the annoyance, and thank you for your patience with me. LankyKeller (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bonadea and Masum,

First, Bonadea, I know you asked me not to ping you on this User Talk Page. But I feel I must in this case. I apologize if it remains all the more annoying.

To both of you, I have expressed my gratitude for your attention and development of the article, and of course you know I am panting to keep it moving. The stress in me is, I have no sense of how long this matter might take or whether I should or should not express more urgency or tap your shoulders more often to keep your attention on this page, or how and if to ask other editors of your standing to help, and if that move will only meet with resentment from some party. I am naively and blindly on the outside of the Wikipedia world, trying sincerely to have the article about me developed, authenticated, and presented without the horrible, horrible, horrible banner.

That banner keeps me up at night.

Bonadea, you have asked me to bring you reputable reviews. I have been and will have a few very crucial ones to add soon, I hope. Can you tell me how busy your schedule is? Can you illuminate me on what I am not understanding or direct me to your trustworthy colleagues if that is procedure or helpful or best at this stage? I would prefer to work only with you and Masum because of what has felt like a rapport and also because I don't know if another "editor" is a bozo who will set me back or a pro who will move me forward. Masum, I have a sense of your situation with school and this work.

I have placed much information on this page in the form of links to reliable stories. Am I right in expecting you two to read the material, pull out what is useful to the article, and weave it in? Or am I off base? Have I placed too much information before you and unfortunately overwhelmed you?

I hope you can appreciate with a modicum of compassion my feeling confused at this point. Masum, you said you would get to it when you can. Is that how it works?

Whatever you can share with me about these questions would be helpful.

Thank you. @Bonadea: Masumrezarock100LankyKeller (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would really appreciate it if you didn't ping me (here or elsewhere). I have this user talk page and the talk page of the article in question on my watchlist.

Hopefully you have had a chance to read the responses already provided to you? Then you'll know that as long as you are involved in any way, by asking other editors to edit the article about you, it remains essentially an autobiography. I would absolutely not be comfortable removing the template - but it does not harm the article in any way, so there is no hurry. If you are actually that concerned about the maintenance template, (and even if you are not) the best and only thing to do for you is to forget about Wikipedia. I mean that - if it gets to the point where the article is edited by experienced editors who have never been in touch with you in any way, then it would eventually turn into something that is not an autobio.

It is exam season in my part of the world, and I have piles of marking on my desk at work. But Wikipedia is not work. It is a hobby, something we do in our spare time because we enjoy it; in my case it is a way to clear my head between bouts of marking, right now, and at other times it is simply an enjoyable way to spend my time on something that will not make money for me nor anyone else. Masum, too, is a volunteer, as you know, with different priorities from mine no doubt, since all people have different priorities. We are all volunteers. None of us expects any other editor to work on any particular article out of the five million articles, or however many there are now. I have noted the sources you have mentioned and evaluated some of them; so far, I've seen nothing that would be useful in a biography article except for the Kirkus review which was already listed on the article talk page among a number of external links removed from the article itself. What all this boils down to is that you cannot expect volunteers at this encyclopaedia to prioritise the article about you, except to remove material that violates Wikipedia policies. I don't have a schedule as far as WP is concerned, other than vague long-term plans about the type of article I'd like to create at some point.

Reading your post above makes me think that you are still under some misapprehensions about what Wikipedia is and how it works. You talk about "pro" editors who will "move you forward", and that terminology doesn't quite make sense here. Hopefully what I have written here has cleared up some things. Since I have spent some time trying to find reliable and independent sources about you, it would have been impossible not to notice that you have frequently written to reviewers asking for reviews of your books, and told them to read the Wikipedia article about you. Maybe that is one reason why you are uncomfortable with the maintenance templates - I don't know. In any case, you should read this information which will hopefully be helpful. --bonadea contributions talk 06:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea,

Thank you for your reply.

I myself did not create the article. A librarian in a West Virginia public school did. She is deceased. Editors of journals having published my short stories and a former literary agent added to the page over the recent years. That is my best guess.

Recently, the page has become very important to me, and I am focused on it anew. I made many changes recently, as you know.

At present, I am under the belief you redrafted the page a few weeks back - as it clearly now sounds factual to my ear - and by doing so, you reached satisfaction, or a high degree of it, that the paragraphs were written in an encyclopedic standard. Left to complete the page, as Masum more or less said in a message to me, were citations regarding the stories. I provided what I thought was needed, and you explained that the stories' existence alone is not notable, that they must fall into a greater context. Could you please correct me or elaborate on that point? I see many unchallenged Wikipedia pages on other writers containing simple lists of works. Some pages read like resumes, with a newsy first and second paragraph above. This of course confuses me.

Is there an exemplary page on a writer more or less at my level you can point me to?

Again, to be clear, is the problem only in the material under "bibliography"? Once that is corrected, does the page then reach the standard of "biography."

I do very much want the page to exist at its best. It would make me very proud, and I honestly feel who I am as a writer and what I have accomplished are notable.

Again, to sum up, am I correct in saying that material under the bibliography is not presented acceptably and that alone is the problem?

Also, Masum seemed actively involved in the page a week or so ago, but since has fallen silent or asked your opinions on my postings. Would your requesting him to again take a lead of sorts in the page be inappropriate and helpful and perhaps resolve the issues quickest? He does seem very hands-on.

Once again, thank you for your patience and help.

Kindly,

Masumrezarock100 LankyKeller (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea and Masum,

Could you delete from the page what you think is autobiographical, all and everything at one time, and then I would know what exactly needs to be presented biographically, or be developed differently, rather than my feeling uncertain where to focus.

Perhaps this move would make your job easier, clear up my confusion, and bring out a simple resolution.

I accept that I might be terrified by what I will see. But it seems a brave new direction.

Kindly, Masumrezarock100LankyKeller (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would like to apologize for my late response. However, I am afraid I can't spend anymore time on Wikipedia due to my education. I won't be able to reply anymore as I am on wikibreak. Now if you'll excuse me, I shall take my leave. Masum Reza^📞 18:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent canvassing of editors for "urgent help" with "your article" you presented a number of misconceptions of how Wikipedia works. These things have been explained above, but I will address them again. (Not least because the canvassed editors probably think I'm an incompetent idiot for not having explained the most basic concepts to you...)

• The article about you is not "your article".
• An article about you is not neecssarily a good thing.
• Wikipedia editors are not professionals. Implying that an editor is working for pay is in fact a kind of personal attack.
• The Paterson Prize is not a notable award. This has been explained multiple times by multiple people. Notability means something very specific on Wikipedia.
• Being nominated for the Pushcart Prize is not in any way notable, since publishers nominate their authors, and a very larg number of works are nominated.
• There are no urgent issues with this article at the moment. --bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea,

I appreciate your keeping me on these points and making clear limitations to the material.

You have shown great patience with me.

LankyKeller (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bonadea,

Do you feel comfortable recommending a Wikipedia editor you've worked with and can help with this page, given your increasingly busy schedule.

LankyKeller (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bonadea,

I think you declined this request in the past, but maybe you will change your mind. I have a link to The Chicago Tribune excerpt: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/ct-books-john-michael-cummings-20190607-story.html

May I put it in?

I am still waiting for a list from Houghton Mifflin of Honorable Mentions in The Best American Short Story Series 2007.

I did receive from WV PBS a link to the audio story of my debut novel.

Will you give it a listen and see if I can cite in the article?

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl

Thank you very much for your time!

LankyKeller (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, please do not edit the article directly - people should always avoid editing articles about themselves, unless there is something truly urgent such as a copyright violation or obvious vandalism (that is, if somebody were to replace the entire article John Michael Cummings with profanities, you would have the same right as any other editor to revert that vandalism). Regular content issues however should be handled via the talk page. Post the code {{request edit}} in a new section at the bottom of the article's talk page (not this user talk page), and a succinct description of the requested change to the article below the code. However, it doesn't look as if the links you present here would not be useful in the article; the Chicago Tribune is not possible for me to view as they block their content outside the US, but since you say it is a link to the excerpt, it follows that it won't be relevant for reasons already discussed. (That a novel is excerpted in a newspaper is trivial information, it's not information Wikipedia would include, and linking to the excerpt itself wouldn't give our readers any information). The second link you list is probably not the one you meant to provide, since it's just the Google search website, but a link to an audiobook is also not appropriate here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bonadea,

Over the weeks, I've given you nothing Wiki-usable and have exhausted my research. I'm ready to finish this matter right now if you are. I'd be very happy and relieved if you deleted the bottom with half this page.

Will you please delete from "Novellas" down to "References." This will include "Short Stories."

I've had a heart-to-heart with myself, and vanity has held me back, and humility is in charge now.

In the future, when I can substantiate more information, then maybe the page can be further developed.

I would so pleased if you nixed the problem areas. You have the authority, and I am of no consequence to the outcome because I have freely used the Wiki platform.

Then, after the deletions, will you please, please remove the tags.

I hope you will say, "Yes, okay" and give the page only what is legitimate according to Wikipedia's policy.

I have learned a great lesson here and a newfound respect for Wikipedia, as well as a sense of respect for myself.

Will you please?

We have worked it enough, and I cannot offer more, and you've probably given this page more effort than it warrants.

Looking forward to hearing back with a "Yes, I will do it."

Please.

Warmly and in respect,

LankyKeller (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

urgent help needed with my Wiki page - query[edit source]

Dear SilkTork:

I need help with my Wikipedia page:

https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/John_Michael_Cummings

....

I look forward to a prompt reply.

Thank you very much.

LankyKeller (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John / LankyKeller. I took a look at your article. Unfortunately it does not appear to meet our inclusion criteria, and appears to be a promotional article written to generate interest in your books, which is against policy. As such I cannot assist you with this, and have listed the article for discussion with a view to having it removed from Wikipedia. You may join in the discussion and give your views as to why it should be kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael Cummings. SilkTork (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's finish this matter right now - please.

Dear Bonadea,

Over the weeks, I've given you nothing Wiki-usable and have exhausted my research. I'm ready to finish this matter right now if you are. I'd be very happy and relieved if you deleted the bottom with half this page.

Will you please delete from "Novellas" down to "References." This will include "Short Stories."

I've had a heart-to-heart with myself, and vanity has held me back, and humility is in charge now.

In the future, when I can substantiate more information, then maybe the page can be further developed.

I would so pleased if you nixed the problem areas. You have the authority, and I am of no consequence to the outcome because I have freely used the Wiki platform.

Then, after the deletions, will you please, please remove the tags.

I hope you will say, "Yes, okay" and give the page only what is legitimate according to Wikipedia's policy.

I have learned a great lesson here and a newfound respect for Wikipedia, as well as a sense of respect for myself.

Will you please?

We have worked it enough, and I cannot offer more, and you've probably given this page more effort than it warrants.

Looking forward to hearing back with a "Yes, I will do it."

Please.

Warmly and in respect, — Preceding unsigned comment added by LankyKeller (talk • contribs)

That may not be necessary. The whole article is being reviewed for possible deletion. The issue is that you may not yet be quite notable enough to have an article about you on Wikipedia. The rules for this are at WP:AUTHOR. We normally only have articles about authors who have achieved a certain level of prominence. The discussion about this is still ongoing, but it looks like you haven't quite reached that level yet. If the article does get deleted, don't take it personally. It's not a judgement of your work, only an editorial decision. We can't have articles about everybody; not even about everybody who has written a book.--Srleffler (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you first posted this, the autobio template had already been removed by an uninvolved editor. If I had made an edit on your behalf I could (obviously) not remove the template. --bonadea contributions talk 20:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LankyKeller. You have new messages at Seraphimblade's talk page.
Message added 20:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dear Bonadea and all Wikipedia editors:

I am very sorry I have frustrated and irritated you. I deeply am. I am a nice fellow and, by nature, am not pushy or demanding. Nor am I thick-headed. I regret I have come across this way.

The fact is, I have been operating under fear. I have been very afraid of what has been happening to this page. I have held much pride in the page for years and have drawn strength in my writing from the presence of "Wikipedia" page about me.

When a month or so ago I myself uploaded photos and caused a conflict of interest, I broke into panic of what was happening, and this irrational state has continued and caused my frantic messages ever since. I blindly ran past your replies and overlooked the fact you are volunteers - and did not appreciate and respect what that means.

I now see how my replies have come across unwisely and rashly. In particular, by saying "my page," I actually intended to shortcut the longer phrase of "the Wikipedia page about me" - again, a rushed use of language under the wind of desperation and fear of time passing.

I am 56 and feel 76. I don't have children or a spouse or a significant other. My work has made me a recluse--or rather I have let that happen. For the last two years, I have suffered from near-paralysis due to a spinal cord injury. None of this is an excuse for my behavior, but perhaps it offers a little explanation. I do not feel well. I have not felt well for some time while staring into the face of my own mortality and knowing that my best work lies years ahead, years I may not have.

I cannot express enough how much fear has worked against me in our interactions and has worked against you in helping me. I have alienated you when all my life I have been told I am a sweet, unassuming, dear man.

Being afraid is a terrible feeling, and I have let it force my hand in poor judgment.

Please forgive me and allow me the chance to listen and act carefully from now on.

Sincerely,

LankyKeller (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes being too attached to one thing blinds us to other things. Whatever happens to the article, you are still you and your work is still your work. Nothing that happens here will change that.

I'm about your age and understand too well the fear you describe. I hope that you will emerge from your current circumstances stronger, or at least less fearful. I wish you all the best. --Srleffler (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi John/LankyKeller. I came here to let you know that the discussion on the article about you has finished: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael Cummings, and that the decision was to remove the article. I note your comments above, and like Srleffler my heart goes out to you. This was not a personal issue, and nobody here was acting in any way toward you either negatively or positively. The discussion and the outcome was entirely based on our inclusion criteria - the rules we have developed over the years for what articles are accepted onto Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is the world's most read encyclopedia, it is often used to create interest / promote certain topics. Journalists and authors rely on Wikipedia, and will take what is published here on trust. There are texts listed on GoogleBooks which either entirely or partly simply copy word for word from Wikipedia articles. Our rules and principles are that Wikipedia is the summary of existing knowledge, that we cannot originate knowledge here. We rely on reliable sources to establish what is notable, noteworthy and important. In your case we did the research and while it is clear you have written books, what is not clear is if you have yet attained the level of notability required for inclusion. I understand this will be frustrating to you, particularly as that article had been around for some time; however, you are not alone in being a published writer without an article. There are more published authors without a Wikipedia article than published authors with an article. I am also a published writer without an article - I was involved in the British Poetry Revival in the Seventies and Eighties. A number of my friends and associates from that period do have Wikipedia articles, but I never acquired enough lasting coverage or long term attention to even be considered notable enough for an article. though at the time I did get positive reviews, was interviewed on radio and TV, and gave public readings where I was paid (gasp!) £30 per session. As this was back before the internet, much supporting material is not available, though it is not unlikely that a search for my name "steve pereira" and "british poetry revival" will turn up something. Anyway, such is life. Please don't let it get you down. And please do not take it personally. Given time you may get sufficient enough attention from reliable sources to allow an article on yourself to be written on Wikipedia. My advise, however, is if you do feel in a year or two's time that you have sufficient notability that you do not write it yourself, nor allow anyone you know to write it. The appropriate route in the circumstances would be to go via Wikipedia:Requested articles where you would point out the sources you feel establish your notability, and request someone to look into it for you, and write the article on your behalf. Regards SilkTork (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Srleffler,

Thank you for your compassionate remark. It really touches me and brings sunlight to the morning.

Kindly,

LankyKeller (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 06:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

– Athaenara ✉ 23:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]