Talk:Uncorrected proof

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Well, if you ignore the votes to merge and count them as keeps, sure, then it was a keep, but most people clearly said the article doesn't belong as its own article one way or another. Therefore I have merged all the reliable info (i.e. none)/redirected per the clear consensus of that discussion. DreamGuy (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss here

Two things:

The right place to discuss this article is here, on its own talk page
Those who wish to delete it (for reasons I do understand) should use WP:AfD so that the process can be visibly fair, rather than edit-warring with a redirect.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need an AFD to redirect, especially when another article on the *exact same topic* exists. Furthermore, the edits were clearly made to spam a nonnotable book by the same name. If the article is not redirected then the blatant COI/spam material needs to be deleted. It gets tiring seeing the same couple people going around opposing every single prod/AFD/redirect/merge in such blatantly obvious cases, but if you want to force the red tape we can do an AFD as well. DreamGuy (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galley Proofs and Uncorrected Proofs are quite different - that is simply a fact, so the meaning for the page stands unchallenged by anything anyone has so far written. Personal biases such as Dreamguy is exhibiting, with no factual bases in any of his allegations, I might add, have no place in Wiki. See http://elephantearspress.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/wiki-is-not-democratic/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElephantEars2008 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are right on one thing anyway: Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. There is a long list of other things that Wikipedia is not that you should read. DreamGuy (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then if Wiki is not a open place for discussion - part of the definition of a democracy - then it is run by cultural policemen like you, who like corrupt cops in many areas, enjoy their tiny provinces of power. But to survive you should at least know the subjects you pretend to control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElephantEars2008 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and then read the whole page you direct me to..Resist the temptation to change Wikipedia just to prove a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElephantEars2008 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see that an entry I started with good intentions seems to have degenerated a little bit, and unnecessarily so. Reading some comments, I am not sure it is still about the entry's topic itself or about proving a point and asserting egos. Anyway, my two cents: I think uncorrected proof and galley proof should not be merged, they are not the same thing - actually I secretely wish my entry was somehow reinstated since I thought it was interesting to link the concept of UP to a book that happened to have that title. But on to my second cent: where hopefully this won't be heading :-) TuscanMeadow (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TuscanMeadow I couldn't agree more and our thanks for your intervention. When DreamGuy launched his attack, I though what's the hidden agenda here? We're a small publishing company, just getting going, why attack us? But maybe that's the point, he thinks we're an easy target for his bile, his need to demonstrate power. He wouldn't dare take on Penguin or someone like them in the same way. So if everyone is in agreement I will replace the text on Louisiana's novel, but I won't be a fascist about it - I believe in true consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.150.34 (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my signature - ElephantEars2008

We have a pretty clear consensus against using accounts to spam Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your evidence DG? You really are one little tiresome sort (hence the silly pseud I guess) ..is this where your shrink sends you to get rid of your problems? Get a life and maybe some qualifications and then a broader mind, if that were possible..Do you really think we care if U.P stays on some Wiki page or not..I couldn't care less..what I do care about is that Wikipedia facilitates behaviour such as yours. But I guess Hitler had to start somewhere too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ElephantEars2008 (talk • contribs)

Sockpuppets/meatpuppets blocked

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TuscanMeadow/Archive, the accounts that were here trying to add spam for the book have now been blocked. Hopefully that'll permanently take care of the problem we've been having on this article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that this is a well-understood term with a common meaning?

My comment is in response to the removal of the PROD tag. It seems that various people have an impression of what 'uncorrected proof' means, but they don't agree with one another. I've just marked the reference link to 'myfirsteditions.com' as a dead link, since the site is not functional. This leaves us with just one link, to the privately-operated web site http://www.ioba.org. Does anyone want to research this further? If not the claim that it is a 'standard publishing industry term' is unsupported. There is no good evidence distinguishing uncorrected proofs from Galley proofs. The present article claims, without evidence, that galley proofs are unpaged, while our article on that topic does not say so. If every publisher uses uncorrected proof to mean something different, why are we here? EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]