User talk:Anthonyamelio

self-published sources

The book that you are adding to multiple articles (Bibliographia Dystopia, Volume 1: John Steinbeck's The Moon Is Down) appears to be self/vanity-published. Per Wikipedia policy, it does not appear to be a reliable source. In addition, your editor account name is the same as the author's; please see the guideline on citing your own work. I will be removing that reference from the articles. Schazjmd (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should investigate further. The fact that it is self published is irrelevant to the content and years of first person research. If you are looking for authoritative advocates I refer you to the 3 authors who commented on the book including, Jim Dourgarian (the world's leading expert on John Steinbeck literature), David Douglas Lee (professor of literature in Amsterdam), and Kenneth Holmes (author of the most comprehensive bibliography of Steinbeck in the world). Pleas replace the reference. Anthonyamelio (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any evidence that the author is, as the policy requires, "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Schazjmd (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In all modesty, I am the world's leading expert on The Moon Is Down. And since Wikipedia has no prohibitions against self-reference, it only stands that I should correct mistakes I find in the articles. The reference you deleted originally said 92 editions have been published world-wide. That was based on David Coers' book. I corrected it to 214. How do I know?? I have all 214 editions in my collection and I can count. And they are all listed...in my book. My book has been discussed in First's Magazine (Sept 2020 edition), it is sold at the Steinbeck Museum in Salinas, and the primary source of verfying issue points with Southeby's, and other auction houses. It is used by all major book sellers and the heads of the Steinbeck Collections at San Jose State and University of Texas and Austin use if to verify points in their collections. With respect...who are you? Anthonyamelio (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to raise the question of whether the book can be considered reliable for use in articles at the reliable sources noticeboard. Schazjmd (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it might be a bit intimidating for you to start that discussion. If you like, I'd be happy to start the discussion at WP:RSN for you, so other editors can weigh in on the question of reliability. Let me know if you want me to do that. Schazjmd (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to participate. I would appreciate a link so I can put forward my own comments, references, and sources. Anthonyamelio (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. The discussion is at WP:RSN#Whether_this_self-published_book_is_a_reliable_source. Schazjmd (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello, Anthonyamelio. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the rules. I think it fair to point out, however, that as an authority on the subject matter, I will endeavour to stick to correcting facts rather than opinion when citing my own work. Anthonyamelio (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A note for you

Hi Anthony,

I have personally been convinced by the conversation at the reliable sources noticeboard that your book is citable on Wikipedia. I hope a consensus emerges among other editors that it is usable. Even if such a consensus does not develop, I wanted you to know that I think your work looks super interesting, and I hope you can find ways to contribute your expertise Wikipedia. You're the type of person we need around here! Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am, of course, grateful. I have already begun to make to corrections to several posts related to the Moon Is Down, for example, It was Natalie Wood's first movie and the Natalie Wood's page didn't even know that! I had to make that change to her page and now people looking into her story will be better informed. This is my first opportunity to play with Wikipedia so bear with me as I navigate the unknown. Anthonyamelio (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any questions about Wikipedia policies or Wikipedia's culture, you're free to drop a note at my talk page, or email me by clicking on the button in the top right of my user page. Take care. Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]