User talk:Astintyme

Welcome![edit]

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

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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Grayfell. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page The King in Yellow, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 19, 2014[edit]

Dear Grayfell: I am new to Wikipedia. I added the piece you deleted because no biography of Robert W. Chambers has ever been published previously and I believe readers interested in his book, "The King in Yellow," would find it interesting. I realize I may have put it in the wrong place, and I can even understand eliminating the link to it, but I do not understand why the entire addition was deleted. This biography of Chambers is just as valid a book as S.T. Joshi's "The Yellow Sign and Other Stories" which is listed on the page for "The King in Yellow." It seems to me that the only biography in existence about the author of such a famous book is appropriate to an encyclopedia. Please tell me how to include it in the entry for "The King in Yellow" as well as the Wikipedia entry for Robert W. Chambers. Thank you. Astintyme (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. The major problem is that Wikipedia generally avoids WP:SPS: self-published sources. This should not be taken as a criticism of the work itself, but the biography of Chambers is published by "Zirlinson Publishing" which, as far as I can tell, is an e-book publishing label used by Tomlinson. S. T. Joshi is a recognized expert who has many works published by Necronomicon Press, Hippocampus Press and other publishers who have an established history of editorial oversight. In order to restore the book to the article, first of all, the Amazon link has to go. Second, Tomlinson would need to be established as an authority by reliable secondary sources, or the book would need to be published under a press with a reputable history, or ideally both of those things. These standards are designed to keep Wikipedia verifiable and free of citation spam.

If you have any further questions, it would be helpful if you WP:PING me (linking to my username like this: [[User:Grayfell|]] is probably the easiest way to do that) or let me know on my talk page that you've responded. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 19, 2014[edit]

Zirlinson Publishing was established in 1983 with more than 100 publications to date on the imprint, as well as several small press periodicals. Tomlinson was a newspaper editor, reporter, columnist, designer and photographer for more than 30 years. S.T. Joshi, who you cite as "a recognized expert" has several of his "facts" wrong in the introduction to his book. He certainly is an expert in Lovecraftian matters, but not nearly as much about Chambers. Necronomicon Press, by the way, is referred to in Wikipedia: "Necronomicon Press is an American small press publishing house." I own many of its early publications which were printed exactly like those printed by Zirlinson Publishing. They are chapbooks, as was common among the small press. It would seem to me that in an age when "books" largely are disappearing in favor of eBooks that Wikipedia of all sites — considering its reputation as being less than reputable and academia's refusal to allow it as a legitimate reference source — would be the place that would have people who understand this. Not everyone who publishes an eBook is a wanna-be with no experience or legitimate reason for doing so. It is the fastest, most effective way to reach an audience these days, even for those with many years of experience in the field. Instead of considering that, Wikipedia dismisses this form of publishing just as Wikipedia is dismissed by reputable academia. The eBook is the only researched and published biography of Chambers, something that would be of interest to readers of The King in Yellow. Your dismissal of it as being worthless is a disservice to your readers, but that is your decision. I have had enough of Wikipedia at this point. When a legitimate, well-researched book by a writer and editor with more than 30 years professional experience is dismissed as worthless, it proves to me Wikipedia is more concerned with pretending to be useful than in actually being useful. Astintyme (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I never described it as worthless, I said that Wikipedia had policies in place that prevented its inclusion without some additional information. I'm not sure why you think insulting Wikipedia is going to accomplish anything, but Wikipedia should not be used as a source, Wikipedia itself agrees with that. If you have reliable sources about Zirlinson Publishing, or Tomlinson himself, I would like to see them. The problem with ebooks is not the format, there are plenty of printed books that are considered WP:UGC as well. For all the reasons you cited, ebooks are becoming the more common format for self-published works, and Wikipedia needs a verifiable way to distinguish works by experts from works by others. Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]