User talk:VinceStone

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How is adding a book title to references "advertising?" Scenario: someone looks at a John Wayne entry on Wikipedia, then goes to the library to get the referenced book for much more reliable and solid information. No money exchanged. No book sold. Just help with someone's research. Advertising? Soapbox? Promotion? No.

Sorry, I have a hard time believing that. You're simply adding the same book over and over to articles. That's not called a reference, that's advertisement. Continuing to do so will lead to a block. If you were genuinely trying to improve articles, you would be adding information from other reliable sources to a single article, rather than promoting one source across multiple articles. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Woah! Take it easy! But seriously, how is the entry for THE MAILROOM not promotional? It even includes a link to Amazon. It's certainly not a scholarly book (and particularly not rigorous), so hardly useful for researchers. Yet it has its own page. I'm not seeking debate or edit-warring (or whatever it's called), only lucid, tangible, and consistent articulation of principles. That entry seems like grounds allowing for the creation any similarly template on any book.

You're right, it's not. I've removed those links and suggest the book be deleted. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's still up there. So adding a list of reviews is enough to appease the standards of Wikipedia watchdogs? Some of the links to the reviews didn't even work.

Again, despite my snarky tone, I'm just asking for some clarification of standards. If a book is published on Hollywood agents, after passing through a dissertation committee from a major university, and then through the internal rigorous review of a major university press, with endorsements on its research from major scholars ("a landmark volume" and "groundbreaking"), but is denied reference on your site, while a commercial publication, which passes through none of the above channels of critical review, is allowed its own separate entry, I only need to know the exact, clearly articulated standards.

I didn't say that I deleted it. I said I suggested that it be deleted. However, someone disagreed and fixed the article. Anyway, see WP:BOOK for the notability standards for a book to have its own article. However, that still doesn't give you free reign to add a "reference" to that book over and over again to numerous articles. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)