Hrm. In some sense I find your recent comment on the AFD page not believable. I think it would be difficult to think creating multiple accounts to edit one topic would have any legitimate use, and the warnings and notices that you deleted were pretty explicit in my opinion about you should not be deleting them. But I will take your comment at face value. The issue with the book page is not the length of the article, but that it was promotional. Brief plot, etc is fine, and reviews/critique are great. Tho promo quotes that get printed on the back of the book are not. Awards from 2008 when the book is published 2011 is confusing and misleading (I belive the award is actually for another book?) Being on amazon or distributed via a certain publisher has no relevance. The book could be only available in one copy yet be very notable (gutenburg bible?) or have 10000000000 copies all sitting in a warehouse somewhere that nobody has ever read. Anyone can publish a book in about 5 min on amazon. Once the book is hitting best seller lists, or winning awards of its own, or getting a NYT review or something, then it can be reposted. In a balanced way, not just something you would like to have on a poster. The conflict of interest makesa that difficult, which is why it is preferable (but not mandatory) to have someone else do the bulk of editing on pages you are personally associated with. Regarding your ban, you would have to talk to an admin, but your actions were pretty aggressive and blatant, so I dont think you will have much luck without a decently long probation. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Gaijin42--I agree with your comments about brief plot is fine, and reviews/critique are great for inclusion. True, Amazon can publish through its own company any book today, but that's not this case. The book is independently published in the traditional way, albeit by a small independent, though unlikely to get the NYT to sit up this Sunday. But its use of Amazon is only as a retailer, given Amazon's power, in addition to Barnes & Noble, and Waterstones and the Book Depository in the UK. To answer your question, though, the book The Pride and the Sorrow from 2008 was the unpublished manuscript and is the same book: it was just published under the fuller title The Knight of New Orleans, The Pride and the Sorrow of Paul Morphy in 2011 after being through the publication process. As for the ban, I agree it's a lost cause--I was aggressive with the replacement of banners, then I was basically stopped in my tracks, so I don't see admin reinstating my account. But the pages are valuable, I believe, in the wider sense, even though I have provided the details for both. Anyway, thanks for a considered response. WorldEdit123 ( talk) 22:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hrm. In some sense I find your recent comment on the AFD page not believable. I think it would be difficult to think creating multiple accounts to edit one topic would have any legitimate use, and the warnings and notices that you deleted were pretty explicit in my opinion about you should not be deleting them. But I will take your comment at face value. The issue with the book page is not the length of the article, but that it was promotional. Brief plot, etc is fine, and reviews/critique are great. Tho promo quotes that get printed on the back of the book are not. Awards from 2008 when the book is published 2011 is confusing and misleading (I belive the award is actually for another book?) Being on amazon or distributed via a certain publisher has no relevance. The book could be only available in one copy yet be very notable (gutenburg bible?) or have 10000000000 copies all sitting in a warehouse somewhere that nobody has ever read. Anyone can publish a book in about 5 min on amazon. Once the book is hitting best seller lists, or winning awards of its own, or getting a NYT review or something, then it can be reposted. In a balanced way, not just something you would like to have on a poster. The conflict of interest makesa that difficult, which is why it is preferable (but not mandatory) to have someone else do the bulk of editing on pages you are personally associated with. Regarding your ban, you would have to talk to an admin, but your actions were pretty aggressive and blatant, so I dont think you will have much luck without a decently long probation. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Gaijin42--I agree with your comments about brief plot is fine, and reviews/critique are great for inclusion. True, Amazon can publish through its own company any book today, but that's not this case. The book is independently published in the traditional way, albeit by a small independent, though unlikely to get the NYT to sit up this Sunday. But its use of Amazon is only as a retailer, given Amazon's power, in addition to Barnes & Noble, and Waterstones and the Book Depository in the UK. To answer your question, though, the book The Pride and the Sorrow from 2008 was the unpublished manuscript and is the same book: it was just published under the fuller title The Knight of New Orleans, The Pride and the Sorrow of Paul Morphy in 2011 after being through the publication process. As for the ban, I agree it's a lost cause--I was aggressive with the replacement of banners, then I was basically stopped in my tracks, so I don't see admin reinstating my account. But the pages are valuable, I believe, in the wider sense, even though I have provided the details for both. Anyway, thanks for a considered response. WorldEdit123 ( talk) 22:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)