Talk:The Rainbow Cadenza

Untitled

I'm the author of The Rainbow Cadenza. I'm also the owner of Pulpless.Com, which published the 1999 trade paperback reprint edition -- the fourth time this novel has been in print, following its original 1983 Simon & Schuster hardcover, the 1984 New English Library large-format paperback, and the 1986 Avon Books rack-sized mass-market paperback.

Earlier today I came to the Wikipedia stub page for The Rainbow Cadenza, which had an inaccurate quotation from the Pulpless.Com catalog page for The Rainbow Cadenza, and attributed the text to me as the book's author, which is incorrect. So I substituted an accurate quotation of that page, and properly attributed it to Pulpless.Com.

Then I arrived back to check on the page and found out that all content except for the reference to the novel's winning the 1984 Prometheus Award had been deleted.

If someone wants to go to the trouble of reading and researching The Rainbow Cadenza -- and I am more than happy to aid them in this endeavor -- that would be fine with me. But deleting all information about this award-winning novel because I corrected material quoted from the Publisher's catalog page is an unfair and unacceptable action.

J. Neil Schulman jneil@pulpless.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jneil (talk • contribs)

Neil, this is a reference work, not the Publisher's Trade List Annual. We cannot be the host for a lengthy cover blurb (complete with pull quotes), which is why I removed all the advertising material. Also, with your major conflict of interest here, you are the last person on the planet who should be tampering with this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I have some comments/advice for both of you, and a suggested course of action that may help to resolve this conflict and to improve the page.

(Full disclosure: I met J. Neil Schulman at a social occasion and we have talked a couple of times, including discussing his issues with Wikipedia. Feel free to let me know if I appear to be biased.)

To J. Neil Schulman:

One small thing that would help would be for you to add a note on the talk page along the line of "I am J. Neil Schulman and I am about to make / am considering making the following change to this page for the following reasons" before editing pages where there may be a real or perceived conflict of interest. In cases where the change may appear to be self-serving, wait a while and see if anyone objects. I would like to see a discussion leading to a consensus and an improved page rather than an edit/revert cycle.

Also, please study the help pages and learn how to add a proper citation. Your edit shouldn't have just had the text "--Pulpless.Com, The Rainbow Cadenza" but rather a reference so I can go down to the bottom of the page and follow the link.

Your comment "so I substituted an accurate quotation of that page, and properly attributed it to Pulpless.Com." has two aspects.

First, the attribution:

If the quote is from Pulpless.Com and is attributed to you, fixing that error (and making sure that the reference supports the change) is entirely correct, and I doubt that anyone would have objected.

Next, the alleged substitution of the accurate quotation:

The page as edited by Lquilter at 21:41, 2 February 2007 had an 194-word Plot Summary. In the page as edited by Jneil at 23:07, 5 May 2010 , you replaced it with 1265 words, the majority of which consist of favorable reviews, not plot summary. I wouldn't call that a mere "substitution of an accurate quotation." This is exactly the sort of thing you should discuss in the talk page before adding to a Wikipedia page. And it is something that I would have opposed, being much more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article.

I also note that you then engaged in a revert war, and that your last revert lasted all of 18 seconds before being reverted by an administrator named Mindmatrix. Don't do that. You will never win.

To Orangemike:

Why did you remove Lquilter's plot summary along with J. Neil Schulman's additions? I read the discussion about deletionism and inclusionism on your talk page, but surely an empty stub is a worse Wikipedia page than a short plot summary. I would like to propose going back to that version, and then allowing J. Neil Schulman to correct the attribution and add a citation (he could use the practice). Do you object?

As for J. Neil Schulman's conflict of interest making him "the last person on the planet who should be tampering with this article," I refer both of you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLPEDIT , which says:

"Dealing with edits by the subject of the article

In some cases subjects may become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.

When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this might be the subject of the article attempting to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article.

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material:

'For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.' – Arbitration Committee decision (December 18, 2005)"

...and to:

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69880

Where Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) writes:

Wired: While he said that Wikipedia generally frowns on people editing entries about themselves, there is no hard and fast rule against it.

Jimmy Wales: "People shouldn't do it, including me. I wish I hadn't done it. It's in poor taste.... People have a lot of information about themselves but staying objective is difficult. That's the trade-off in editing entries about yourself.... If you see a blatant error or misconception about yourself, you really want to set it straight."

Conclusion:

I would like to see J. Neil Schulman become a valuable asset to Wikipedia, learning how to contribute to and improve articles while avoiding even an appearance of self-serving or conflict of interest. Nobody gains if he gets flamed and goes away. I ask everyone to please follow the Arbitration Committee ruling, show leniency, and don't bite the newbies. Welcome him and invite him to explain his concerns with the article. Be an educator, not just an enforcer. Guy Macon 07:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody objected, so I reverted to the last version containing Lquilter's plot summary. I expect J. Neil Schulman to improve the articale as discusseed above and I expect other editors to not bite the newbie as discussed above. I anyone has a problem with this, please discuss. Guy Macon 04:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• In looking at the original text, I agree that it really needs to be rewritten -- it reads more like a cover blurb. I'll try to get to it or anyone else is welcome to do so. A short description of the plot and themes would be a good starting point. --Lquilter (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Orangemike deleted it again, ignoring my plea to discuss it on this talk page rather than engaging in a revert war. I reverted his deletion, and again ask him to please try to get a consensus rather than repeatedly deleting something that at least two editors think should be improved rather than nuked. Guy Macon 08:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't do advertising here. Period. That is not information, that is a blatant advertisement, and has no place here. Why don't you create some neutral text that actually explains the book? It's won a notable award from the true-believers, and is still available from the author (or at the dealers' tables at your local SF convention). This is not about ideology, this is about keeping advertisements out of Wikipedia. Neil seems unwilling to accept that (due, I assume, to his own COI); but you are the only one trying to re-insert the advertisement. I would be doing the exact same thing if this were about a feminist or left-wing SF book whose author/publisher kept trying to re-insert an advertising blurb in place of actual information. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Complete agree with Orangemike, that text is completely unacceptable as part of a wikipedia article and should be deleted on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just distinguishing: There were two chunks of text. One, written by Schulman and reproduced here, is lengthy and unacceptable. The other, cribbed by me (apparently) back in the day before I understood wikipedia, from a plot summary on amazon or the back of the book, maybe, is brief, but also unacceptable. Therefore, I have just now written a very cursory and quick description of the book and some of the more notable aspects of its future society. Others should feel free to expound more on its themes; I briefly looked for but didn't find any commentary from the Prometheus folks about the award. --Lquilter (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP: As soon as J. Neil Schulman and I had our first email conversation about what he perceived to be problems with this page I immediately stopped editing and/or reverting the article so as to avoid any conflict of interest. I encouraged J. Neil Schulman (by email and on this talk page - see above) to work with us and become a valuable asset to Wikipedia, learning how to contribute to and improve articles about him and his works while avoiding any appearance of self-serving or conflict of interest as per WP:BLPEDIT. Alas, he stopped responding, here or by email.

While doing a search in order to write this followup, I discovered that Orangemike (talk) had opened up an entry on the Conflict of interest Noticeboard (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_42#User:Jneil) in which he accused me of bad faith editing without notifying me here or on my talk page that he had made such an accusation in a place where I wouldn't see it. He wrote "Jneil appears to have gone home; but another editor, User:Guymacon, has taken up the cudgels, and keeps re-inserting the same block of advertising copy, and accusing me of edit warring when I remove it again." For the record, my exact words were "Orangemike deleted it again, ignoring my plea to discuss it on this talk page rather than engaging in a revert war." That is exactly what happened. I reverted his deletion with the comment "Orangemike, two editors disagree with you. Please discuss on talk page rather than engaging in a revert war", and he responded by reverting again without any discussion. Guy Macon 08:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)