User talk:Grahamgordon56

Hi, please can you confirm or deny that you are Graham Gordon Ratcliffe? This link suggests that you are. I am concerned that you may be using Wikipedia to promote your own work. It would seem to me that your work does merit mention at Mount Everest, but you should still be drawing attention to your work at Talk:Mount Everest first and letting others decide whether it should be mentioned in the articles. See WP:ARTSPAM.Viewfinder (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Just to echo some of the things I already stated on other talk pages and some additional thoughts:

While it is my understanding that there is nothing preventing you from making edits to the relevant articles using your book as a source, I feel it would be better if someone else made those edits who is also familiar with the book (someone who has read it). The concern here is that without you even realizing it, you could unintentionally introduce bias into the article; or perhaps add undue weight to your own view or your book's viewpoint. I suppose you could go ahead and make some edits and see if they fly, but I personally would be hesitant to rewrite an adit on content based on a book I haven't read. It would be best if someone who is familiar with your book (someone other than yourself) would make these edits. In a nutshell, be bold and make edits, but be very careful when making edits on content that you are personally intimate with. Thank you. --Racerx11 (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Saw your post on Viewfinder's talk tage and thought I'd respond here.

I think you might be trying to do too much too fast here. You can mention your book in the articles, probably best to put it in the article 1996 Everest disaster with the other books listed on the subject, but just mention it. Do not, at this point, try assert any conclusions from the book. You may state certain facts or infomation referencing your book in other places in this or other articles, but as I stated before, do so cautiously without introducing bias. Plain, simple and concise wording while avoiding loaded words will work best.

Please be patient. As more people read your book, the more likely someone will make edits on Wikipedia referencing it. If enough people read it soon, it may not take long before you start seeing those edits, but do not try to force this process. Offering to send copies of your book to Wikipedia editors for the purpose of getting them use the book as a reference on these articles, could be interpreted as another way of promoting yourself, or pressuring them to edit in such a way that favours your view.

I am very pleased to see you are still around and have not given up on Wikipedia. I understand your frustration and we all know Wikipedia isn't perfect. Many of the things that make it bad or frustrating also happen to be, by their very nature, the same things that make it great. Might I suggest that for now you try making some edits on other articles unrelated to the specific subject of your book. This will help to get you more familiar with how Wikipepia works and it will also establish yourself as a trusted editor. It will also be heplful to Wikipedia! There are many, many articles on mountains and mountaineering that desperately need all kinds of help and someone with your skills and background could be extremely helpful in these areas.

Thank you and I hope you stay around.--Racerx11 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments and hope you stay around too, it would appear that you have knowledge to contribute. But, re-reading your edits, they would appear to be advertisements for your book rather than statements of fact about the articles' subjects. Viewfinder (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)