User talk:Sherlockpsy

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gazetteer of British Ghosts (1971) has been accepted

Gazetteer of British Ghosts (1971), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Haunted London (1973) has been accepted

Haunted London (1973), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speke Hall

Thanks for your edits on this article, but amazon is not a reliable source and there is no reason to link to it. I will remove the links to amazon. HealthyGirl (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your account

You seem to be using Wikipedia to promote Peter Underwood who is a fringe proponent of ghosts. This may be problematic. Please read WP:COI, WP:UNDUE and WP:Fringe. Please also see the conversation started at WP:FTN. Wikipedia policies state that we do not give equal weight to fringe ideas. HealthyGirl (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gazetteer of British Ghosts (1971)

The article Gazetteer of British Ghosts (1971) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article relies almost entirely upon primary sources, no indication of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlockpsy (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)adjustments have been made to help clarify the multiple secondary source instances already entailed in the page which account for the Gazetteer's noteriety - numerous bibliographies that cite the work as a source; as well as the influence upon fiction work that the gazetteer has had. new inclusion of reference to an album of music directly influence by the book, and amplification of the way in which the structure and form of the gazetteer has influenced the composition of very similar books published decades later (which don't cite direct influence - but disavow it); further support for all this is given with direct links to official obituaries in National British newspapers that mention the gazetteer by name and as a form/style/structure, and reinforce sense of notorietySherlockpsy (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlockpsy (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)also the article was originally passed/accepted as a quality contribution with correct formatting/citation guidelines - so perhaps it is a little problematic to begin to take issue with the entry now, as it may appear as part of a coordinated attack on my genuine and sincere attempts to make the cultural/historical significance Peter Underwood, and to express/reflect the great interest there still is in the oral histories that Underwood collected, in the manner of folk history and folk lore, and which form part of the history of a place and may well reflect superstitious beliefs and stories - but which as folk history which is passed down from generations, and which Underwood collected in person from people he met all over the countrySherlockpsy (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, do not sign your name at the start of your comment. Secondly, we are not trying to "attack" you. You are promoting fringe science, plain and simple. Also, Peter Underwood is probably not notable, people at AfC can make mistakes (SwisterTwister has made many editing mistakes, there was a case at WP:ANI for his repeated very poor judgement at AfC, AFD and NPP ). Please read WP:UNDUE,WP:FRINGE, and WP:COI. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My most sincere, humble apologies for failing to correctly follow the 'correct' procedure for responding to online rebukes. It would be productive if any constructive suggestions could be made so that changes could be made to improve the existing entries - instead of hastily branding and damning contributors without any sensitivity, care, or moral compass (regarding your suggestion that Peter Underwood is unimportant, please consult the following obituaries from National Newspapers: (The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/peter-underwood-urbane-and-gentlemanly-author-and-ghost-hunter-who-wrote-more-than-50-books-about-10030051.html ; (The Guardian): http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/dec/17/peter-underwood ; (The Times); http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/obituaries/article4348074.ece ; (The Telegraph): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/11310318/Peter-Underwood-obituary.html ; (The Cornish Guardian): http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Peter-passes/story-25765201-detail/story.html . However if you think he is insignificant, I should just let you know that I am not responsible for the original creation of the entry for Peter Underwood - just incase you think I'm 'behind that' as well. But it would be a shame if more existing entries that have value and meaning to the public are hastily totally eradicated just out of any possible unconscious anger towards me) For your information, much energy and effort has been laboured away to try to follow guidelines and produce entries of interest to the public in a careful and consistent way. Underwood was mostly a sceptic - ruling out 99% of reports of hauntings as having a 'natural and mundane explanation' (No Common Task, 1983, p.11). If it would help to include further reference to Fringe Theory (the wikipedia entry) in relation to existing mention of Parapsychology (the article for which is pretty clear about the lack of scientific credibility), then the entries might be reformulated to include further explication to satisfy your concern that I'm some tin-foil hat wearing promoter of fringe theory. Folklore and legend is what a lot of what 'hauntings' and 'ghosts' amount to, as testified by Underwood's work, which is mostly concerned with cultural historical material related to specific sites, and which become attached to supposed 'sightings', and concern the past that is connected to fragments, ruins: English Heritage (castles, churches, etc). Not all forms of culture and experience and tradition are fully enlightened, but that does not take away from their value as cultural forms. We can't stop doing metaphysics, as reason by its own nature tends of its own accord to move beyond its own bounds to entertain ideas for which no proof can be given (e.g. the existence of the soul). There is no scientific proof of god, but you wouldn't want to suggest that religion as a cultural form does not merit being mentioned as a transgenerational historical cultural form that has meaning for people.Sherlockpsy (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand is not if Underwood is notable enough for his own article (he is). The issue at hand is, does each of his books deserves a standalone article, or should they simply be summarized at his biography article? This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gazetteer of British Ghosts (1971]. Your comments are welcome, but please be aware that Wikipedia's editorial decisions are arrived at by WP:CONSENSUS, not by personal protest. Also, specific policy-based arguments are given consideration over broad cultural observations and opinions, so please review the encyclopedia's notability policies for books. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If incorporation of stand-alone book entries would be better placed within the page for Peter Underwood, that sounds like a better alternative to a sort of Wiki-cultural-vandalism that has been excited in others who may well be guilty of being rather hasty or quick to brand me in a negative way and besmirch my character, or demonise me - perhaps even imagining malicious intent on my part? as if i'm part of some weird tin-foil-hat movement to try to legitimise or promote a certain 'theory' or cause and turn back the tide of civilisation and enlightenment? P.S. ThePlatypusofDoom certainly made it 'the issue at hand' with this off-hand, demoralising remark that 'Peter Underwood is probably not notable' . I think his conduct is symptomatic of perhaps some ill-will that is expressed through disparaging remarks like this? Sherlockpsy (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is attacking anyone. This book might be good, and it might be notable. But we don't care about how good it is, and our standard for notability is "Significant coverage by reliable sources." A mention of the book in the author's obituaries doesn't qualify as "significant", and from what I can see, none of the works you listed as citing it are themselves, reliable sources. If you want to defeat the AfD, you should find some mainstream coverage of the book. Find History Channel or Discovery Channel specials that reference the book, find reviews of the book by mainstream book reviewers, or find academic works that reference the book. Those aren't your only options, but those would be your best bets, FWIW. Finally, the claim at the end of the article that the book is cited by numerous other works is supported by a list of citations to those other works, which is Synthesis, a form of original research. You need to find a reliable source which states the book is cited by numerous other works, not merely compile a list of other works which cite it.

Getting back to your accusations of being attacked, you have to understand that WP is an encyclopedia, not a database of human knowledge. Underwood's work might very well be valuable, and worth preserving. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that WP is the place to do it. I know for a fact that for less than $200 US for two years, one can get a functioning web site, registered domain name and plenty of web-building tools from a company like Arvixe. If you truly are working hard to preserve Underwood's work, then the best place for it might be your own web site. If you should choose this route, I would happily help you out with the web design, free of charge (believe it or not, this is actually a subject that interests me). You can contact me via the mail link on my talk page if you decide to do so. One advantage this offers is that it gives you complete creative control over both the content and the layout. it also makes it possible for you to advertise (provided you're willing to pay for it, of course) the site, and thus disseminate this information to others more broadly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind suggestions. I have found a link to a review from TIME MAGAZINE : http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909941,00.html and an Academic Journal - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0015587X.1971.9716735 . Hopefully this may suffice as a mainstream example on the one hand, and an authoritative, scholarly one, on the other. Sherlockpsy (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources, for example academic sources from journals or magazines - I think if you are to stick around on Wikipedia instead of trying to create new articles for Peter Underwood's books or editing other articles to promote Underwood which will cause a problem with WP:Fringe, you should edit Peter Underwood's own article. Underwood's article needs to be expanded with reliable secondary references (not primary sources from his own books). Underwood himself is notable, but many of his books are not. One sleight problem might be WP:COI, which is 'strongly discouraged' on Wikipedia but in this case it may be acceptable if you are doing decent edits (perhaps other editors can weigh in on this). Take care. HealthyGirl (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. See my comment at FTN: [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, this editor should probably step back from this subject for a while. They don't seem to have a complete grasp of WP's mission and norms here. I think in a few months or so, with experience editing in other subjects, they might be able to come back and edit in the area of their conflict productively. As of right now, even the improvements they're making to the article in question are somewhat dubious.

Sherlock, understand that with the above, I'm not trying to bash you. I'm just saying that while you may be competent at Underwood's work, you don't seem to be competent enough at Wikipedia to properly address the subject here. I have no doubt you can gain that competence with a little bit of time, and my advice is for you to do just that. The two sources you found seem to be good ones, and should be added (provided you can access them in order to use them properly). I'm not sure that's enough, but it's certainly a very good start. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MjolnirPants. Take a step back. Take a month to learn the basic principles of Wikipedia, Take another month to make basic edits, and then you should edit stuff about Underwood. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

preliminary note: i have no intention of creating any new entries - these two works simply seemed to be the most historically significant - the claim on the inside jacket cover of the Gazetteer of British Ghosts is that it is the first comprehensive survey - the novelty of the use of the gazetteer form to systematise the accounts or so-called 'sightings' of the paranormal "Here for the firs time, catalogued and placed in alphabetical order, are well over two-hundred accounts of ghostly happenings"; Underwood set the trend for paranormal literature to come (much of the subsequent literature on folklore and the paranormal was modelled on this novel form; previously you had collections of ghost stories and legends; collected oral histories; Underwood collected and brought together his accounts from all over the country - hence the self-evident seriousness of the endeavour in the act of systematisation and comprehensiveness. The Gazetteer formed part of a series edited by Paul Tabori called 'Frontiers of the Unknown' - there are over half a dozen titles that Tabori commissioned that together constituted the so-called 'library of psychic knowledge' (again, that is a quasi-blurb from the back cover); but again, all this work is very much to do with the legacy of the work of Harry Price - who's archive currently exists at Senate House in London (paranormal historian Paul Adams was bequeathed Peter Underwood's archives - Underwood corresponded with Price and produced his Ghosts of Borley (co-written with Tabori) on the back of his own investigative work and through a full internalisation/comprehension of the two books Price produced on Borley)Sherlockpsy (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i'm happy to take your advice and leave it for a month or two - alternatively, if you think i am already in a position to more clearly articulate in a more condensed form the significance of the two works that were singled out for attention (The Gazetteer and Haunted London), then i will happily attempt to do that and introduce them as subsets of the main Peter Underwood page so that the individual pages can proceed with deletion. (I have also already made some notes about a possible section covering his appearance in the media - A 1975 BBC documentary 'The Ghost Hunters'; an episode of 'Strange but True'; his appearance in a contemporary artwork - 'In Search of...', by Matthew Day Jackson that was exhibited at Hauser & Wirth in Saville Row in London a few years ago; a 1986 LBC Radio interview given at the time of the publication that same year of 'The Ghost Hunter's Guide'.)Sherlockpsy (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However if you think the insertion/expansion of condensed, more clearly articulated versions of the book entries into the main page (as well as the idea of an inclusion of appearances in the media), is not a good idea - or is currently beyond my ability, i'll leave it.Sherlockpsy (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sherlockpsy: I have moved the commentary you posted to the AfD page to the article's talk page, because there was quite a bit of it and it distracted from the discussion there. I will post a link to the commentary on the AfD page so it is accessible. That page is intended for discussion of whether or not (and why, in either case) we should delete this article, so logging all of your changes there was a bit disruptive. I would suggest you go there and 'cast your vote' as I and LuckyLouie have, by prefacing your comment with an asterisk (to give it a bullet and some indentation) and using three single quote (') marks before and after your vote to highlight it. You may (and indeed, should!) explain why you are voting that way, and you may respond to other people's comments (use colons (:) to indent your replies one level further than the comment you are responding to, to make threading clear). None of this is in response to what you've written above. I will respond further (by trying to give you some good links to help you familiarize yourself with this project better) very soon. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one.)Sherlockpsy (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the majority of Wikipedians call comments in AfD "Votes", because it's simpler, and more often than not, the side which has the most votes is the side that's opinions are implemented. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]