User talk:The Soldier of Peace

Welcome!

Hello, The Soldier of Peace, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

Since you've shown some interest in editing topics related to India, we hope you'll stay and add content to India related articles. Consider joining or watchlisting India related discussions (for example, Noticeboard for India-related topics). Again, welcome!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, ask a question on your talk page. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Tholung Monastery into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The page the text was moved into was Khangchendzonga National Park. I have provided the attribution in this instance, but please make sure to do so yourself the next time you move text from one Wikipedia article to another. Thanks! /wiae /tlk 19:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears also that material was inserted from websites into Tholung Monastery. I have removed this material, as we cannot accept text on Wikipedia that has been copied from sites where the text is protected by copyright. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 20:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of cryptids

I saw your edit and I disagree. McFarland may well publish material that's less than stellar, but you cannot put them away as a vanity press--and you can also not say in edit summaries what you said: that was a violation of the WP:BLP, and I have revdeleted it. The book was apparently reviewed at least twice, and if you want to argue it's not acceptable, you'll have to do a bit more work than just make a blanket condemnation in an edit summary. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding. I was against the article presenting a "book" that was falsely presented as academic literature (which it is not). Just because this "book" was reviewed by two people doesn't make it peer-reviewed. Can you please remove the word "scholars" from the article as this "book" is not academic literature. Please provide me with evidence that this "book" is academic literature. I did not characterize "them away as a vanity press"; I was referring to private discussion to User:Bloodofox about "self-promotional" literature in folkloristics articles. I had that in the edit summary to aid Bloodofox in case he wanted to understand what I was referring to. I am so sorry you misinterpreted my message as an insult to McFarland's literature; that was not my intent if you feel it conveyed that message.

Thank you,

The Soldier of Peace (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are academically trained or not, but if a book is published by a reputable press, which McFarland is until proven otherwise, it is automatically peer-reviewed. I can't speak for McFarland in great detail, but here is how the academic publishing process works for my book: an acquisitions editor invites me and a fellow scholar to contribute; a detailed proposal is sent to the press which is reviewed by a different editor; toward the end of the process two independent reviewers go over the entire manuscript. That is what "peer review" means. Published reviews are not part of the peer review process, since they are done post hoc. I do not have to prove that this book is an academic book: the very fact that it's published by a reputable academic press does that already. A private discussion with an editor about some unspecified self-promotion does not validate the claim that the book (because it is a book about folklore?) is somehow not OK to use. And I revdeleted the edit summary not because I was concerned with the publisher, but because I was concerned with the edit summary smearing the reputation of the scholar/writer in question, who is a living person. In a case like this, with a book published by an academic press, the onus is on you to prove that it is not acceptable, and you can do that on the talk page or, perhaps better yet, on WP:RSN. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]