Talk:Society for Scholarly Publishing

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Mborbone (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC) It refers to a Society within the scholarly publishing community and shares common goals with other society pages on Wikipedia including ALPSP (Association of Learned Professional Society Publishers). This page is based on the ALPSPS page and is intended to enable members of the scholarly publishing community to find information on the society and its aims and goals.

Copyright violation claim

I don't understand why the entire article is being deleted on the basis of the copyright violation claim (nor exactly where that came from). It is clear the first two paragraphs of the latest version of the article are word-for-word identical to the first two paragraphs on their About page. The third paragraph seems to be at least somewhat original; there is a lot more material on the page, was that checked for copyright issues before this blanket deletion was proposed? I would have thought blanking out inappropriately copied sections would be a better first step... ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I've replied to you on my talk page as well, but I should note here I'm mostly just following the instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Suspected_or_complicated_infringement. I don't want this notice to be up any longer than necessary, so I'm working on a draft replacement at draft:Society for Scholarly Publishing; hopefully we can shorten the process here. But please help get the draft replacement up to snuff. There does indeed seem to be some non-infringing material in the article, but much of it isn't appropriate in tone or sourced; if any is appropriate for inclusion please edit draft:Society for Scholarly Publishing. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it to mainspace. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor behaving badly

Naughty, naughty, Erik. I assume that you'll now do the honorable things and A: Send yourself to bed with no supper, and B) Recuse yourself from ever editing this article again (except perhaps to restore it to what it was before your temper-tantrum vandalism).

108.49.158.55 ([do not] talk) 17:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have commented about this in the comment section of the blog you link to and on my talk page. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

recent editing removed information

Why were links to related scholarly publishing organizations removed? That seems to diminish the usefulness of this page. I also note that one or more wiki links seem to have been replaced with external links within the text, I didn't think that was the usual policy. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the links; you're right, of course, we've decided we don't want external links in running text, for various reasons, but we can't really expect people to know that, so if you see someone has added it feel free to unlink it. You might consider whether the external link would be useful as a reference instead and if so maybe wrap it in a <ref> tag or something. Regarding the "See also" section, if that's what you're talking about, the edit had a summary of "removed tangentially related See Also links--not comprehensive, not mentioned in article". Any thoughts? (Feel free to revert it with an edit summary explaining why.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with those links - actually it was the links to Scholarly Kitchen (should be a wiki link?) and Learned Publishing (no wiki page, maybe should have one) that caught my eye - those could certainly be kept as relevant external references. On the "See also" - in other places I've seen that used it's rarely from things mentioned in the article, it is a list of similar entities that a reader who came here may also want to see. If it was missing some, add them. But if there's a wiki category page listing similar organizations maybe that would be better...? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I added the organizations that had been under See Also, and some others, to the Publishing-related professional associations category, I guess that's sufficient. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)