Talk:The Penultimate Curiosity
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Contested deletion
editThis page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the wording on Roger Wagner's website contains the same wording as used in the Wikipedia page, and both are a synopsis of the book, of which he is a co-author. Roger Wagner approved the wording in the Wikipedia page--MrArmstrong2 (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Could you please tell us about your relationship with Roger Wagner? And any other conflicts of interest you may have? Thank you. Harry Let us have speaks 15:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Apart from that, you need to write your own synopsis of the book. You can't just copy it from the author's webpage. Harry Let us have speaks 15:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Roger Wagner has since removed the paragraph from his website, so there now no duplication. MrArmstrong2 (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- And your relationship with him is? In any event these are still not your own words. They were written by Roger Wagner and he retains the copyright, not Wikipedia. There is also still a bit of duplication. Harry Let us have speaks 16:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I have created the article on behalf of Andrew Briggs and Roger Wagner, who supplied the wording. MrArmstrong2 (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oh dear. So it's promotional as well. Have any other articles that you have created been on behalf of their subjects? That is not allowed under Wikipedia's rules. Harry Let us have speaks 16:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I have not created any other articles on behalf of their subjects, and was unaware this is not allowed under Wikipedia's rules until you brought it to my attention. Thanks for doing so. I must have missed it in the New Article wizard. MrArmstrong2 (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- thanks for clarifying MrArmstrong2. Harry Let us have speaks 20:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not think the "multiple issues" objections are justified.
editThe first section merely gives a summary of the book.
The Reception section merely quotes independent reviews of the book. They are not all positive. Links to those reviews are provided so readers can see whether the quotations are appropriate and not out of context.