Talk:Gnome Press

Hi there... I had inserted a link on this page and some of the pages of the individual titles issued by Gnome Press. I see they have been removed. Apologies for the inconvenience, but I would like to respectfully request that I be allowed to place these links. I understand the objections - I'm not a professional reviewer and I'm operating out of a blog - but I'd like to make a couple of points for retaining the links. First, I'm not in any commercial endeavor and there is absolutely nothing promoted for any sort of gain nor for sale on the blog. Second, the big reason for allowing the links to my site and the reviews is the reason I started the blog in the first place. My hobby is collecting Gnome Press titles and any sort of information or reviews on most of the GP titles is extremely scarce if not non-existent on the Internet. Wikipedia has some bare-bones info, bibliographical info is available on the ISFDB, but outside of that... I was extremely frustrated with what I could (or rather, couldn't) find. What I have on the blog wouldn't really fit comfortably into Wikipedia itself (being examples, reviews and explanations from my own collection), but is of genuine interest and use to the Gnome Press collector. I just want to share the things I have learned and the reviews that you can't find anywhere else, it's a very, very narrow area of interest and those few people that seek this info (like myself before starting it) would be very appreciative of it's availability from Wikipedia. Feel free to check it out and I am looking forward to your response. Kind Regards, Gnomepress (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review the external link gudelines. Personal blogs and fansites are not consistent with those guidelines. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare)  23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, and I did review those guidelines. The only point that the site could violate is point 11 under 'Links normally to be avoided.'  These are 'guidelines' however, not rules, and the wording contains indefinite terms such as 'normally' and 'should'.  This indicates that exceptions are allowed and made.  I'd like to ask an allowance in this case for the points described above.  If not (and you are the authority), could I please ask for a concrete explanation as to why an exception (that is available to be granted) can't be made in this case??  Many Thanks. Gnomepress (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again... I'm going to put the link to my site back in because any Gnome Press enthusiasts deserve to have a link in Wikipedia to pursue more in depth and specialised info offsite. There is absolutely no issue with the content at all as far as I can tell, it is only my initial behavior in posting links to the reviews which understandably set off alarm bells.  So apologies for that.  I'm going to wait a couple of days, so if you have an objection, I expect to hear back from you soon. Gnomepress (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello once more. You have remained silent for a month after I respectfully asked for more clarification as to why my link should not be included. Within hours of reinsertion you have removed it. I would like to again respectfully ask for some clear reasoning with reference to the guidelines why a link to my site should not be available on wikipedia. Rejecting something with reference to rules is perfectly understandable. But rejection with regards to guidelines implies a responsibility to provide a reasonable explanation if requested. Can you please explain to me exactly why the information I have on my site is unsuitable for a link on wikipedia?? Many thanks, Gnomepress (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

clumsy wording
"...proved too underfunded to make the leap from fan-based publishing to the professional level." - the 'professional level' really doesn't cut it, as that refers to an academic description - what is meant to be expressed here is that they couldn't compete with corporate mass-conglomerates. 104.169.25.180 (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)