User talk:Mike61680

Book
Hi, I see that you've been adding info on a book to several articles on BR Diesel locos. I have been fixing up your edits, partly to put them in a more suitable place, partly for format,. A couple of questions: You can reply here, and I'll see it. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * does the book have an ISBN?
 * what is the publication year?
 * what is the significance of the word "Wirral"?
 * I think you'll find this link useful: http://www.bermuda-road.org.uk/7.html - it looks as if Mike61680 aka Mike McManus aka Michael McManus lives on Wirral. Tim PF (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, so Wirral is intended as a location - in which case we should really put the relevant town (Birkenhead, Wallasey, Hoylake, whereever). The thing is, "Wirral" could have been taken as the publisher's name (there is one in fact: Wirral Publications Ltd, 3rd floor, 2A Price Street, Birkenhead CH41 6JN). -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have perhaps more explicitly stated in my last edit that I was wondering if these book references are counter to Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy (WP:COI). If so, I think it better if those edits are just reverted. Tim PF (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike, you posted the following on my user talk page:

We have a distinction between "References" (that is, books which were actually used in the compilation of the article), and "Further reading" (that is, books which were not used in the preparation of the article, but which provide additional information for the serious reader). Since you added book details without adding anything new to the article body, I considered that your book was not a "Reference", although it could be considered "Further reading", so I added the relevant heading. I repositioned several of these entries (moving them upwards from the very bottom) because Wikipedia has a standard format for the tail-end of an article, see MOS:APPENDIX.

Since you have admitted to being the author and publisher of the book concerned, there are some who may consider this a breach of either or both of WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:SPS; indeed Tim PF has mentioned above that these additions may breach WP:COI. The annoying thing is that if another person had added exactly the same information, we would be less picky - unfair, I know, but that's policy. Never having come across the book in question, I would not like to judge its quality: if it turns out to be a well-researched accurate record, it could be a valid addition to these articles.

Finally: please remember to sign your posts on talk pages, using four tildes   -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need to post on my talk page: post here, and I'll see it, because I have this page on my watchlist. I find it helps to keep the whole thread in one place - disjoint conversations are tedious to follow.
 * I don't think that you should delete all the entries just yet, although it would be a good idea to enquire further about authorised inclusion. The best place to do this would be on the discussion page of WP:UKRAIL: use the "new section" button to start a new thread. Describe what you added (give links to a few sample pages: your contributions list is here), explain why you added the item (but don't make it look like you're trying to sell books), ask if it was OK or if you should remove it again. Finally, sign your post; make sure that you add the page to your watchlist, and wait for replies. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thankyou RedRose and Mike. An interesting part-solution.  I've only had a user account here for a few weeks, and I hadn't come across the WP:UKRAIL page myself, yet, so that's a useful pointer to me.  One thing I have done, however, is to avoid making a similar change to a whole bunch of pages until a few have been up for a few days and re-edited, left intact or even removed by more experienced editors.  HTH  Tim PF (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both RedRose and Tim, I will compile some clearer information for all to digest over the weekend and start a new section as advised. (Don't have a lot of time during the week, sorry) I can assure you at this point the information is indeed thorough and is a compilation of reported records over a 20 year period. Wikipedia is quite a learning curve! Mike61680 (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Mike61680

Hi RedRose and apologies for delay. Here is a draft of what I propose to present on the 'new section' pages. The 6 volumes of Ultimate Allocations cover the 'reported' allocations of all British Railways: Steam : Diesel & Electric Locomotives on BR stock from 1950 - 1968 with additional information from 1948 where available. They are formatted in A4 comb bound volumes for ease of use. There are 3 main columns which are sub-divided with individual locomotive details including date when 'new' if appropriate. All 'reported' and published allocations and re-allocations combined with withdrawal dates where known are listed on either 'Weekly' - 'Monthly' - or 'Period Ending' dependant on regional variations at that time. A link to several testimonials and scanned images of the type of information provided can be found at www.ultimate-allocations.co.uk Please advise if this information would be acceptable for presentation in the 'new section' you previously advised. I look forward to seeing your reply and thank you once again for your assistance in this matter. Mike McManus.Mike61680 (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Mike61680 Hi again, I could uploaded an HTML file giving the allocations of class 44.45.46 from new to 1968 for viewing if it helps. Mike61680 (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Mike61680
 * I don't think it would be suitable; what you have put still looks like a sales pitch for your book, which is not a good way to get approval for your edits.
 * First, go to the discussion page for WP:UKRAIL, which may be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways (or at its shortcut WT:UKRAIL). Have a look at some of the discussions that are ongoing, possibly also some that have occurred in the past (these are in the archives box upper right). That way, you'll get a feel for how we get project-wide approval.
 * Then, go for the "new section" tab in that page ( here is a link to that), and start your new thread; see my post of 20:05, 17 January 2011 above for the sort of things I think you should mention. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)