User talk:Nacjackson

Welcome!
Hi Nacjackson! I noticed your contributions to Trajan&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Kleuske (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

About your book and contributions.
Hello Nacjackson. I enjoyed reading as much as I could access of your book, but I've serious doubts that it can be used as a Wikipedia source, simply because it was available to you (unsurprisingly) before December 30 2021 but published in 2022. That's a very new book indeed, possibly too new for Wikipedia, because although it has had positive responses from sites such as quora, Amazon, Google and what-have-you, it has had no "peer" reviews; by which I mean reviews by professional historians (the scare quotes merely acknowledge that although you've sought advice and feedback from many senior historians, your professional backgound is related to pharmacology, not history. Do I have that right?).

Under these circumstances, adding your previously unpublished book to several articles as a WP:reliable source would seem to some like an attempt to "Spam" it into Wikiedia in the hope of exposure and consequent sales. It happens, so I hope you don't feel insulted. Please consider contacting the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard for a second opinion. I've been wrong about such things in the past, and as I said above (or should have said), it's a very impressive achievement. I should also add that while some issues (such as breaches of copyright law) are a no-no - I'm just using that as an exmple, not even remotely accusing you of such - a great deal else can be changed to fit in with editorial consensus, on a case by case basis. I've started a discussion on the Trajan talk page. Regards to you, Haploidavey (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see below responses 2A02:C7F:681:800:60AE:A31F:8420:1C9 (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please start using them! You have added considerable quantities of text, with not a single edit summary to explain, describe or justify your additions. Haploidavey (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Page numbers
I realise that you've cited specific chapters of your book, but could you please also give page numbers, or failing that, page ranges? If you don't, verification of your article text gets really difficult. Thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing
As you've made no response here or on the Trajan talk page, I'm removing the source and where possible, the material it supports. This is not a negative judgment of your work, it's just a question of adherence to what is meant by reliable source. As it stands, your published work doesn't fit Wikipedia criteria. Please feel free to challenge my removal, preferably on the Trajan talkpage (or on the reliable sources noticeboard, as above. Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message and hopefully not too late.
 * In fact, my book has been thoroughly peer reviewed by arguably some of the most prominent scholars in Roman history (and this is cited in the preface). The FULL manuscript was read in its entirety by Professors Barbara Levick and Antony Birely.  They require no introduction.  Dr. David Thomas, classics at Cambridge, also read and commented on the entire manuscript.  Moreover, GreenHill Publishers commissioned an anonymous Roman history expert who reviewed the whole document.  In all these cases all comments were addressed fully.
 * Thus, you are erroneously concluding on the accuracy of the book, and thereby diminishing the value of Trajan's wikipedia page. Indeed, the changes I tried to make are because the wikipedia page is grossly inaccurate or lacking important details in many places.  I should have changed alot more on the page but lack the time to do so.
 * Could you please clarify your own expert experiences in this field ?
 * Yours sincerely
 * Nicholas 2A02:C7F:681:800:60AE:A31F:8420:1C9 (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: I forgot to mention that the prominent Imperium Romanum group reviewed and posted their opinion on the book
 * https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/reviews/review-trajan-romes-last-conqueror/
 * This Imperium Romanum site has existed since 2004 and is the LARGEST compendium of knowledge about the history of ancient Rome. The content of the portal is additionally regularly published on social channels (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Wykop, Reddit, Quora) to promote knowledge about ancient Rome. Since 2019, there is also active English version of the website, which is regularly enlarged with new articles and posts. 2A02:C7F:681:800:60AE:A31F:8420:1C9 (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Nicholas, thank you for your responses. I should explain what's meant by peer review and publication on this site.
 * Reputable academic publishers and authors have more-or-less guaranteed privilege as potential sources at Wikipedia, based on their track record and peer reviews. Confirmation of reviews, editors, collaborations and consultations is always in print (paper or electronic). Pen & Sword (Green Hill) is not an academic publisher (for example Oxford, Cambridge, BRILL etc) but I know of several works that they (and others like them) have published for academic writers, and professional historians. And although the Imperium Romanum review can't be regarded as an academic/peer or professional review, the author seems both well-informed, committed and honest. That's why I suggested (and still suggest) that you take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard. There's no such thing as "too late" at Wikpedia, but you might have to wait sometime before what you've had published comes to the attention of academic reviewer(s). I have to say, I was suprised to see how recently it was first published. Wikipedia does not rely on opinions published on social or amateur websites, no matter how positive or well-informed.
 * I made no negative comments about your book. The parts I was able to read struck me as well-written, thoroughly researched and interesting. I am not a professional or certified academic historian. Like you, I have an academic background (in my case, a Bsc and a BA), in subjects not directly related to my activities here. I have some areas of expertise pertinent to my chosen interests at Wikipedia. I'm particularly interested in the religious practises, enthusiasms and beliefs of ancient Rome and Greece. Wikipedia is produced by, and for, people who rely almost entirely on the work of others, which is why our source material must be independent of ourselves (whether or not we personally agree with them).
 * This raises questions regarding the independence and non-partisan use of sources by article editors. Article content should reflect the balance of scholarship. That's a very real challenge for the Wikipedia editor who is also the writer of their source material. It's one of the reasons why in general, source writers should not add, remove or otherwise edit their own material on Wikipedia.
 * Sincere regards, Haploidavey (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again.
 * Not quite sure I did it correctly, but submitted on the reliable sources noticeboard as you suggested.
 * Best wishes
 * Nick 2A02:C7F:681:800:F42D:3A73:7F4A:7334 (talk) 12:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nicholas, I'm not sure that I've done the right thing. I expect (or rather, hope) that others will chip in at Talk:Trajan, and tell me that I've got the wrong end of the stick when it comes to what's meant by Wikipedia's internal "peer review" process. Most educational establishments claim not to allow use of Wikipedia as a source; but they still use the same sources as Wikipedia editors (how could they not?). As I said above, I've misjudged these things once or twice in the past, and I hope this is a third time. I'm getting old and over-cautious, maybe. But please, please, when editing articles do follow the advice given in the first couple of sections above - edit summaries, and (if possible) page numbers.
 * Meanwhile, best wishes to you too. Haploidavey (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)