User talk:Elmsfan
Welcome!
Hello, Elmsfan, and welcome to the ISFDB Wiki! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Help pages
- Field-by-field guide to entering new publications into the database
- Help:Getting Started
- What the ISFDB Wiki is for
- FAQ
- Wiki editing help - Tips on how to use the wiki-specific features when editing wiki pages.
- Wiki Conventions - How things are usually done on this wiki.
- Help:How to upload images to the ISFDB wiki
Note: Image uploading isn't entirely automated. You're uploading the files to the wiki which will then have to be linked to the database by editing the publication record.
Please be careful in editing publications that have been primary verified by other editors. See Help:How to verify data#Making changes to verified pubs. But if you have a copy of an unverified publication, verifying it can be quite helpful. See Help:How to verify data for detailed information.
I hope you enjoy editing here! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out the community portal, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Stonecreek 23:36, 9 January 2019 (EST)
Dragons and Nightmares: Four Short Novels
Hi Elmsfan, I've put on hold your edit to remove a section of the Note from Dragons and Nightmares: Four Short Novels (edit record here). I don't think removing this section is worthwhile: while you may dispute what it says, it is bibliographic information from a trusted source that's nevertheless worth including. All it is saying is "According to..."; that's not worth deleting entirely as they may be some truth in what it says – there may indeed be some copies signed and numbered as claimed.
A solution: if you verify the publication, I'd say you're at liberty to add something like "although the veracity of this claim is disputed after some research by Primary Verifier Elmsfan". We probably have hundreds (nay, thousands?) of records with bibliographic details that are similarly disputed, but it's still worth including what generally trusted sources have to say about a publication. What do you think? PeteYoung 16:45, 12 February 2019 (EST)
- After two weeks of no reply to the above I'm rejecting the edit and instead adding to that particular bullet that it is disputed – something that could also be useful bibliographic information for researchers. Thanks. PeteYoung 23:00, 24 February 2019 (EST)