Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:43, 22 May 2008

Kathryn Cramer

Your statement in your edit summary is misleading. It has not been discussed much at all, the talk page is barely used. The page violates wikipedia policies in its current state. Also, I just noticed in your talk page history you reverted User:Jossi's welcome message as vandalism. Please make yourself more familiar with our policies before you make such pronouncements. ⇒ SWATJester 01:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just noted your edits on the talk page. Please do not refer to others edits as "small minded" or them as "zealous" because they have opinions different than yours. That constitutes a personal attack, which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. The edits to the article were done because the article reads as an advertisement, this is not acceptable. The sources were unreliable, and some of the information was unsourced. Our policy requires that all edits be sourced and to be sourced reliably. As for the Hugo Award, it was directly given to the magazine. An award for a magazine goes to the magazine, not the editor; misquoting it as such for the sake of advertisement is contrary to the encyclopedic nature of this project.⇒ SWATJester 01:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, before making these intemperate accuations (remember Assume Good Faith?") , read the extensive archive discusssions of the page in question. I notice, pertinently, that you ignore my analogy to Ross's New Yorker; Ross frequently receives accolades for his magazines accomplishments. It is a convention, however dubious, to attribute the success of the magazine to the ability of th editor.

My apologies on the good faith, but my points stand. Your analogy does not stand with other publications. Anthony Hopkins did not win "Best Picture". Silence of the lambs did. Clint Eastwood did not win "best picture". The Unforgiven did. Liam Neeson did not win "best picture". Schindler's list did. They may be the ones to physically accept the award, but they are not the person to whom it was awarded. I provided on the talk page extensive evidence that this is also the case with the Hugos. ⇒ SWATJester 03:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the archives, they do not reflect specifically on this aspect of the discussion. And it is far from an extensive archive discussion, compared to most others on this page, for instance the archive at George W. Bush. ⇒ SWATJester 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Assumption of good faith in your case requires more suspension of disbelief than I can muster. Be my guest: vandalize wikipedia at your pleasure. Perhaps others will, once you have mercifully finished, repair the damage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs).

Well that was not called for. ⇒ SWATJester 03:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Dave Winer edit war

Hey Mark. Hang loose with Nick Irelan, because usually the admins catch up with this page pretty fast. I submitted it to User_talk:Ryulong and WP:RPP, and independently CSCWEM came around and undid one of Irelan's changes. I hope you don't risk going over 3RR yourself when one of these things happen, because a lot of people watch this page, and can help out when needed. We can discuss on Talk whether the remaining reference to cybersquatting has any reason to still be there. (I think not). EdJohnston 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Electronic Literature

Hi Mark, Thanks so much - I am quite grateful your insights and suggestions and willingness to help here. I do have some familiarity with this subject and would very much like to work with you to improve these pages.

Here is what I saw when I first looked at the pages. Both pages were badly in need of clean up: The original ELO page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_Literature_Organization&oldid=182338791 The original Electronic Literature page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_literature&oldid=209549580 Since both pages were enormously similar, I made the decision to merge. However, by all means, please do restore the ELO page here if you feel it should be a separate article, perhaps developing it a bit more from its original state: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_Literature_Organization&redirect=no In terms of authors - the pages in their original form each contained lists of hypertext authors that were nearly identical which is why I included them. In addition, the definition of electronic literature on the ELO website does include "hypertext fiction" - I also used current scholarship which discusses "hypertext fiction" as "first generation" electronic literature.

That being said, I appreciate all of your points and wonder if I might ask for your help in improving these articles which were originally badly in need of clean up and am open to any suggestions you might have. Thanks again for this very helpful post and I look forward to hearing from you, -Classicfilms (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that ELO is a particular organization -- a faction, if you will. So it's not synonymous with "electronic literature", and has sometimes (in my view) been hostile to hypertext fiction. It's not uncommon for two or more organization (or political parties) to have similar over-arching goals but great differences; merging is good, but you don't really want to merge the Republicans and Democrats because both parties want a better US.

What these pages need most, IMHO, are links and citations to the critical literature -- to discussions of the titles in print and on the Web -- so that people will have better guidance in reading and discussing these works. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)