| Revision as of 22:30, 26 January 2007 editJossi (talk | contribs)72,880 edits We have asked...← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:04, 26 January 2007 edit undoMarkBernstein (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,219 edits Deplored this petty, absurd, and unecessary controversy.Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| :Not a good idea, Kathryn. Please read ] and ]. ] <small>]</small> 03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | :Not a good idea, Kathryn. Please read ] and ]. ] <small>]</small> 03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::"Not a good idea" violates civility and assumption of good faith. The article is non-controversial, there is no NPOV question at issue here, and it's absurd to require writers to seek third parties to submit routine corrections and citations. This page is filled with mean and petty dispute, all of which is pointless and merely calls wikipedia into disrepute. '''If the editors (or trolls) behind this controversy are simply concerned about ], you may affix my signature to Kathryn's edits of this page.''' I have no doubt that there are dozens of writers and editors who would be happy to do the same -- and to affix their actual names, not (as you do) a pseudonym. ] 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Look, |
Look, whoever you are, this is absurd. Your requests for citations for my parentage academic degrees etc. and requests for citations when citations are already given (did you follow the LINK to the Hugo Semiprozine category? No. You didn't) These are essentially harassment. | ||
| Kathryn {{unsigned2|16:04, 26 January 2007|Pleasantville}} | Kathryn {{unsigned2|16:04, 26 January 2007|Pleasantville}} | ||
Revision as of 23:04, 26 January 2007
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kathryn Cramer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2 |
 | The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
| The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
I seemed to be #6 on Alvonruff's list of most popular ISFDB authors without a Misplaced Pages entry, and I'm not an easy subject, so I've started it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not a good idea, Kathryn. Please read WP:AUTO and WP:COI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Not a good idea" violates civility and assumption of good faith. The article is non-controversial, there is no NPOV question at issue here, and it's absurd to require writers to seek third parties to submit routine corrections and citations. This page is filled with mean and petty dispute, all of which is pointless and merely calls wikipedia into disrepute. If the editors (or trolls) behind this controversy are simply concerned about WP:AUTO, you may affix my signature to Kathryn's edits of this page. I have no doubt that there are dozens of writers and editors who would be happy to do the same -- and to affix their actual names, not (as you do) a pseudonym. MarkBernstein 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, whoever you are, this is absurd. Your requests for citations for my parentage academic degrees etc. and requests for citations when citations are already given (did you follow the LINK to the Hugo Semiprozine category? No. You didn't) These are essentially harassment.
Kathryn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry to hear you consider that harassment. Me and others have asked you not to edit your own article. You are welcome to provide material in this talk page. Please read our guidelines about autobiographies ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Cite web template
Let me introduce you to the {{cite web}} template:
{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2024-12-25 |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= }}
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
We have asked...
... that you do not edit your own article. But you chose to ignore our guidelines. May you consider stopping editing your article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Category: