Revision as of 04:24, 28 January 2007 edit24.128.169.39 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:29, 28 January 2007 edit undoMarkBernstein (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,219 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
::: As this is your second edit in Misplaced Pages, I would appreciate that rather than making assertions about how this project should be run and what is appropriate or not, you take a bit of time and learn a bit more about the project before doing so. I have placed some pointers in your talk page. ] <small>]</small> 16:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | ::: As this is your second edit in Misplaced Pages, I would appreciate that rather than making assertions about how this project should be run and what is appropriate or not, you take a bit of time and learn a bit more about the project before doing so. I have placed some pointers in your talk page. ] <small>]</small> 16:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::: I explained the reason for infrequently editing wikipedia in my keynote lecture at WikiSym 2006. I'm quite familiar with the project and how it should be |
:::: I explained the reason for infrequently editing wikipedia in my keynote lecture at WikiSym 2006. I'm quite familiar with the project and how it should be run and I am confident that '''this''' is not how it should be run. Cramer has elsewhere offered an excellent discussion of the real needs of editors and scholars for material like this -- material which you would deny the community. The consequence, apparently, will be an imminent fork in which the experts will create a separate resource leaving the pseudonymous trolls to cultivate wikipedia. That's an undesirable outcome. 04:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
Jossi: 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. | Jossi: 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. | ||
Line 66: | Line 67: | ||
Also, if you are going to reference Gary Westfahl on hard sf as further reading, please also reference my chapter on Hard SF in the Cambridge Companion to SF: http://cco.cambridge.org/extract?id=ccol0521816262_CCOL0521816262A018 (ed. Farah Mendlesohn & Edward James.] 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | Also, if you are going to reference Gary Westfahl on hard sf as further reading, please also reference my chapter on Hard SF in the Cambridge Companion to SF: http://cco.cambridge.org/extract?id=ccol0521816262_CCOL0521816262A018 (ed. Farah Mendlesohn & Edward James.] 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
:If ISFDB is incorrect, Kathryn, it is not up to Misplaced Pages to fix it. You may |
:If ISFDB is incorrect, Kathryn, it is not up to Misplaced Pages to fix it. You may want to contact the maintainers of that database to get these entries fixed. It may sound counterintuitive, but in Misplaced Pages we speak of "verifiability, not truth". See ]. ] <small>]</small> 19:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:29, 28 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)
- As this is your second edit in Misplaced Pages, I would appreciate that rather than making assertions about how this project should be run and what is appropriate or not, you take a bit of time and learn a bit more about the project before doing so. I have placed some pointers in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I explained the reason for infrequently editing wikipedia in my keynote lecture at WikiSym 2006. I'm quite familiar with the project and how it should be run and I am confident that this is not how it should be run. Cramer has elsewhere offered an excellent discussion of the real needs of editors and scholars for material like this -- material which you would deny the community. The consequence, apparently, will be an imminent fork in which the experts will create a separate resource leaving the pseudonymous trolls to cultivate wikipedia. That's an undesirable outcome. 04:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Jossi: 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)
- Try not to get carried away and bite her, Jossi. WP:AUTO is a useful guideline but not a bludgeon to smack people with. Obviously, a person is concerned that an article about them should represent them in a certain way. Let's work with that understanding and a bit more patience. Grace Note 02:48, 27 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)
Tidying
I've removed some material that struck me as definitely not notable or relevant, but I'm wondering whether there is a general notability concern. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
So my blog is cited in the New York Times, Forbes, the BBC etc. and it's not notable? You are a hoot. What is notable?Pleasantville 23:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I only looked at the NYT piece, and it quoted you in relation to the Pakistan work, and in quoting you, mentioned your blog. That doesn't in and of itself make your blog notable. It also doesn't in and of itself make you notable.
- It would help a lot if you'd tone down the insults you're doling out all over the place. It's actually not much of a hoot to me that I'm spending this time trying to sort this issue out. You shouldn't have created the page in the first place. If you are really notable, someone else would have done so. SlimVirgin 23:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't see much in the way of insults but I'd urge Kathryn to try to work with Slim, rather than feel she is someone to fight against. Slim's grasp of how things work here will be invaluable to you in getting things done. But Slim, the article is here now. Let's not jump up and down on the person concerned for creating it. Not everyone is clear on the "rules" here and people are obviously concerned to be represented in what seems to them fair terms. We do have articles on people who are not all that important, so it's sometimes difficult for an outsider to understand why they should not be included. Grace Note 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi GN, there have been comments elsewhere from Pleasantville that have been unhelpful; that's what I was referring to. SlimVirgin 08:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- ... Such as calling editors that responded on a posting at WP:COI/N "semi-anonymous people acting like jerks", making sarcastic comments about "mind group", posting an attack piece in her blog in which he called these editors "a pack of officious trolls", and being dismissive to all comments made by others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Length of biblio section
The biblio section is way too long. I woud appreciate to know from the author, what would be a representative sampling of her work, rather the the whole collection of essays, reviews and other such as available here http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Kathryn%20Cramer
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think the standard used at William Connolley should be applied. Of course, Dr Connolley is an admin here so he doesn't get much in the way of bullying from editors for editing his own article, but just about everything he's ever published seems to be on his list. Grace Note 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think that William Connolley edited that article on his own, and I do not think that when he edited his article that he was an admin. In any case, I am asking the subject of this article to provide a shortlist of the most prominent works that she has published, as to not make this into a catalog. And if you think that the comments made to this person are "bullying" I would suggest that you explicitly say who and when so that it can be properly addressed. Such wide-ranging statements are not helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think repeatedly making the same "request" constitutes bullying, Jossi. Littering an article with demands for sources could also be considered overaggressive. This now seems to be shifting the point of attack. Slow down. Chill out. Grace Note 07:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I disagree with your assessment. Rather than passing judgment on the behavior of others, you can roll your sleeves and help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think repeatedly making the same "request" constitutes bullying, Jossi. Littering an article with demands for sources could also be considered overaggressive. This now seems to be shifting the point of attack. Slow down. Chill out. Grace Note 07:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think that William Connolley edited that article on his own, and I do not think that when he edited his article that he was an admin. In any case, I am asking the subject of this article to provide a shortlist of the most prominent works that she has published, as to not make this into a catalog. And if you think that the comments made to this person are "bullying" I would suggest that you explicitly say who and when so that it can be properly addressed. Such wide-ranging statements are not helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- The list that Pleasantville added was taken directly from here, and I've shortened it a little, but I agree it should be shortened further. SlimVirgin 08:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the ISFDB bibio is that parts of it are wrong. I am not an easy bibliographic subject, so some of what I've put here is corrections to what's in the ISFDB. I don't disagree that the biblio could be shortened. If done 2 rounds of shortening it myself.
Also, if you are going to reference Gary Westfahl on hard sf as further reading, please also reference my chapter on Hard SF in the Cambridge Companion to SF: http://cco.cambridge.org/extract?id=ccol0521816262_CCOL0521816262A018 (ed. Farah Mendlesohn & Edward James.Pleasantville 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- If ISFDB is incorrect, Kathryn, it is not up to Misplaced Pages to fix it. You may want to contact the maintainers of that database to get these entries fixed. It may sound counterintuitive, but in Misplaced Pages we speak of "verifiability, not truth". See WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)