Talk:With Eyes at the Back of Our Heads

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... Context found. -- Auric    talk  01:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because it is self-evident, therefore self-explanatory, to anyone who actually LOOKS at the "Article" --

It is the TABLE OF CONTENTS of a volume of Denise Levertov's poetry.

These are the fuller facts -- which would be seen were the meddlers to actually look at the "article" before trashing it:

1. I have been developing the Bibliography on the Denise Levrtov page. None of that is "interpretation" or "opinion," and about which there is no potential "controversy": they are no more or less than straightforward statements of fact.

2. A prior editor added the Tables of Contents to two of the volumes. Following that lead, I added the Contents to The Great Unknowing -- to which someone added a "redirect" back to the main page one is already on, thus trashing that "article".

I communicated to that person about these facts, asking that he undo the "redirect". I've heard nothing, and the "redirect" has not been removed. In short, the Contents file was deleted, and my explaination of the facts and request remain ignored.

3. I subsequently added the Contents to two other volumes -- one being Overland to the Islands. Both "articles" are of the same kind: the Contents of their respective volumes.

Someone recommended that one of the two be deleted -- they are identical in nature -- but not the other. And another person immediately deleted it.

One would think that such meddlers would have the sense to first determine the nautre of the"articles" -- they are not "interpretations" or "opinion"; they are simply listings of the Contents of the volumes. They should be restored; and anyone who gets it in his head to delete any further Contents of volumes should prevent themselves doing so.

And if they engage in such hostile and destructive pranks because they believe it "funny," then they shouldn't be posting that they, as example, "Don't suffer fools kindly" because they obviously tolerate suffering themselves.

JNagarya 02:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNagarya (talk • contribs)


 * As a newbie, you can't be expected to know everything about how Wikipedia works, but it doesn't work this way. What you created (and it still exists in the history) is not an article. We just don't do that here. If you wish to create an article, then follow the instructions in the article wizard (the link is found in one of the deletion templates on your talk page). Do this in your own "user space", which is not the same as this space, which is "article space". When it is formatted properly according to our standards, then you can move it to article space. Here is a sandbox for you to use: User:JNagarya/With Eyes at the Back of Our Heads. Just start writing in it. You can create similar sandboxes for your own use. When you think they are ready for launching, feel free to contact me or Kudpung, or any other experienced user. If you launch a seriously incomplete article, it will likely get deleted rather quickly. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As a "newbie," then, I should be queried and communicated with about potential -- apparent -- problems before action is taken. And -- yes -- I know it is not an "article," which I've repeatedly made clear, because I read those inapplicable guidelines: they were repeatedly shoved down my throat, thus burying the actual issue.

But let's keep it simple for the literate "newbie":

1. Know what the issue/content of an (non)"article" is before acting. That no one who zealously jumped to do immediate deletions "bothered" with that little technicality is revealed in the fact of sending me a flood of links to "guidelines" which do not apply.

2. Show me the rule which prohibits adding Tables of Contents to Bibliography listings -- which prohibition does not exist, as Bibliography entries on other pages (see, e.g., Emily Dickinson, a magnficent entry) link to Tables of Contents.

3. If there is a problem with the formatting, then alert and assist the "newbie," instead of endeavoring to pound the "newbie" into the ground for "violationg" a non-existent prohibition.

4. I developed the several Tables of Contents I entered by first copying one of the two already-existing non-"article" Tables of Contents into "Notepad" -- which already-existing Tables of Contents had been added by someone else, and which had not been deleted -- then simply changed the entries to those for the relevant Bibliographical entry. Then, following the same procedure as the already-existing Tables of Contents, copied and pasted that listing into the space for the relevant listing.

Note: Since then the two already-existing Tables of Contents -- which I did not enter, and which had not been deleted, not even immediately upon entry -- have now been deleted. Those two could not have been a problem for two reasons: they already existed and hadn't been deleted. And I didn't enter them.

5. Spell out the terms of "verification," etc., which need to be met when adding a Table of Contents to a Bibliography entry. My Table of Contents entries are drawn directly from three sources: two published bibliographies (which are listed in the Denise Levertov Bibliography), and the actual volumes in my library. None of that is "interpretation" or "opinion" about an "event," or anything else of the kind. It is simple straightforward fact.

JNagarya 15:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNagarya (talk • contribs)


 * "I don't think anyone has complained about what you've done being an "interpretation" or "expressing opinion," so that is a straw man argument. I have explained why we don't have free standing non-articles consisting of only a TOC on your talk page. See there."

You not only aren't paying attention -- in your zeal to invent non-issues/red herrings/straw men -- but also haven't bothered to LOOK at the Denise Levertov entry. There are no "free-standing non-articles consisting of only only a TOC".

I have been devloping the BIBLIOGRAPHY on the Denise Levertov entry. Do you not know what a Bibliography is? Is that a "stand-alone non-article"? No, it is not. And the entries in the Bibliography linked to TOC's; they are part of the Bibliography.


 * "As far as Emily Dickinson goes, please point me to what you're talking about. Where is this TOC, and where are other examples of TOC? Provide links and instructions about where to look. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)"

None of that is complicated -- even for a "newbie," which you are not.

1. Search for and go to the Emily Dickinson entry.

2. Scroll down to the Bibliography.

3. You will note that the individule titles in the Bibliography link to documents.

4. The documents to which linked are Tables of Contents.

I repeat my request:

Show me the rule which prohibits adding Tables of Contents to Bibliography entries -- which prohibition does not exist, as Bibliography entries on other pages (see, e.g., Emily Dickinson, a magnficent entry) link to Tables of Contents.

Nor is there any rule against focusing on the development of a specific area of a page, such as Bibliography, exclusive of focusing on others, such as composing articles -- the existing Denise Levertov article is fine as it stands. Needing development is the Bibliography, and that is my focus -- at least 95 per cent of the reference materials are my additions. And as the excellent Emily Dickinson entry includes Tables of Contents, which are not being deleted, there is obviously no prohibition against including Tables of Contents, which provide substantive, factual, useful information.

JNagarya 03:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Instead of getting upset with me, please help me. I have already (before writing the above) checked the Emily Dickinson article. It's large, so I asked for specific links to the TOC that are linked to from there. Now you tell me to go to the Bibliograpy section in the Emily Dickinson article, but it doesn't have a section with that title. In fact, it doesn't even have a bibliography or list of her works. It does link to them at Wikisource, which has its own rules. It also has a Wikipedia "List" (not an article), which also links to Wikisource. Here are the two links I found in the Emily Dickinson article:


 * List of Emily Dickinson poems


 * Emily Dickinson at Wikisource for complete poetic works


 * Is that what you're referring to? I'm still not finding any stand alone TOC like you created for Levertov. Please provide direct links to the pages you're referring to here:


 * "...(see, e.g., Emily Dickinson, a magnficent entry) link to Tables of Contents."


 * "...Emily Dickinson entry includes Tables of Contents,... "


 * I need the direct URLs for those TOCs.


 * As to developing the existing bibliography in the article, no one has objected to that. Go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)