User:Pleasantville/User talk through 2-4-07

Contributions
Welcome. Please be aware that we have guidelines on autobiography. WP:COI and WP:Autobiography. Please also note that blogs are not generally allowed as sources of facts, WP:RS. -Will Beback · † · 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Will Beback: See my note to Alvonruff. -KC 1/12/07


 * Your note doesn't indicate that you've read and understand the guidelines I've listed above. Can you explain why you are a special case, and why you are creating articles about yourself, your husband, and your other associates? -Will Beback · † · 01:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you threatening deletion? I corrected my husband's incorrect bibliography. Is that a problem? I am writing about things and people I know about. Is that a problem?

I had already written what is a pretty neutral biography for myself with a couple of evaluatory sentences which you are free to reseach and change if you think I'm wrong. Am I not supposed to cite the New York Times?

If you delete the bio I will hand off my draft to your regulars who write SF bios and who know me. They can do with it what they want. But the implication of your whole attitude is that because I know the majority of your biographers for SF writers, that this would somehow be deeply corrupt.Pleasantville 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I DID NOT, ABSOLUTELY DID NOT, create the article about my husband. I corrected an erroneous bibliography that was copied wholesale from the ISFDB.

Also, I'm not sure you followed the links having to do with my blog. They are not links to blogs. they are links to solid major mainstream media coverage of my blog. Were those what you meant about blogs not being aceptable sources?Pleasantville 01:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You appear to be using Wikipedia to settle scores with those you don't like, such as GoDaddy and Joseph A. Cafasso, and to promote yourself, your associates (Kovas Boguta), and their projects, (Puck Aleshire's Abecedary). Yes, that is a problem. Please read Conflict of interest. -Will Beback · † · 01:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding blogs, you are using your own blog and others to source Joseph A. Cafasso, for example. -Will Beback · † · 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So, if I remove the items sourced to blogs, does the Cafasso entry become acceptable? Facts are facts.

The GoDaddy description of Tos policies is factually in incorrect. I will get you a nice journalistic article documenting the lax enforcement. Then someone else can make the same argeument.

2/3rds of the science fiction field are my "associates." That's why I'm knowledgeable about SF. So I can't write about that? So you have only people who know nothing about subjects writing about them?

I can't write my own bio and I can't alter bios or people or create bios of people I know? Pleasantville 02:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Look Will, you are trolling me. Since you don't believe my autobiography you don't seem to know that I am knowledgable in my subject areas. Why don't you check first before trolling?Pleasantville 02:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Will appears to be properly questioning entangling links between article subjects and the wikieditor. Did you read Conflict of interest?  Surely there are others qualified to research and write on these subjects.  Ideally, it should be they who write these articles, not friends/colleagues/etc. of the subject(s). —EncMstr 02:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

SOO ENLIGHTENED EXPERTS, if the group mind is so wise, why were there sooooo many errors in my husband's bibliography?Pleasantville 02:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Per WP:COI, the preferred method for editors with conflicts of interest who see errors or omissions is to discuss the matter on the relevant article talk page. -Will Beback · † · 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I don't see how you corrected any errors in your edits to David G. Hartwell. You mostly seem to have added links to your own article and some categories. -Will Beback · † · 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "The group mind" operates from verifiable, reliable sources. Those could be in error.  More often, they aren't enough facts available.  Here are the total effect of the edits you made.  It's just as Well Beback says:  added a bunch of wikilinks to existing text, additional categories, and a reference to http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/exper/kcramer/aow.html.  Is this what you remember?  How many errors do you think you corrected?  —EncMstr 04:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:91430164_06e922150e_m.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:91430164_06e922150e_m.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It can be deleted as I uploaded a smaller version. Pleasantville 23:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Kovas Boguta
A tag has been placed on Kovas Boguta, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

a7

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Will Beback · † · 01:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag added
A tag has been placed on Ed Pegg, Jr., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 02:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, Wikipedia cites him frequently. I've met him, but don't know him personally. If frequent citation isn't sufficient criteria for an entry, then I don't know what is.Pleasantville 02:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering a Complete Pullout from Wikipedia
I feel I'm being treated really unreasonably by people who don't have a good sense of what I'm qualified to speak about. I don't think this is a good venue for author bios because of the way your editors are behaving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs)


 * Consider what it would be like if the marketing department of XYZ Company wrote a wikipedia article about XYZ Company. Would it have detailed information about the company?  Sure.  Would they be well informed?  Of course.  Would they be qualified to write about aspects of ABC the world should know?  Perhaps—but only half them.  Would it be balanced?  Very unlikely.  It is so unlikely, wikimedia has core policies prohibiting it.  Those policies are the bulk of the few hard-and-fast rules of wikipedia (the rest is fairly flexible).  An autobiography is dangerously close to this example.  It's only two notches less for the spouse of XYZ Company to do the same.  What treatment do you think is unreasonable?  —EncMstr 04:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Darling, I tried to write about GoDaddy's lax enforcement of harassment ToS and got an even worse response. This process is utter nonsense. Pleasantville 11:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are three main policies which govern the content of Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. (The way I string those together is to say that "The role of Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.") Your contributions to GoDaddy (and other articles) didn't follow any of those. You're obviously a talented and energetic individual and we don't mean to imply otherwise. However this is a community with well-established rules and mores. In order to gain respect you have to give respect first. -Will Beback · † · 12:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been an editor for 20 years and I know what editing is in all it's many forms. Wikipedia's editing process isn't editing so far as I've experienced. It is a specialized form of trolling.Pleasantville 14:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know how funny this sentence is?:
 * I've been an editor for 20 years and I know what editing is in all its many forms.
 * I spat out a gulp of my morning orange juice reading it. :-)  —EncMstr 17:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope it went out your nose. Can I see your CV? Pleasantville 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Have I been uncivil to you? Did I deserve that?  I suppose you could see my CV, but it's unlikely you'd understand much of it.  I've had an intensely technical career which requires a 20–30 year veteran of software engineering to begin to understand.
 * I've posed six non-rhetorical questions for you and you haven't directly addressed a single one. (GoDaddy might be an answer, but it will require some effort to find out.) You've been self-righteous, dismissive, defensive and now mean spirited.  I hope you'll eventually understand how this artificial world we've constructed requires its own Prime Directive. —EncMstr 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Have I been uncivil to you?" Yes, actually. Go back and read the comment I responded to. Pleasantville 23:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI and WP:AUTO
I would invite you to read carefully our guidelines related to autobiographies and conflict of interests. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys talk about tis as though it was the Bible. Pleasantville 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We do have policies, guidelines, and practices. It's not too much to ask you to read and follow them. You might understand where we're coming from if you did. -Will Beback · † · 00:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP Violation warning
Regarding your edits at Joseph A. Cafasso:  You have made an edit  that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Which one? I was not allowed to claim that I claimed something. So I gate te FBI case #. Do your own FOIA if I am not a sufficient expert to claim that I claimed something. Similarly other sources were deleted for various pedantic reasons.Pleasantville 11:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to re-add material to that article provided that (a) you stay close to the source; and (b) do not "connect the dots" or provide opinions or synthesis of primary sources to advance a specific point (Read WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Do your own reseach on the guy. He's a known con man who was written up in the NYT. The fact that he uses many aliases is really important. I had cited news articles in combination with photos of him verifiable associated with those orgainizations. The fact that he's on multiple dating services with a variety of bios is also important and is verifiable. I even provided a screen shot so people didn't have to log in and register.

But if you want to keep that kind of material about a known confidence trickster off the web, well that's your problem. It's not like I don't have a blog and media contacts. But Wikipedia has categories for these kind of guys. I have much much more material than I put up, because I'm working on a book on his activities. If you don't want me to cite Christine Dolan's letter about what he did to her dog and how he ripped off the former head strategist for the Republican party because it happens to be posted on my blog, well that's up to you. But in general, I think you guys are as a group living some kind of alternate universe of standards of evidence. Pleasantville 22:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason we don't allow blogs as sources (except under certain circumstances) is that writers could add anything to them without any editorial review. The general requirement is for sources to have undergone editorial review, such as books (but not self-published books), magazines, or newspapers. Deciding that a personna is an alias for a person is original research. Yes, it may look like the same guy, it may sound like the same guy, but we can't rely on our own judgment to decide that it is the same guy. If someone has reported in a reliable source that it's the same guy then of course we can include that. I get the impression that you haven't read our score policies. Wikipedia won't make sense until you do. Simplified Ruleset -Will Beback · † · 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He's your moral burden now. I've told you what's up. YOU save his next victim. If that's not Wikipedia's purpose, whatever do you have all those interesting categories like Confidence Trickster for?Pleasantville 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, he's not my moral burden. Wikipedia does not exist to warn readers about potential con-men. Nor do we exist to allow editors to make unfounded accusations about other people. I'd like to suggest you imagine someone having a grudge against you and adding material sourced from their blog. That wouldn't be very nice and we'd make the same effort to remove that unverifable information as we're giving to the Cafasso article now. -Will Beback · † · 00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

a couple of things since Cramer is over here raising my name, caused my bio to be posted on january 21 to use in her postings on cafasso - cramer took those edits which were not approved by Wikipedia and posted them on Google with a superimposed WIkpedia logo - this is just some of her attempt to drag me int her war with cafasso and similar to using wikipedia for her war with cafasso and some of these posts are so obvious it makes no sense. for instance, 1. the FBI file she posted initially on Cafasso which she refers to a in this section above; cramer filed that complaint with the FBI. many people were interviewed; evidence was requested; individuals responded; it was Cramer's complaint alone - not mine - not mr. blacks - not other victims' complain - only cramers. HER complaint was declined for prosecution against cafasso; her complaint was not acceptable to the prosecutor for an indictment. it does not mean he is innocent and it does not mean he may be a slug; it just means that her complaint was not sufficient to warrant a prosecution. 2) cramer filed a statement in dc against cafasso hoping to turn that into a prosecution; that too was declined for prosecution; my objection in how cramer is going about trying to expose cafasso on wikipedia. it does a disservice to what she is trying to accomplish but she refuses to see that. but that is not wikipedia business only in the sense that what is on the table by her actions is what is wikipedia's policies in a situation like this and what is wikipedia willing to do when a person hijacks redacted edits, posts at google and then superimposes wikipedia's logo inferring those edits were good enough for wikipedia???? I sincerely hope that is a legitimate question because if not, it seems to me that this type of behavior would open up a floodgate of abuse for wikipedia and put wikipedia at risk when something this harmful is happening. WIkipedia has been put on notice by me for days that something is not right with this situation and the editors seem to be going back to just editing and invoking policy on point for editing but there is a far bigger question looming on what is happening with this hijacking question. I have been in the news business - both broadcast and print for almost 30 years and I am stunned by what i am seeing and I mean stunned from an NEWS viewpoint. this is not just a minor occurence. this is a pattern. it is not a fight over a war, political propaganda, chemical waste, global warming and the like - we are talking about the abuse of wikipedia to settle personal scores and using other people to settle those scores - it affects the whole policy on living persons biographies. she edit me and another into her edit in "current activities" in cafasso entry on january 25th i believe. check the record. it is there in plain view. none of us need cramer to take care of our concerns with cafasso. matter of fact - she had no credibility for her case to go forward. we have already by victimized by cafasso but we dont want to be victimized twice by a woman who worked with him to go after idema. she keeps trying to drag us into her campaign against cafasso and we dont want to be dragged into this morass.if you dont believe me - google 'charlie black' + cafasso - you will see it for yourselves in the wikipedie posting on google. i dont understand how someone is able to do this. i have been trying to tell this woman that we dont want to be part of her campaign against cafasso as i have told others - this is not right. if this is wikipedia's policy - does that mean that i can sign up as an editor, put up anyting i so choose even if it is not acceptable to wiki and then after you folks edit it out - i have the right to post on google blog or chatroom and superimpose your logo? I am sincerely trying to understand how that is acceptable. it seems way to open for defamation, invasion of privay and the like. if you hit my name on that which she posted on google, it linked back to wikipedia because she caused somone to plagiarize my bio on january 21 - look at your records if someone doubts me - if not, i will send them to you becuase other parties found it. i didnt .others notified me and i did what any reasonable person would do - i deleted my bio immediately. many individuals know cafasso adn cramer together with others went after idema on wikipedia. cramer is now saying she is a victim. that is debatable - debatable enough the FBI did not prosecute nor did DC. she paid for some of nefarious actions against others...i would appreciate if someone at wikipedia would take a look at this google posting with wikipedia logo and get that off the internet. cramer is right. cafasso is a slug of a human being but the manner in which she is obsessing about this man because - as she wrote to my attorney - if she does not get him off the street, he will be a problem in her life for the rest of her life - doesnt justify how she is going about it and dragging me, my colleagues and now wikipedia into this madness....something is not right with this picutre. and what we are talking about are the same edits which jossi warned cramer to stop making on cafasso' bio........if these edits are good enough to constitute a warning from wikipedia, how can they and wikipedia's logo be used on google to make it look like the edits are satisfactory for posting on wikiipedia when that is 180 degrees from the truth..........signed christine dolan feb 2 0:22am.

Regarding Ms. Dolan's comments, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:EQ, WP:POINT, WP:NPA. (Never mind vandalism.) Pleasantville 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A Proposal: SF Author Bios Should Be Moved from Wikipedia to the ISFDB Wiki
I propose that science fiction author bios be moved from Wikipedia to the ISFDB Wiki.

After a brief experience with Wikipdia, its editors strike me as a pack of officious trolls whose main concern is to make sure that you don't actually know the people you are writing about. The science fiction field doesn't work that way. I know hundreds (maybe over a thousand) science fiction writers, editors, and fans. Many, many of them could be described as my "associates." Am I connected to most members of the professional science fiction community in some way? You bet.

I've helped run a Hugo-nominated SF semiprozine for a couple of decades, I edit two year's best volumes, and am married to one of the most eminent editors in the field. But this connectedness holds true of really a lot of the people doing the actual biographies: Perhaps their connections are not so visible or so obvious, but the SF field is like one big extended family. We've all slept on each other's couches. We've bought each other drinks. We marry each other's daughters. . . . It's Clan Fandom.

And of those creating biographies that don't know their subjects, what they are mostly doing is lifting the ISFDB bibliographies wholesale and transplanting the content over to Wikipedia.

So lets have a revolution. Let's take the SF and fantasy bios over to the ISFDB Wiki and pull out of Wikipedia. Can we do this?

Or have I misjudged the Wikipedia sysops? Are they really reasonable people who will let people who actually know what they are talking about write there?

SEE ALSO: Jed Hartman's mediation on the state of affairs at Wikipedia: Wikipedia and sf. He provides an excellent example of exactly what I'm talking about:

''Somewhat similarly, [Teresa Nielsen Hayden] wrote a great article at Wikipedia a while back, about Roger Elwood, that consisted mostly of personal anecdotes. It was well-written and full of personality (like some of the old Britannica articles by major authors once were), and I couldn’t bring myself to attach a note to it saying “This is, unfortunately, not the right style or approach for Wikipedia.” But, sadly, it wasn’t. And the article has subsequently been rewritten to fit Wikipedia better, though the current version (last I checked) contains a link to TNH’s version. The Talk page for that article is a perfect example of clash of Wikipedia culture with sf culture: TNH gave a long and impassioned and compelling argument in favor of her version, but unfortunately her approach was wrong according to established Wikipedia policy.''

According to the rules andstandards explained to me last night, none of the great living critics (TNH being one) ought to be allowed to write about sf writers. Also, since ISFDB now has a Wiki, it makes sense to move the Wiki entries on its writers closer to the source from which many of the SF writer bios are lifted.


 * Yes, a wiki with different rules could host much fuller biographies. I think this is an excellent idea. One small detail- we wouldn't want to "move" the bios, as the bios that are here already must be treated individually and would have to go through the deletion process before being removed. there'd be no problem with copying them to any other site that follows GFDL requirements. I doubt there'd be objections to links to ISFDB from Wikipedia articles. (BTW, Wikia.com is even offering free wiki hosting, so I hear.) Just because material isn't suitable for Wikipedia doesn't mean it shouldn't be elsewhere on the web in wiki format.  -Will Beback · † · 12:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why Pleasantville has these grievances against WP. The only concerns expressed by editors that I am aware of, are related to editing her own biography and that of her husband, as these are in violation of WP:COI and WP:AUTO. All other articles that Pleasantville has edited do not fall within these limitations, only that they need to comply with our content policies of neutral point of view, and verifiability and should not read like a resume. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Underlying all of this is that the ISFDB used to host sf author bios and outsourced it to the Wikipedians. I want it put back because you people are unbearable to deal with and the policies involving biography are really quite insane.Pleasantville 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You people refers to whom exactly, Pleasanville? I would argue that you have chosen to disregard all guidelines related to autobiographies, you keep making statements about how useless Wikipedia is, and still,  you continue unabated in editing your own article and other bios.  If you find pour policies unbearable, you can stop editing right this moment. Breaking them will earn you sooner or latter either a temporary block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should take a day or two to cool off, then come back and decide if, a) you were being attacked, b) whether we are unbearable, and, c) what would best serve your long-term interests. I fear the last point might be hard to see:  would a collection of biographies be most useful to the general public if it were maintained by the author, or by fans and other interested editors?  —EncMstr 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

They need to be written by people who know what they are talking about, not just by people who know how to Google.Pleasantville 22:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're saying the best informed biographical editors are those who personally know the person and associated professional topics, right? And those who don't know the author nor his/her colleagues are of little to no value?  —EncMstr 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me your SF bios so I can be impressed.Pleasantville 23:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The most important two qualities we're looking for in Wikipedia articles are "verfiability" and the "neutral point of view". If you can write about your associates while sticking to sources that can be verified by any editor or reader, and can maintain a strictly neutral POV both in tone and choice of material, then of course you can contribute. But it would be unverifiable if you add information known to you that hasn't been published, and it would be non-neutral if you added only positive (or negative) information about them. -Will Beback · † · 23:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AUTO
Hi, could I ask you please to stop editing your own bio? The result of the editing is that the page is not in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. If you continue to edit it, you risk being blocked, so I hope you'll take this request, and the request from other admins, seriously. You should, of course, continue to make suggestions on the talk page, as your input will be very helpful. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To Slim: Some hostile pedant put in a bunch of citation needed things on riduculous stuff as pure harassment. I have no further need to edit it unless you people troll it by pulling stuff like that.Pleasantville 23:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your note. I have to ask you again not to edit that page no matter which citation tags are added. There are some serious problems with it as it stands, and they need to be sorted out by editors who have no personal involvement. I realize it's frustrating for you to stand back and watch others edit the article in ways you may not agree with, but we have these rules in place for good reason, and your cooperation would go a long way to easing the situation. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not my frustration. My frustration is crowds of semi-anonymous people acting like jerks. Can you please enumerate the serious problems?Pleasantville 23:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First, with respect, it's not clear to me that you're notable enough for a bio, but I need to look more closely at the publications and sources before I can judge that properly. It's for this reason that we're not supposed to create our own bios, but should wait instead for others to decide whether we warrant it. Secondly, you included details that really aren't relevant to a truly notable bio: the details of your blog, for example, shouldn't be there, unless you're one of the few bloggers whose blogs are well-known and influential beyond their immediate circle. In general, it reads like a puff piece, rather than a serious encyclopedia article. Wikipedia isn't allowed to be used as a platform, or as an extension of a personal website. I apologize if any of this sounds disrespectful; it definitely isn't intended to be. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I want to stress again that I've yet to look at the sources and publications properly, so you may indeed be notable enough. I'm talking only about my first impressions. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Semi-Anonymous Crowd Here
So, I've looked at all of the bios of the folks attempting to discipline me here, and none of them seem to know much about the science fiction field or about my other subject areas. That's interesting.Pleasantville 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is true. Most editors in WP are not experts on the subjects they edit about. That is OK, as in WP we only describe what reliable sources say about a subject. Most, if not all editors, are volunteers that add and fine tune content in articles. If you want to edit as an "expert" there are other most suitable wikis such as Citizendium, in which expert editors have the special powers and privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read this
Jed Hartman's Wikipedia and sf ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have brokered a deal with the ISFDB for them to go back to hosting bios. Meanwhile, I have written a tutorial for y'all about what elements make for a useful author bio: http://www.kathryncramer.com/kathryn_cramer/2007/01/how_to_write_an.html

The official blog for the Science Fiction Book Club has supported my ISFDB proposal. Pleasantville 19:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is very useful. Hopefully, these bios will be released under the GDFL, and thus we could use them in Wikipedia. Alternatively, we could use these as sources for biographical articles in our project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits
Kathryn, you risk being blocked for disruption without further warning if you continue to edit this way. You're creating articles that don't assert the notability of the subject. You created a page about yourself. You're relying on blogs and personal websites as sources. You created an attack page on someone you claimed had defrauded you &mdash; you even included his description, presumably so that Wikipedia's readers could help you to track him down? You've made serious personal attacks against editors on and off wiki. In short, you seem be trying to turn Wikipedia into an extension of your blog, which won't be allowed. Please read the content policies and try to edit in accordance with them; see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP. You should also review WP:NOT. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not been doing any futher editing. I am discussing bibliographic issues raised on the discussion page. What editing have I been doing that you have a problem with in the past 24 hours? Pleasantville 23:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Kathryn, your transparency of what you are doing at Wikipedia is clear. You even took your version of Cafasso entry after wikipedia editor deleted parts, you moved the unredacted - your version - to Google, posted it and superimposed wikipedia's logo on that to lend credibility to something that was not acceptable to wikipedia - that is like slapping a CBS, CNN logo on a piece that never aired on CNN? Your use of wikipedia is in question. You are using Wikipedia's credentials to substantiate your claims and for personal revenge! that is abuse. what you are doing to other cafasso victims is abuse as well. wikipedia does not deserve this and i dont appreciate being dragged into your revenge with cafasso under the umbrella of wikipedia! you have also publicly misled and buried your complictiy with cafasso - so on balance, your overall postings are misleading. on accuracy, it is negligence; on rudimentary standards of substance, an editor would not publish outside of wikipedia, and when cross-reference all these notes on all of these entries, you have inconsistencies. on one entry you claim cafasso is a lone ranger against idema yet you write on GoDaddy, you filed complaints on idema with GoDaddy and 4 police agencies and then do this edit on GoDaddy about idema and harassment; you list victims and then you neglect to mention your complicity as in charges on your credit card for cafasso to commit interstate stalking against Lynn Thomas at casoblog. there is alot editorially that should be questioned. this analysis of what you are putting wikipedia through is as close to a full blown mainstream news story on the abuse and misuse by some of wikipedia to settle sources - this breaches ethics journalistically; this is very transparent. christine dolan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.57.153 (talk • contribs) February 1, 2007 9:12am

Regarding transparency, I don't believe in secretive pseudonymity. Contrary to Wikipedia practice, it was my intention to be transparent.

(See also Ms. Dolan's vandalism. )Pleasantville 16:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: From Kathryn Cramer
I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ed Pegg, Jr.
I restored the Ed Pegg, Jr. article and nominated it for deletion at Articles for deletion/Ed Pegg, Jr. to see what community's opinion would be. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oleg tells me the Pegg entry was unanimously approved. Pleasantville 17:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:289881381 9f71649b44 t.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:289881381 9f71649b44 t.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:63413017 c312346e5d s.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:63413017 c312346e5d s.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:318218540 71524f7a25.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:318218540 71524f7a25.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I had uploaded them in connection to my own Wikipedia entry. They are orphaned because others cut the images from the entry. They can be either restored to the entry or deleted. Pleasantville 18:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They cannot be added to your article, as that would be in violation with our fair use policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand that, but it isn't important. Pleasantville 22:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cover art of boos, CDs, DVDs, etc. can only be used on articles that discuss these items substantially, such as articles about these CDs, DVDs. books, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's non my understanding or copyright in this matter, but as I said, it isn't important. Pleasantville 23:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)