Doug Weller (talk | contribs) →January 2011: what has your research turned up on the book from Holroyd or Kurth? |
Time Will Say Nothing (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
:I wish you would understand that when I disagree with editors I might possibly have a point. [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing#top|talk]]) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC) |
:I wish you would understand that when I disagree with editors I might possibly have a point. [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing#top|talk]]) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
::And we've heard your point, but shown that it is incorrect. Will you accept that you need to listen to experienced users who are trying to guide you? — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC) |
::And we've heard your point, but shown that it is incorrect. Will you accept that you need to listen to experienced users who are trying to guide you? — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:What do you mean by "your point"? Many points have been raised. Which point are you referring to? I have accepted some points, a fact which you ignore, and challenged others. The default response to a challenge is that another editor then piles in with the same point, as if there had been no discussion of it. That is nothing short of philistine. How is it possible to edit anything calmly, thoughtfully and creatively with at least half a dozen editors and administrators commenting without co-ordination, piling in on top of each other, repeating themselves, making instant edits, tags etc etc etc. This is pure bullying and oppressions and it seems that it is never-ending because you have all got yourselves into a spiral of third-grade bullying that you have no idea how to get yourselves out of. You have no concept whatsoever of the effect you create, which is purely destructive, negative and distressing. If you think you are being helpful by behaving in this way, you must be idiots. And I am now having to take tranquilisers thanks to the bunch of you. Get out of my life, you pathetic bunch of bullies. [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing#top|talk]]) 19:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=== Copyright, part 2 === |
=== Copyright, part 2 === |
Revision as of 19:53, 5 January 2011
From Amoammo
This is your talkpage - found it!
I got all your emails. I think that that blog you linked to was where i read it.
re: "I guess you're the one to do this?" i would have been happy to do it, but there shouldn't have been anything to stop you doing it (or any other good faith edits you want to make). Good luck with editing the articles you're interested in. I'm guessing you'll want to start an article Three Women (play)! Amo (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Scottish literature and a new outwardness
I don't regard Kennaway's living in England as notable for a Scottish writer. Off the top of my head the same could be said of Fred Urquhart, Aeneas MacDonald or A J Cronin and many other mid-C20 writers. The paragraph where you are inserting Kennaway is about something rather different - writers whose practice was intervention in other cultural areas (France in the cases of Trocchi and White) and known through that rather than activity in their native land. A distinction that is clear , I think, in MacDiarmid's denunciation of Trocchi as "cosmopolitan scum" at the 1962 Edinburgh Writers Festival. I will be reverting the Kennaway insertion again, on grounds of non-notability to the subject at hand; if you want to discuss that further we can take it to the Talk page. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- As I suggested above, differences of opinion are best covered on the Talk:Scottish literature page. I'll put a brief summary and references to the views expressed on our respective Talk pages onto that page. It's not a heavily used page, but that will give others the opportunity to put their views as and when they read it. AllyD (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
James Kennaway and place of death?
BTW there seems to be as contradiction in the article: place of death in the article given as M4 but Infobox as Scotland? The article is unreferenced (maybe something to address before a notice gets put on it) and I have no referenced information to fix on either myself, so I thought I'd mention to you, given your obvious interest. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to see the tone of your response on my Talk page to what I regarded as a friendly query with regard to improving the Kennaway article. AllyD (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Rereading the rest of your Talk page, perhaps you may have misunderstood something - I was not suggesting that the Kennaway article could have a Deletion notice put on it. Far from it, he rightly has a page. What I was meaning is that it could have an Unreferenced notice put on it: the general principle is that anything should be backed up by references to published sources and it is good to add these when editing with info to hand. That was all. AllyD (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
January 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Up to Now (autobiography). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You must stop removing those tags. The 'under construction' tag is not justification for removing them. The tags are there to get other editors to help, why are you trying to stop them? Articles with those tags are easy to find by editors who like to add references. Please put them back. If you carry on like this you are going to get blocked. People are trying to help but you must understand the article should follow our guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not engaged in an edit war with anyone. Please assume good faith. I am building the page slowly. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built You are not giving enough time to make the adjustments you seek, nor is your editing in any way positive or constructive. You are actively disrupting the construction of this page. You removed a source I had put there and then you complained there were no sources. You then inserted a reference to a wholly irrelevant text, then removed it and tagged the page for no references. This could easily be construed as vandalism. If anyone is engaged in an edit war, it's you. Wait until it's finished, or at least, in a better state of readiness before tagging. I'd suggest the three-revert rule doesn't only apply to me. I don't need help at this stage, except possibly to be liberated from oppressive editing and inappropriate, stress-inducing bullying. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- "oppressive editing and inappropriate, stress-inducing bullying" -- I'm thinking you didn't get around to reading WP:No personal attacks yet? Now would be a very good time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Alleging an edit war and disruptive editing are also personal attacks, especially when the al;legations are wholly false. It seems the rules are applied selectively and unfairly. There is a deliberate intention to cause distress implicit in any such conduct. That is inappropriate by any normal standards. If the actions of any person are inappropriate, I am entitled to say so, indeed I should do so, otherwise they are allowed to go by default. You should give appropriate attention to inappropriate conduct by anyone who engages in it. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Sigh, too late. Here's what I was trying to add while you kept revising your post:
- If you want people to assume good faith you need to offer it. I've spent too much time looking for resources to help the page to take your comments kindly. How about assuming that experienced editors know what they are doing? We like to help new editors but we need cooperation from them. Tagging can help the article, removing the tags doesn't. Insulting people doesn't help anything. You didn't have a source, you just added the name and publisher and date of the book again, as I've said, the sources need to be about the book, not proving its existence. And I have NOT tagged the article at any point for anything, let alone 'no references' but I have tagged a statement within the article.
- I see you've added some sources, but they haven't been used. If they aren't used as references, call them 'Further reading', if they really used as sources in the article then they get inline citations (and aren't in 'further reading'. Will you please post to the article talk page telling us what the new sources are sources for, at least? That would show good faith and a willingness to work with other users. You have to work with other editors, you can't do this on your own.
- Now that you've been blocked, if you post here about your new sources I can copy it over to the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You ask me to assume good faith. Well, I added a source. You removed it (check the revision history) and then complained that there were no sources! How was that helpful? I am not a new editor. I have added further sources but have not had time to do anything else with them. If you want me to assume good faith, you should also show it. I intend to edit this page gradually over a period of time. If that process is persistently undermined by pre-emptive editing, you make it impossible. I think it is you who were engaged in the edit war. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Time Will Say Nothing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was not engaged in an edit war. The editor concerned was so engaged. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You clearly were engaged in an edit war, and complaining about the behavior of everybody else is not going to get you unblocked. Please have a look at WP:NOTTHEM. Favonian (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I am complaining about the behaviour of one person, not everybody else. If they have a right to complain about me. I have the right to complain about them. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- It takes two to edit-war, TWSN, as reversion is one of the key aspects of one. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 17:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not the one removing the tags or replacing them, remember? But I did remove the 'in use' tag just now, please don't add that again - in this particular context it looks as though you may be trying to stop others from editing. I've just spent more time trying to look at the books you've added. No luck though. Oh, you've complained about other editors on their talk pages, have you forgotten? And the source I removed was the book, I've tried to explain why but I see I've failed. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly the page is not currently in use as I'm blocked from editing it. Given that I was ADVISED to use the In use tag by an editor earlier today, your instruction not use it appears to be mischievous and unhelpful. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Checking the user page, I note the comments about the Holroyd book. As it is clear that none of those commenting has a copy of the book, the comments are surprising. I had assumed that one would only comment from a position of knowledge rather than a position of ignorance. A quick check in the index to the Holroyd discloses that Martin Shaw is referenced on the following pages: 311-312, 313-14, 333-35, 347-48, 349-50, 353, 367, 370, 371-73, 377-79, 387. 390, 456, 464. I am not going to make any further comments until I am unblocked. I am so distressed and scandalised by the conduct of editors today and yesterday that I am not sure when I will next make any comments or edits to this or any other page. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Kurth book references Martin Shaw on these pages: 133, 137, 159-60, 177, 178, 192-93, 194, 203, 204, 207, 210 229, 230, 306. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this is obvious and I also noted that. They are excellent sources for his article, but my question is their relevance to the article on his autobiography. Again you are insulting and in fact patronising editors. I pointed out on the talk page that those two books could be searched on Amazon.com - I'd done the search, looked at the indexes, etc. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Kurth book references Martin Shaw on these pages: 133, 137, 159-60, 177, 178, 192-93, 194, 203, 204, 207, 210 229, 230, 306. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- If it was obvious, why did you suggest otherwise on the talk page? If you'd done the research, why did you allow an editor to state unchallenged there was a single mention in the Holroyd book? And are you now seriously suggesting that you did this detailed research before I did? Are you seriously proposing that you can say anything, right or wrong, competent or incompetent, and I can't prove you to be wrong because that would be patronising? Hilarious. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are we still talking about the book's talk page? Because if we are, I don't know what you are talking about. I said I could find a mention of the autobiography i the Holroyd book, but that was just a comment that Shaw had written something tactful about Isadora. I couldn't find anything else about the book. And you are putting words in my mouth. I will be pleased if your research has shown up more about the book, what have you found? Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I note that Wikipedia was described to me earlier today as a private company. The .org suffix suggests that is not the case. Otherwise it would be wikipedia.com. Please clarify this point? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, Wikia is a private company. Wikipedia is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit foundation. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, you've completely misunderstood how top level domains work. You should read the article on .org. By the way, I removed your comment on my talk page, as you indicated to TParis00ap that you weren't "getting into a discussion with yet another editor". If you don't want people to talk to you, I suggest that you not start conversations with them. Feezo (Talk) 17:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, Wikimedia is a non-profit company. it says so on the Wikimedia home page. Check it. You should act in a way that is appropriate for a non-profit not in a wholly inappropriate commercial way. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I notice you (Feezo) have taken advantage of my being blocked to add a misleading note to the Martin Shaw talk page that I can't respond to. I did not contribute "much of the material" to that page. Check the revision history in detail and you will see that the majority of my edits are minor edits, e.g. spelling, tyops etc. There have been a substantial number of editors apart from me who have added a lot more information than I have. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- "As soon as we abandon our own reason, and are content to rely upon authority, there is no end to our troubles." —Bertrand Russell: Unpopular Essays (1950), Chapter 7: An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish, p. 108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Will Say Nothing (talk • contribs)
- See these edits, for example. You contributed approximately a third of the article's text, and while I understand your desire to protect your family's interests, this does constitute a conflict of interest of which other editors should be aware. Feezo (Talk) 18:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
That is totally and completely false. You have not read the edit to which you linked. I included a single para about his work with Craig, (mostly taken from Up To Now, the Holroyd book and the Kurth book) followed by one sentence about touring Europe with Isadora Duncan. Most of the text in my edit is a re-ordering of text that was already put there by other editors. I also added some sources. That is nothing like a third of the text in the article. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Do not refactor other editors' messages!
With this edit you modified my reply to your unblock request. That is strictly prohibited. Favonian (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't intend to add "effectively" in that place but in a different place entirely. I am becoming disoriented by the level of aggressive malicious attention being paid to me and to my posts. This is wholly is unacceptable from representatives of a non-profit, which I've just clarified that Wikipedia is.Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Representatives from a non-profit? Yeah, you don't understand Wikipedia at all. We're all just ordinary folks who are contributing edits to the encyclopedia, just like you. We're not employed by the Wikimedia Foundation, nor do we represent them. There are thousands of volunteer editors on this site, just like you are one. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I wish that you would accept that editors who disagree with you or try to give you advice are not being malicious. We are spending precious time hoping that we can help you understand how Wikipedia works and help you to become a better editor. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I wish you would understand that when I disagree with editors I might possibly have a point. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- And we've heard your point, but shown that it is incorrect. Will you accept that you need to listen to experienced users who are trying to guide you? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "your point"? Many points have been raised. Which point are you referring to? I have accepted some points, a fact which you ignore, and challenged others. The default response to a challenge is that another editor then piles in with the same point, as if there had been no discussion of it. That is nothing short of philistine. How is it possible to edit anything calmly, thoughtfully and creatively with at least half a dozen editors and administrators commenting without co-ordination, piling in on top of each other, repeating themselves, making instant edits, tags etc etc etc. This is pure bullying and oppressions and it seems that it is never-ending because you have all got yourselves into a spiral of third-grade bullying that you have no idea how to get yourselves out of. You have no concept whatsoever of the effect you create, which is purely destructive, negative and distressing. If you think you are being helpful by behaving in this way, you must be idiots. And I am now having to take tranquilisers thanks to the bunch of you. Get out of my life, you pathetic bunch of bullies. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyright, part 2
Time, you earlier stated that you were not violating copyright because you have the rights to the material in question. You later state you were not the author of the material in question. If that is the case, how then do you have control of the copyright? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think he feels that because his grandfather wrote it that the copyright is inherited by him. I wonder if his parents and he are only children then or do others have the same claim. I dont think TWSN understands that by contributing to the Encyclopedia, he automatically releases the information under Wikipedia's free content license, thus releasing any claim to a copyright if he rightly holds one.--v/r - TP 18:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. i do not propose to involve Wikipedia in the private business of my family. On what basis do you assume that my parents are alive or not alive? On what basis is any comment on that appropriate, or anything other than deeply personally distressing to me? On what possible basis should I be required to share that information with an unknown editor, especially when they have acted i9n a way that makes them impossible to trust? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The question here is your claim that you own the copyright, but you did not create the work. You mentioned (somewhere) that your grandfather wrote the work. So we're questioning the legitimacy of the claim. Further, if the claim is indeed legitimate, we're next questioning whether or not you understand that by posting the content on Wikipedia, you "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." Which mean, if indeed you own the copyright, then you are releasing it by posting the exerpts on Wikipedia. So we're trying to understand if 1) You solely own the copyrighted material, and 2) You understand what you are consenting to by contributing here.--v/r - TP 19:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. i do not propose to involve Wikipedia in the private business of my family. On what basis do you assume that my parents are alive or not alive? On what basis is any comment on that appropriate, or anything other than deeply personally distressing to me? On what possible basis should I be required to share that information with an unknown editor, especially when they have acted i9n a way that makes them impossible to trust? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- In fact that is not the question here at all. I've now said countless times that I don't intend to post the content to Wiki (several times in the talk above). So I'm not going to post it to the Wiki at all. Why you do ignore that? It is OK to post links to copyright material with or without the copyrights owner's permission. We've been over this. Stop Wikipedia:beating a dead horse. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously you don't understand Wikipedia. Are you aware that removing content only archives the old content? Old/removed content is still available simply by using the revision history. Further, Wikipedia has many many mirrors, and anyone of them could've already picked up your contributions and copied them to their own website. We're trying to understand what is going on here so it can be addressed properly. If you would do us all the favor of cooperating, we might be able to get to the bottem of the problem.--v/r - TP 19:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Simply put, we take copyright issues very seriously here. Your conflicting statements, combined with reluctance to explain yourself, is concerning. You have a serious conflict of interest in this subject. If you wish us to stop pursuing the topic, I suggest it may be best for you to also stop editing those topics for now, and merely discuss your proposed changes to the articles' Talk pages. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- And, again, you misunderstand what we mean by "links." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)